Metareview - Mercenaries 2: World in Flames
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Sep 1st 2008 at 7:30PM }
Well, it seems not everybody is blown away by Mercenaries 2 and its highly
- 1UP (B+): "While Mercs doesn't do anything particularly new or interesting, the formula is inherently fun (as long as you enjoy blowing things up like I do). I can keep complaining about the quirks -- ridiculously repetitive voice samples from NPCs, a climax that consists of a trial-and-error button-pushing session -- but the wealth of smaller problems are insubstantial in light of the effective fundamentals."
- IGN (79/100): "For every time I cursed the stupid AI, I cheered at the demolition of another building. For every bug that got me stuck in some bushes, there was an attack chopper waiting to be jacked. If Mercenaries 2 had more polish, it would have been a great game. As is, it's still worth playing – and enjoyable – but falls far short of its promise."
- WorthPlaying (76/100): "Cars will flip for no reason, your character's legs will get stuck in the environment, things will explode for no reason, etc. It's impossible to play without encountering bugs on a regular basis."
- Eurogamer (50/100): "We'd now go a little further than that: apart from some cool explosive effects and solid controls, Mercenaries 2 is utterly mediocre in almost every sense that matters. From the initial sorties onwards it's bogged down by the worst kind of brain-dead cannon fodder enemies, lead-you-by-the-hand level design, arbitrary boundaries, and some technical howlers."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Obie @ Sep 1st 2008 7:32PM
Looks like a solid rental, as long as I get play with a buddy. :)
Obie @ Sep 1st 2008 7:45PM
I gotta admit, that ad is freakin' awesome!
BIGFAT @ Sep 1st 2008 9:07PM
Better then GOW Mad World?
I think they are a tie as far as best gaming ad ever goes.
riggs @ Sep 1st 2008 9:39PM
battlefield:BC's Mad world was better imo.
anonim1979 @ Sep 1st 2008 9:55PM
Dear God - is locked 30fps without screen tearing not attainable on PS3 multiplatform games?
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/anonim1979/Merc2-1.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/anonim1979/Merc2-2.jpg
(from Gametrailers)
Vidikron (FU) @ Sep 1st 2008 10:40PM
@anonim1979
I'm playing the 360 version right now and it's full of graphical issues.
atrimus @ Sep 1st 2008 10:41PM
i dunno. in the same gametrailer comparison vid, the 360 had noticeable hitches (it actually paused for a good half-a-second a few times during the boat sequence at the beginning), and it had worse textures (especially at the very end).
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39322.html?r=1&type=wmv
still, this is all for a game the reviewers seem to be panning, so who cares...
anonim1979 @ Sep 1st 2008 11:01PM
Yeah - true with that 2 stops on X360 on cashing/loading new area - probably dirty DVD or not so good code.
So I choose PS2 version ;)
joeybeast @ Sep 2nd 2008 10:46AM
Dude, you can duke your best friend, need I say more?
Wiinterfang @ Sep 1st 2008 7:38PM
7.9?!!!! >:(
Oh no, Oh no, OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Oh no you didn't
Sucker tried to play me
But you never paid me, Neva
Oh no you didn't
Payback is a' coming
You will be runnin', foreva
Oh no you didn't
Until i get me vengeance
I will never end this mayhem
Oh no you didn't
I'm a mercenary
You ain't got a prayer, you owe MEEEEEE
Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Sep 1st 2008 7:41PM
Did none of you guys hear the full version?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCvIw7DMHXc
Wiinterfang @ Sep 1st 2008 8:00PM
wow I didn't knew that song could get better.
WiiFTW @ Sep 1st 2008 7:41PM
Looks like a, "Hey, I'm bored, I think I'll blow shit up." kind of game.
Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Sep 1st 2008 7:43PM
I'd like to remind this is the formula that made Crackdown great.
Mr.ESC @ Sep 1st 2008 8:23PM
Same is true for Battlefield Bad company.
Moptimus Slime @ Sep 1st 2008 8:43PM
GTA 4 says 'hello'
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Sep 2nd 2008 1:08AM
I'm not sure that Crackdown shipped with a bunch of errors that caused you to get stuck on screen geometry.
The first game had a decent idea, and then screwed it all to hell by releasing it in a state that was buggy as hell.
Now they've had year to develop this one, aaaaaand they apparently didn't give a shit. So I'm writing off Pandemic.
dwhite @ Sep 2nd 2008 9:25AM
I've been playing it for about two days (8 hours) with minimal bugs so far and no freezing or crashes. I don't really see how this is any different from GTAIV with this sort of game play and the same issues. The game is fun. Give it a try or don't, but spare the mockery of the development unless you actually play it. You people kill me with the harsh critque like this is wine tasting and not just gaming. What do I mean by you people? You know gamers, a bunchy of bitchy little girls.
Duke @ Sep 2nd 2008 12:00PM
Yeah does look like a funny game for a boring Sunday. Rental for sure.
Hyams @ Sep 1st 2008 7:44PM
Well, it's go an average of 8/10 going by metacritic. That's a perfectly respectable score, and no less than what I was expecting.
http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sort=relevance&termType=all&ts=mercenaries+2&ty=0&x=0&y=0
Bass Masterson @ Sep 1st 2008 7:46PM
Doesn't surprise me - Mercenaries 1 sucked also. Lots of build up for a completely disorganized 'sandbox' game where what you did most certainly did NOT affect the world.
TFoK (Naked Peach Defense Force) @ Sep 1st 2008 7:54PM
It's a shame that a 78 translates to 'suckage' nowadays... Last I checked, that's slightly above average, but whatever. I'm glad I don't limit myself to playing only games that get 90+ - makes for a much better holiday season, I'll tell ya what.
Slayer @ Sep 1st 2008 8:27PM
@Bass Masterson
So your saying games have to be a 9 or higher to worth your time? There are plenty of good games that have scored as low as a 7.
DangerMouse @ Sep 1st 2008 8:32PM
At 60 dollars a game, a 78 is complete and utter suckage. Sorry, but i don't like to waste my time or my money on just mediocre or not bad. There's other games that are probably way better and received better scores that deserve my money and time that i haven't even touched yet.
Haggard @ Sep 1st 2008 8:33PM
You can tell there are things wrong with a game when some reviews are 5/10 though, even if it averages out at 7/10.
I'd prefer to buy a game where everyone who reviewed it gave it 7, rather than a game where a couple of them thought it was really, really bad.
Haggard @ Sep 1st 2008 8:34PM
*sorry, the 7's should be 8's. I was posting a similar thing about Stalker Clear Sky on a forum earlier and got muddled.
Ken Shammy @ Sep 1st 2008 8:47PM
I've gotta agree with DangerMouse. I'm not discounting the ~fun potential~ of less than 9/10 games, but they better not be charging full price for that -- especially taking into account that reviews are generally inflated anyway.
philmcphail @ Sep 1st 2008 9:30PM
@ TFoK
I mean really, you'd buy something that is meh or suckish for 60 bucks? Really?
@ Slayer
Really!? There are PLENTY of games that are good games that score at 7/AVERAGE?
Look, the purpose of meta reviews are to ensure what is good to buy or not. Throwing money away for 60 dollar pieces of shit is beyond me. I assumed reviews like this would ASSIST consumers to save money this fall.
Slayer @ Sep 1st 2008 9:59PM
@philmcphail
Yes, believe it or not, there are games that scored as low as a seven that are actually good. You have to remember that just because a game scores 10 does not necessarily mean that I or you would like it. Take Halo 3 for example, while it may have scored high across the boards, I really couldn't get into the game. I didn't like it as much as the reviewers suggested.
As far as games that score as low as a seven goes it depends on the genre of the game in my case. You have to look at the review as to why it got a 7 and not just the number. If it's something like a few technical issues or control issues I may be willing to over look that depending on what it says in the review. Don't just look at the review score, but find out the reason for that score.
READ! >:(
TFoK (Naked Peach Defense Force) @ Sep 1st 2008 10:01PM
"At 60 dollars a game, a 78 is complete and utter suckage. Sorry, but i don't like to waste my time or my money on just mediocre or not bad."
'Above average' =/= not bad, at least to me anyway. 78 is in no way 'mediocre', and I've enjoyed plenty of games with 'meh' ratings. Hmm, guess I shouldn't have bought God Hand or No More Heroes...
"You can tell there are things wrong with a game when some reviews are 5/10 though, even if it averages out at 7/10. I'd prefer to buy a game where everyone who reviewed it gave it 7, rather than a game where a couple of them thought it was really, really bad."
It was one review, not a couple. That same reviewer was griping about problems that seemed pretty trivial for every last other reviewer.
"@ TFoK
I mean really, you'd buy something that is meh or suckish for 60 bucks? Really?"
Where did it say that this game was suckish? That's one review, and when I took the time to actually read the reviews (something a couple of Joystiqers really should do), it sounded like a game that would appeal to me, a game where the good parts outweigh the bad parts (justifying the above average score). After seeing media on this, reading and watching reviews... yeah, I'd plop $60 on this game. In fact, I plan to when I get the chance.
"@ Slayer
Really!? There are PLENTY of games that are good games that score at 7/AVERAGE?"
Uh, yeah, there are. That includes underrated games, games that appeal to a niche audience, etc. I suggest you look around and try some of 'em, you might be surprised.
"Look, the purpose of meta reviews are to ensure what is good to buy or not. Throwing money away for 60 dollar pieces of shit is beyond me. I assumed reviews like this would ASSIST consumers to save money this fall."
So, where did it say this was shit again?
philmcphail @ Sep 2nd 2008 5:13PM
I guess...I'm just a little caught up with this gen's quality of games, stuff that are really rated high up (GTA IV, Bioshock, Gears, MGS4, The Orange Box, etc.) @ TFok, if you didn't pull out God Hand (I loved that game) into this conversation, I would gone on a rant against you LOL.
NukeAssault @ Sep 1st 2008 7:56PM
8/10 is good enough for me. I wasn't expecting it to be too high. Ill get it eventually.
giantenemycrab @ Sep 1st 2008 7:57PM
I'm playing it right now. Eurogamer is out of their mind.
Ringo @ Sep 1st 2008 8:04PM
Another dodgy Eurogamer review then...
Dralzz @ Sep 1st 2008 8:09PM
The game is good, but the bugs can get really bad. I haven't tested this multiple times, but has anyone tried jumping onto a helicopter with its rotors spinning?
I know they don't expect it to happen often, but that doesn't mean you should be able to STAND ON THE SPINNING ROTORS LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED.
fred @ Sep 1st 2008 11:52PM
IT'S NOT A BUG IT'S A FEATURE
COPTER SURFING
xGeneral DEATHx @ Sep 2nd 2008 8:51AM
Copter Surfing?? SWEET! I'm trying that when I get home today.
Saeth @ Sep 1st 2008 8:10PM
Is it just me or does anyone else notice Eurogamer giving quite a bit of games bad scores?
theturtle363 @ Sep 1st 2008 8:18PM
it's probably cause their continent sucks. HI YO!
Obie @ Sep 1st 2008 8:25PM
Makes sense, since they don't get any traffic, but giving decent games lower than average scores should do the trick!
Mr.ESC @ Sep 1st 2008 8:26PM
"it's probably cause their continent sucks. HI YO!"
Awww too bad you didn't said Country instead of Continent,that would've been funny.(A guy said that once in a forum I lol'd)
Oh yeah and the wrath of the Europeans will decend upon you and their witty answers will block out the sun.
Haggard @ Sep 1st 2008 8:35PM
@Mr ESC
We're all bed, call again tomorrow.
Obie @ Sep 1st 2008 9:11PM
"Oh yeah and the wrath of the Europeans will decend upon you and their witty answers will block out the sun."
So we will post in the shade! Bwahahaha!
ComradeTrotskii @ Sep 1st 2008 9:44PM
I'm not going to go and do any extensive research on this because I don't care enough but you can only really compare review scores from the same source. If Eurogamer is scoring everything lower then there isn't really a problem.
Some examples: MGS4, IGN 10, Eurogamer 8
Soul Calibur IV, IGN 10, Eurogamer 8
Civ Rev, IGN 8.8, Eurogamer 8
Mercenaries 2, IGN 7.9, Eurogamer 5
Too Human, IGN 7.8, Eurogamer 6
I know that's a small sample but it would seem that (recently anyway) they simply score everything lower leaving more space at the top end of the review scale.
Haggard @ Sep 1st 2008 9:59PM
I'm not sure whether that I feel Eurogamer score too low or whether everyone else scores too high.
I mean, I had some fun with MGS4. I wouldn't call it a 10 though. Same for Halo 3. Same for GTA4. Journalists just seem to be constantly pushing up what average is. Soon a good game will be 11/10, then 12/10, and so on.
Desi_D @ Sep 1st 2008 10:42PM
Eurogamer set themselves up by giving Halo 3 100/100. I hope they were paid handsomely because since then most people just don't trust them when they give lower scores to games that are equal or even better in some cases.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=83948
dwhite @ Sep 2nd 2008 9:56AM
Seriously, if you are relying on Eurogamer to "assist" you with your gaming purchases, you should score yourself low. Hmmm, that pretty much goes for any reviewers for that matter. Has the decision making process been diminished that far where "casual" gamers buy on hype ( looking at you Wii) and the "core" gamers are slaves to reviews. (looking at you PS/360) What are these reviewers so qualified that they can sway the masses? Must be those degrees in gaming studies at ITT that I see on tv. Sure we love reviews to be good and all, but be honest there are always examples where you play something and go, "Wow those reviews were full of shit." That applies to games scored high and low. Of course I could be wrong. I am trying to quit smoking and I hate everyone right now...
theturtle363 @ Sep 1st 2008 8:11PM
this makes me glad ive given up on reviews in general. They seem to caught up with games being technically sound and all that shit. Admittedly those are important, you cant play a game bugged to death, but that hardly applies to mercenaries. It's just shitloads of awesome fun, and the best game ive bought all year
Vcize @ Sep 2nd 2008 10:48AM
Thank science someone else finally said it. This goes with that big argument up top about "wasting time" with games that have low scores.
Reviews nowadays seem to feel like they have to dock points for technical issues and things like that. Rarely anymore do they actually focus on whether or not the game is fun. Yeah, so I was running around and my guy's leg disappeared for a few seconds. Big freaking deal, I hardly noticed while I was knocking over a building to fall on my teammate and then dropping a nuke on him.
Give me a fun game to play that has some bugs over an extremely well polished game that is boring.
Sure, bugs are annoying and we'd all like to see them gone. But unless they're world breaking they should be the difference between a 9.5 and a 9, not a 9.5 and a 7.
mr bean @ Sep 1st 2008 8:27PM
About 10 hrs. into it...A little buggy and jittery and quite complex weapons choices [some don't even show up] but this game is absolutely JAM PACKED with stuff to do! Free roaming and similar to GTA in places, graphics quite nice-for sheer looney tune FUN, super FIREFIGHTS, and GREAT explosions, I'd give it between 8 and 9. Lotsa fun!