Gun IMHO is better than this game. Juarez is good in its own way but it is very frustrating. Trying to use the whip to "jump" across spaces is extremely annoying. It seems random luck to me whether you make the jump or miss and fall to your death. The stories of both games are pretty interesting. Juarez has better graphics but the controls are quite annoying. Gun does not have multiplayer though :-( By now they are probably both less than 20 bucks so just splurge and get em both :-)
Gun is a better game. I haven't played this yet, but Gun is better. I just can feel it.. jk. It probably is though. But Gun was short, and that open world wasn't that big as they said it was. But it was still alright. --- PSN / Live Tag - JoshTru84 Currently playing - CoD4, Warhawk, SMG, Zelda PH, Halo 3, Tekken DR, Mass Effect, some others.
I had Gun on playstation 2 a while back and really enjoyed it, I have Xbox360 now so don't have many ps2 games anymore, now and again I get a longing to play a good western. My question is should I go out and buy CoJ or should I pick up a copy of Gun again? Which would satisfy my needs more? --- Only when you lose everything, can you do anything.
Gun is like five hours long and has a horrible story, gameplay, graphics, and controls. It was an ok purchase for $20 (on the PC) and a brief distraction, but I'd take Call of Juarez over it any day. --- I'm in the Battlefield: Bad Company beta, and you're not.
Both games are good, but Gun is better. Better story, better controls, funner and more varied gameplay, and a better Western-y fell. The only bad things about Gun are the barely better than Xbox graphics and, compared to CoJ, no multiplayer.
--- All life is precious, but at what cost? - Michael Savage