Ecks vs. Sever

"My opinion?: And Now For Something Completely -er, Not The Same."

We have here a game that I have heard dubbed along the way by some people as the Goldeneye of the GBA. For such a long time I had heard only praise for this game. Yet from the preview videos I saw, I refused to believe that it could be as good as they all said it was. I bought this game because my curiosity eventually got the better of me. What I discovered when I actually played Ecks vs Sever was that it really is nothing short of a chore.

Story- 4/10
Is this a game or a John Grisham crime novel? If I wanted to read a book, I would read one. If I wanted a shooter, I would go play one, and leave this alone. In this game I felt there was simply too much text to even care about what is going on, and the two main characters didn't elicit much care or concern from me in the least. For a game as heavily driven by story as this, it's important to at least marginally care about the characters to stick with it. Alas, this sad pair gives little reason to elicit sympathy or interest, as they both seem to be pretty standard issue characters. A character with a tragedy that has driven him over the edge. A shady character trained in deadly arts. Whee. Now they chase each other in a web of conspiracy. Wonderful. Change the channel. I've seen it before, when it was called things like Lethal Weapon or Batman. Marks for effort. Penalty for heavily overdoing it.

Graphics - overall-3/10
Aesthetics- 1/10
Framerate- 8/10
Aside from my much-hated-storyline issues, I didn't much care for the dull environments, and the numerous faceless enemies. I like to think I appreciate game aesthetics and take notice of those that really affect the mood of the game. This game, however, left much to be desired. The primary palette is light blue, black, white, grey, and tan, with some baths of red which are supposed to be bricks. The rather uninspired use of what meager color there is extends over into level design, as places supposed to be old, decrepit, rusty certainly don't look the part. No extra little things worth looking at and oohing or aahing over. Not even any mood lighting to try and cover up the thin insubstantial design. Are those really buildings or cardboard cutouts? To sum up environments in one word: empty. And not in a good way. Speaking of cardboard cutouts, character design is as bland as you can get from real life. Simply shooting faceless suits and uniforms gets old quite quickly. The reason it works in games like Wolfenstein is because for games like that, there is much reason to hate the uniforms to begin with and thus reason and enjoyment in taking them out. Here, they are annoying pests at best, and with failure of such establishment, become simply part of the bland scenery after a while. The only redeeming quality is the frame rate, which is quite smooth and playable. But, playable blandness is still blandness.

Audio- 3/10
This is one aspect of the game that I can't get around giving a low rating, despite any effort to find any redeeming qualities. You might say that the other sections are a bit harsh, but even those who say that must concur on this section. I found the intro music disgusting, and compared it right from the first time I heard it to a recorded and remixed wet fart. I kid you not. There is no music during actual game play, but that isn't so bad, just gives nothing to give a score to. Further, instead of ''adding to tension'', the silence just makes the bland surroundings stand out even more (something about how, when deprived of one sensory modality, the others become sharper? hmmm). Weapon sound effects are a series of pffts and bangs, nothing memorable. Reloading was a nice touch though, as I actually liked the *clk-chkk* of the reload (hence the 3 instead of a 0) but what irritated me most was the god-awful ''doors'' noise. Another little gripe, shooting enemies produces no sounds, no reactions, nothing, but more on that later...

Gameplay- 5/10
While the above describes some of my issues with this game, we all know mere aesthetics and storyline don't make up the entire game. That aside, how was the gameplay? Control? Only one control scheme, so if you don't like it, too bad. Handles like a standard early FPS with movement in one plane only, and the added feature of crouching to reach hidden areas. Wow. Nothing too exceptional there, except I thought even that was shoddily done as crouching requires pressing both shoulder buttons at the same time, resulting more than half the time in accidental sidestepping and getting shot while trying to sneak out from behind objects. Levels are mission based, and while they do pose some unique and interesting concepts, can get old very fast, as I will address in the replay section. There is only one difficulty setting, and I must say it was a bit tough. A little too hard for some, perhaps. I know I was frustrated immensely by being killed by the same guy(s) in the same place half a dozen times. Saving is non-existant, which means if you die, you restart the level and good luck again. And again. And again, most likely. The game relies on passwords that are real words, such as Exasperation (not a real password, but what I certainly felt playing this game). Each level sees you starting fresh, with full health and losing any items, armor, or weapons collected in the previous level. Weapons are designed and based on real ones, and I thought the most memorable one was the sniper scope. But then again, Dark Arena has one too, and DA also has a nose-cam-view guided missile, even more interesting. So even based on weapons, other lesser FPS's out there have similar and even better ones and more options available (considering how DA was kinda dumb by itself. Dumb, but more lovable than this tripe).

Replay- 0/10
Level design is mission based and different levels have you doing different things, but this game feels much too linear to leave much to the imagination. As good as some of the levels may seem, they're ruined because the game is presented in a this-is-as-good-as-it-gets-and-that's-all-there-is-to-it format. That being said, I found zero replay value in it. I beat the mission. Been there, done that. If you've seen it once, you've seen it for all times, essentially. Nothing at all to expand upon, it's just the mission, case closed. Now, you CAN play the levels different ways to try different strategies and see how they work, but why beat a dead horse? There is nothing more to see. No real exploration value (see above area describing uninspired artwork). No time for fooling around and enjoying the scenery (what scenery?). You can't even change your strategy that much anyway since you run into the same guys in the same order. For a level with a certain goal or objective, you already know how and where it ends: always in the same place, with the same outcome. You get the picture by now, I'm sure. For a game that runs like a movie, if you don't like the movie that much to begin with, then the game ain't gonna ''do it'' for ya either, cuz it's the same script each and every time you load it up.

The Main Disappointment-
Oh, before I forget, if this is an issue to you for some reason, you shoot people, not monsters. I don't really get why that mattered to some. Guess I'm just an indiscriminate killer. No blood in this game, either which also seems to matter to some as well. All other things being equal, my rating would not have been affected by these issues at all. But there is something else about this game that, as a long time fan of the FPS genre, I found inexcusable. And that, my friends, concerns the reactivity of the enemies (or lack thereof). Not that I only play bloody games, mind you, but I do like some kind of reaction from what I shoot, not for them to simply flutter silently to the floor... gracefully... like some absurd ballet dancer doing a curtsey in their death throes. Just kinda sucks the fun right out of shooting them in the first place. No voices for the enemies either, no screams. No reactions. Period. What am I shooting, mannequins? Which leads me to my main gripe: if what you're shooting at does not react, explode, bleed (in some games) or act as if it is damaged in some way, shape or form that will make it fun and worthwhile to play, what is the point of a shooter in the first place? In my eyes, a FPS is null and void when the whole underlying premise of the shooter just isn't fun to do. Other FPS games have enemies that are fun to shoot because they all at least do something moderately interesting, and that significantly increases replay value. In this game, the enemies are simply not fun to shoot. This central issue, combined with the dull, drab, colorless environments, the stick-to-the-plot-only-please-and-damn-your-imagination linear levels made this game for me not even worth playing. And I even made it through this little review without even mentioning the difficulty, which I really thought was outrageous at times. Some call it challenge. I call it frustration.

The Conclusion- overall 3/10
Overall, I found this game to be fairly dry, colorless and uninteresting. Worst of all for a FPS, it just isn't fun to shoot things. It has no real action, and when it tries to be suspenseful, it simply fails because there is nothing to hold that suspense. It tries to look and be real life based, yet does not look real enough. Avoid this early attempt and wait for some FPS that shows real promise.

Reviewer's Score: 3/10, Originally Posted: 05/10/02, Updated 05/10/02