- Publisher: Eidos Interactive
- Release Date: Sep 14, 2004
- Also On: PlayStation 2
- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
80The line "Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules" has never been so fully embodied by a video game.
-
70On the plus side, what's there is competently done and is flecked with powerful moments of brutality. On the downside, these spots of overt anguish aren't dealt with particularly well and lead to a reduction of the overall effect.
-
You cannot kill your fellow US soldiers...why? We’re not saying that it’s a good move to blast your support into oblivion, but it would be a consequence to taking a gung-ho, guns blaring approach.
-
66The repetitive and boring gameplay, amongst other issues, unfortunately overshadows the realistically unique brutal nature of the game, which is a shame because it really does a good job in its portrayal of what war really is about.
-
60It fails in my eyes as an innovative title that people will find themselves wanting to pick up in the face of "Doom 3" and the impending "Half-Life 2."
-
The cutscenes are shockingly brutal, the language is shockingly harsh, and the gameplay is shockingly bad.
-
60One of the most harrowing action titles we've ever played...The game itslef is well crafted. The enemy A.I., however, is a little shaky.
-
58Shellshock is as painfully straightforward as can be. Somewhere between conception and launch, something went wrong.
-
56The game does have some grittiness to it, but it seems to be geared more towards teenagers who would feel better about themselves playing a mature game, than it is towards mature gamers who are looking to get a little depth to go with the arcade action.
-
56The game is incredibly awkward to play. [Oct 2004, p.99]
-
Character growth? Unnerving realism? I don’t think so. And when you take away the sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, figuratively and literally, the true gameplay is revealed as repetitive and uninspired.
-
55Shellshock doesn’t amount to much more than six or seven hours of gameplay. It’s over almost as soon as it began which, depending on how much you paid for it, might be a good thing.
-
54It certainly raises the bar on vile, pointless cutscenes. However, anyone interested in more than stubbornly average gameplay should look elsewhere.
-
It would have been nice if the developer's willingness to include controversial subject matter had extended to exciting gameplay.
-
Firefights become more surreal than menacing when the worst-case scenario is of your fellow GIs having to catch their breath for a few seconds after being riddled with bullets. [Aug 2004, p.96]
-
40Has a bit of style but not much new gameplay behind it. It looks good and it's a serviceable shooter (you do get to shoot things, after all), but the game play just isn't that exciting, especially when you consider that it has no multiplayer and the single-player is so linear.
-
A bad third-person shooter is still bad even with '60s music and Vietnamese prostitutes. [Dec 2004, p.96]
-
The 3D engine is incredibly sluggish, delivering mediocre graphics that manage to tax even fast computers and high-end videocards. [Jan 2005, p.69]
-
20It portrays the killing of specific, theoretically real (in that they're virtual stand-ins for the actual soldiers that fought in the war) people as nothing more than a gruesome shooting gallery...At some point everyone has to decide when enough is enough. And now I have.
-
15A turd of a third-person shooter that so revels in senseless violence and horrible design, I needed a shower every time I stopped playing. [Holiday 2004, p.100]
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 2 out of 8
-
Mixed: 2 out of 8
-
Negative: 4 out of 8
-
Ups2006smith0
-
AnonymousMC8
-
Agent0This game is a total waste of money!!! terrible graphics, terrible AI, terrible level design, terrible controls and not playable online.