Metascore
62

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 24
  2. Negative: 2 out of 24
  1. Wanted: Weapons of Fate, surprisingly, is not only better than a typical movie-licensed game, it’s better than a typical action game.
  2. The most disappointing thing about Wanted, however, is that it ends after a mere nine levels.
  3. 73
    I have nothing against short games, so long as there is proper incentive to play multiple times. Wanted lacks any such incentives.
  4. This game is just as enthralling as the movie, but why it has to last about as long? What saved it is the novel gameplay that makes replaying fun. But it's a great pity that there's no multiplayer at all, I'd love to see what bullet curving would do to it. [May 2009]
  5. The cool Hollywood touch is fun for some time, but the action quickly gets repetitive.
  6. The search for the best angle to take a shot, the good controls and smooth gameplay combine into a fast-paced foray, which ends just as fast after only four hours. There should have been a multi-player mode, the father and son characters almost demand a co-operative mode. The game is cheaper than usual, but it's still too expensive for a game that short.
  7. Wanted: Weapons of Fate doesn’t suffer from the “Bad movie-license game” curse. It is not that bad. But it suffers from being too short and not having enough after you beat it to keep on playing.
  8. A pretty but simple action game that makes the right decision to not attempt to be something more than it is and concentrates on a well-executed bullet-curving gimmick. It just happens to be overpriced at $50. [May 2009, p.76]
  9. Not an unwanted game, just one that's an uninspiring, run-of-the-mill shooter - aside from the lead curving. [June 2009, p.97]
  10. What wasn’t disappointing, though I expected it to be, were the John Woo-style quick-time events
  11. The short length of Wanted: Weapons of Fate is actually its rescue. If the game would have been any longer it would have gotten boring. For that reason Wanted is only recommendable for the most fanatic Wanted fans. Everyone else might give this average shooter a chance when it’s in the discount bin.
  12. Wanted; Weapons of Fate could’ve been a great action game. Gameplay is solid, even if not original, and will deeply entertain you, and graphics are sometimes stunning. The big drawback is the length: it took us four hours to get to the final sequence, which really isn’t enough as of today. Consider a purchase only if four intense hours of gameplay is enough for you.
  13. Wanted is a decent action game, a classical third person shooter that throws you in the world of Mark Millar graphic novel, unfortunately the game is a little bit short and actually tedious, despite its well devised cover system that let you run freely around objects.
  14. Wanted is a pretty decent effort, and a new example that not every cinema adaptation is condemned to failure. With a longer playthrough, a multiplayer mode and a brighter IA, Weapons of Fate could be a far better game, but nevertheless is an interesting option for action fans.
  15. Wanted:Weapons of Fate isn't necessarily a bad game - it's just mediocre and overly linear.
  16. The combat is, despite flowing well, incredibly and utterly console. [June 2009, p.74]
  17. With a license that seemed tailor made for the video game treatment and a competent developer (Grin, makers of the PC GRAW titles and the forthcoming Bionic Commando) in charge, there was a chance this would be something really rather good. What we ended up with is a perfectly passable, often enjoyable game, but not something that will be remembered once you've beaten it over the course of a few evenings.
  18. Wanted is way better than any other movie–to–game product, but it’s way too short to enjoy it for longer than a single afternoon. Minigames suck, brilliant controls and spectacular effects that rock. [Apr 2009]
  19. It's a short game, but if it were longer, the excitement of bullet curving would probably wear off. That said, it's got some cool concepts and it compliments the film fairly well. If you can find it for less-than-full price, it's worth checking out.
  20. 58
    For its six-hour playthrough (you can extend that by unlocking alternate characters, but they're so unmemorable and non-gameplay changing, that they provide no incentive to play through again), Wanted: Weapons of Fate is at best a competent, fire-and-forget movie game -- not much more nor less.
  21. Cold language of numbers is the best way to describe Wanted. 9 levels, 5 enemy types, 4 hours to complete, 2 weapons, 0 multiplayer modes, 0 "wow" moments, 0 thoughts about playing this game again…
  22. Gets the basics right, but no more. It won’t keep you amused for long.
  23. A stunt-filled shooter in the vein (but not the league) of Stranglehold, it's a game that takes control away, reverts to how things used to be done, and judders between debilitating combat and haywire presentation. [May 2009, p.92]
  24. There’s a mixed bag of ideas present in Wanted: Weapons of Fate, but as a whole it feels terribly rushed.
User Score
7.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 12
  2. Negative: 3 out of 12
  1. Oct 17, 2010
    10
    i lyk dis game it was good graphics is average but stiil i really lyk the violence overall good story ang a game u can play for time pass took 5 hrs to complete Full Review »
  2. Jan 19, 2014
    7
    If I put it this way, it is no a bad game but it is not a great game either.. I found it funny at times but boring as hell the other second, this is a game you buy for pointless shooting and a little fun for a cheap price. Full Review »
  3. Dec 9, 2013
    5
    I played the PC Version of this game, runs fine however terrible control sensitivity makes the game unplayable.Before even playing the game I wanted to test different resolutions on my PC to see what would look good but the mouse controls in the options screen are just as erratic as the game controls. Even if the controls were in order its still a terrible game and not worth paying for or wasting time playing.I actually chose this over world in conflict,this cost fifteen euro and world in conflict cost twenty including expansion but foolishly I made the wrong decision.In case you're wondering I'm not biased about the game as I really enjoyed the movie which was what prompted me to choose this title in the first place. Full Review »