• Publisher:
  • Release Date:
Chromehounds Image

Mixed or average reviews - based on 60 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 69 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: This squad-based action title puts gamers in control of giant mechanized military weapons of war. Chromehounds offers an intense, photorealistic look at war from the cockpits of colossal metal vehicles. These heavily-armed weapons of war, called HOUNDSs, dominate ground battles during warfare in the near-future. Squads of HOUNDs take to the field in international factions, cooperating with and complementing each other in terms of firepower, range of movement, and abilities. Domination of the world is the prize for the mightiest army on the field. Strategic planning, snap reflexes and communication are key to winning the day in this battle-hardened action title. Players take the role of either a Squad Member or a Tactics Commander, who is responsible for strategically guiding the team to victory with verbal commands on Xbox Live. In addition to supporting both cooperative and competitive online modes, the game offers thousands of upgrade options, which effect both the look and performance of player mechs. Strategic gameplay puts the player in the role of 'tactics commander'; manage your squad while testing your reflexes on the battlefield. Xbox LIVE support offers cooperative and competitive campaigns for up to 12 players at once. [Sega] Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 60
  2. Negative: 2 out of 60
  1. Chromehounds isn't just the most exciting giant robot game since MechWarrior 2 opened with that famous Digital Domain cutscene; it's absolutely a reason to buy a 360 and a Live subscription. [Oct. 2006, p.81]
  2. Operating the hounds is a breeze. They are even easier to operate than the mechs in Mech Assault, although they don't move as quick. Speed is sacrificed for ease of control.
  3. I'm actually having more fun online with this game than "GRAW" thanks to the even greater emphasis on team play, role types and big robot things exploding.
  4. 70
    The online performance still has a lot of kinks, often making it tough to join games. It can be difficult to experience the game properly as a functional squad. Still, Chromehounds is a game that has a lot of potential.
  5. Chromehounds is an excellent online game, but the single-player suffers because of it, making it no use for anyone without a Gold Live account.
  6. Scant little more than a badly reared puppy that’s bound for the pound.
  7. The potential behind the game is unmatched, but an extremely poor online interface coupled with lackluster servers and a relatively boring single player experience makes Chromehounds a chrome donkey.

See all 60 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 45
  2. Negative: 6 out of 45
  1. Mar 11, 2013
    One of my favorites back in the day. Still enjoyed it as the ending mission was difficult. Also custom Mech upgrades got my attention as I have a love for it. Expand
  2. Jan 2, 2014
    Hands-down the greatest mech game ever published. COuld the overheating system have been better? Of course! But, that's why the community got so psyched for a second game, only to be let down. (Please that second game) Expand
  3. Jun 3, 2014
    My favourite Mech game since MechAssault. Chromehounds offers an insane amount of mech customisation which can lead to very varied mechs and strategies for using them. The campaign was okay but the multiplayer was awesome. The maps were massive and the combat was fun. It's really a shame that the multiplayer servers were taken down. Expand
  4. May 27, 2014
    Would give an 8 or so for the Multi. 7 or maybe 6 for Single/Campaign. However, with the servers now being down (I miss you, Chromehounds) my favorite builds are unplayable (due to some parts being from the 'online' portion) in Campaign. Oh well, still one of my fav mech games, so many hours in the garage! Expand
  5. Nov 19, 2013
    Single Player/Multi Player (0/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If
    the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (0/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (1/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.

See all 45 User Reviews