Chromehounds Xbox 360

  • Publisher: Sega
  • Release Date: Jul 11, 2006
User Score
7.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 71 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 44 out of 71
  2. Negative: 14 out of 71
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JacobV.
    Oct 27, 2006
    7
    Doesn't seem like a "pick up and play" game. I rented this and didn't have the patience. It takes forever to get anywhere. I think my problem was that I wanted to build my own mech, but I couldn't get my hands on enough parts. I'll stick to the fast paced MechAssault games.
  2. Max
    Aug 3, 2007
    7
    For those who don't have Xbox Live, this game is a waste of money. But online it's a different story. It is fun to customize your own hound and give it your own color pattern and emblems for everyone else to see. Every hound is different. The achievements are fun to unlock and the graphics are good. It's not the fastest game though. The mechs are incredibly slow and the For those who don't have Xbox Live, this game is a waste of money. But online it's a different story. It is fun to customize your own hound and give it your own color pattern and emblems for everyone else to see. Every hound is different. The achievements are fun to unlock and the graphics are good. It's not the fastest game though. The mechs are incredibly slow and the fights usually come down to aiming at far distances and whoever wins probably just built a better hound than you. Expand
  3. May 27, 2014
    7
    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!
  4. AnthonyW.
    Aug 14, 2006
    6
    I am a sucker for mech games; however there are other things to consider. Obviously there are a few flaws to look at. First off the non-Live game play (training mode) is both frustrating and boring. The story can be easily passed by with out a look back. Some of the missions would make you believe that your mech has some sort of speed associated with it when it comes to having you move to I am a sucker for mech games; however there are other things to consider. Obviously there are a few flaws to look at. First off the non-Live game play (training mode) is both frustrating and boring. The story can be easily passed by with out a look back. Some of the missions would make you believe that your mech has some sort of speed associated with it when it comes to having you move to different places on the map. There where several missions that would advise you to move to a location to defend it or for the best firing positions but by the time you made it to the location you fail the mission. I understand this is Mech chess and not Armored Core reaction based Gundam Wing fighting, so I don Expand
  5. Andyman
    Jul 21, 2006
    5
    I will be a happy man the day From Software starts making their mech games as fun to play as they are to look at. Where is the head's-up target acquisition system? Where are the elaborate next-gen explosions? Where is the intuitive mech design and customization interface? Simply put, WHERE IS THE FUN? You'd think that From Software would have this genre completely mastered by I will be a happy man the day From Software starts making their mech games as fun to play as they are to look at. Where is the head's-up target acquisition system? Where are the elaborate next-gen explosions? Where is the intuitive mech design and customization interface? Simply put, WHERE IS THE FUN? You'd think that From Software would have this genre completely mastered by now. After all, they've been making mech games for over a decade now. Chromehounds is a heavy-mech-sized disappointment. Expand
  6. Nov 19, 2013
    5
    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
    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.
    Expand
Metascore
71

Mixed or average reviews - based on 60 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 60
  2. Negative: 2 out of 60
  1. Overall the gameplay is pretty forgettable and is only saved by the interesting ideas presented online. [JPN Import]
  2. Chromehounds is really, really, really boring to play...Not one that I can imagine Xbox 360 players sticking with for more than a handful of hours tops, no matter how starved they are for new releases at the moment.
  3. 60
    Unfortunately, with such drab presentation and predictable gameplay, there isn't enough to sustain interest for long.