The original Call of Juarez had to be played to be believed. An alternately awful and astounding mixture of poorly designed levels with an breathtaking attention to pacing, narrative, and character (for 50% of the game, you could literally recite Scripture with the press of one mouse button and shoot a bandit in the face with another), CoJ quickly became a favorite among those who could tolerate it.
Fast-forward to a couple years later, as we find ourselves confronted with Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, a prequel to the events of the original game. Early gameplay footage seemed to recommend a less subtle, more outwardly action-packed exprience than the first game. Still, perhaps the opportunity to get acquainted with the McCall brothers before the crap entirely hits the fan for their family presents an interesting opportunity.
Does Bound in Blood reach the peaks (and valleys) of its predecessor, or does it surpass it to become something more?
After the jump, Brad Nicholson and Anthony Burch will attempt to answer those questions.
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 [reviewed], Personal computer [reviewed])
Developer: Techland
Publisher: Ubisoft
Released: June 30, 2009
MSRP: $59.99
Brad Nicholson (Xbox 360)
What kept me interested in Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood wasn’t the narrative or gunplay. It was the western setting. It’s refreshing to interact in a world where a massive mammal is the primary mode of transportation, baser desires take precedence over the thoughtful ones, and violence is the only means of conflict resolution. But beyond the cacti, the grit, the canyons and the dumb accents, I found nothing of substantial value. Bound in Blood is an average shooter that skids, dips and shifts into complete mediocrity or below. Playing the game is an exercise in apathy — it’s neither solid nor liquid. In other words, it isn’t compelling.
The game’s story revolves around three brothers who are searching for a way to rebuild their property and dignity in the wild 1860s. The game opens with the two playable brothers, Thomas and Ray, in a losing fight against the Union Army. After the brothers realize their family plantation is in trouble, they desert the Confederate army and head to the hills. When they arrive at their home, they discover burnt wood, a dead mother, and a grieving brother. Not good.
Vowing reconstruction, but wishing to avoid capture by the Confederate army and its dickhead commander, the three brothers journey west. Ray and Thomas change during this grand adventure: they become murderers and thieves — real outlaws.
But wait, that’s not all: in a late plot reveal, the brothers reckon the ideal way to put things back the way they used to be is through Aztec gold. Once the details are hammered out, two problems immediately present themselves: a woman and a high-strung general. Things spiral out of control because of these relationships throughout the game.
The story has interesting elements: deception, deceit, greed, moral disregard and even love. But the execution is poor and simplistic. The cars of the plot are the two brothers. Ray, the rough brother, speaks like a retard and seemingly has the same base motivations as a home cat. The thoughtful Thomas is no more interesting than cardboard. Even the woman — the prime mover of the love and deception in the game — is a flat, stereotypical feisty chick who eventually devolves into a slobbering mess. Boring metaphors and silly symbolism also appear at random intervals, making me laugh and wonder why Techland bothered with the two techniques.
Bound in Blood is all about the notion of the old untamed American West — a world Ray and Thomas successfully cut a swath through, leaving a pile of bodies and blood in their wake. The gunplay is no savior to the story — it’s archaic, at times veering into basic shooting gallery territory.
Here’s the deal: the game has a variety of old-school weaponry and has players utilize them in the same fashion as the protagonists of western flicks — two red-hot, smoking barrels. Each combat situation is a set-piece battle: a line of vigilantes or Native Americans pops up on top of motion picture set constructs or on the sandy (occasionally grassy) trails below them without fear of the oncoming hail of bullets. With this comes a sense of empowerment. I was always the death-dealer, but at the same time, it’s farcical. The AI isn’t smart and the levels are quite linear.
At the beginning of every mission, you’re given the choice of controlling either Ray or Thomas. Ray is the brawler of the two, able to use dual pistols; he’s ideal when you don’t care about making a mess. Thomas is a long-range guy who can climb and lasso his way through levels. The duality of approach worked for me. It changed the way I played the game and seemed superior for it. However, it’s poorly realized: most missions break down into gunfights regardless of care, and for whatever reason, Bound in Blood can’t be played cooperatively — although the other brother is typically nearby.
There are two things in the game’s campaign that I wanted to love dearly, but just couldn’t. The first is the bullet-time mechanic. As you kill dudes, a small bar fills, allowing you to slip into a supernatural, hyper-focused state in order to demolish lines of soldiers with a few button presses. At times, it’s a great system, perfect for clearing out a room or a nasty alleyway. But, again, the execution is poor. When you fill the bar, it doesn’t stay that way. A countdown timer starts immediately, giving you a tiny under a minute to initiate the focus mode before the counter needs to be refilled. There are many gaps in action and I found myself often without focus when I needed it the most. The other thing is the “Shootout.” Like old-school westerns, you’re given the ability to circle around a villain one-on-one in a classic scenario. The camera pans down to your character’s hand and when a bell rings, you grab for your gun and put the bad man down. Poor contextualization will make this one of the most frustrating portions of the game. I did it over ten times and never quite grasped where I was supposed to steer the hand. Sad, considering the Shootout could have served as a wonderful climactic end to a mission instead of the fumbling mess that it is.
The multiplayer works in the game’s favor, but don’t get too excited: it’s a basic component with some levels and characters stripped directly from the campaign. In it, you can play as either the “Bandits” or “Lawmen” across a variety of shoot-to-kill modes with easy objectives — kill this guy with a marker above his head, kill these dudes within a certain time frame, and so on. Surprisingly, it’s enjoyable. The gunplay feels superior when characters are ducking, diving and running around. A nice bounty system (you’re rewarded with cash when you kill someone) ties into a basic upgrade system across a variety of mundane character classes. It has legs, but I’m not quite sure how long people will stick around. Some of the levels are much too large or convoluted for the easy mechanics and a few of the higher-level classes seemed a bit too powerful in my limited play.
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood isn’t a terrible game. On the contrary, it’s a game with a ton of unrealized potential that executes with the grain. The few times you’re granted to travel on the open plains with a horse made me wish the entire experience was such. Defying the spirit it’s trying to capture, Call of Juarez is a tightly bound mediocre shooter with an uninteresting story, flat characters and boring AI. I’m a fan of western shooters, but I found nothing of substantial interest with this one. If you’re itching for some idiotic southern commentary or an opportunity to kill vigilantes (or Indians) with a six-shooter, give this a rental.
Score: 5.0
Anthony Burch (PC)
I’ve to disagree with Brad — Bound in Blood is probably a terrible game. I state “probably” because I cannot be sure to what degree my own familiarity with, and adoration for, the first game influences my feelings toward this sequel.
The original Call of Juarez was a flawed masterpiece; though half the game consisted of clunky stealth missions and overly linear level design, its intensely clever narrative and amusing western aesthetics made it one of my favorite first-person shooters of all time.
After completing Bound in Blood over the course of a day, I’ve only one question: what the hell happened?
Noninteractive cut scenes? Two protagonists whose play styles are nearly indistinguishable? A narrative entirely devoid of urgency or weight, wrapped around awkward and unsatisfying gunplay? Who are you, and what have you done with Call of Juarez?
Entries (RSS)