[360/PS3] WET Review

[AgtFox]

WET Review

Title: WET
Platform: 360/PS3
Developer: Artificial Mind and Movement
Publisher: Bethesda
ESRB: Mature
MSRP: $59.99 (360/PS3)
Editor: Loren 'AgtFox' Halek

What's Hot: The music choices fit the areas they are used very well; a couple good set pieces; Kill Bill/Grindhouse-like feeling is persistent

What's Not: Sameness in a specific set piece where you have to close off spawn points snowballs annoyance; tries to be like Devil May Cry, Max Payne and the new Prince of Persia and fails; story is rather lame; Rage mode is only used at scripted moments; controls too loose when trying to jump

WET is a game that tries to take some of the best stuff from games like Devil May Cry (guns, swords, combos/multipliers), Max Payne (slow-mo shooting, but this time whenever you jump or slide) and the new Prince of Persia (climbing, hitting A button when you hit a mark on a wall), but leaves the fun in all of them behind. As a first step into the major console world, Artificial Mind and Movement has made a game that probably could have used more gestation time to tighten up a bunch of things and make things flow more smoothly. What this previous handheld game developer has done correctly in WET is to convey a sense of style with 70s exploitation movie feeling and using music that really fits where the main character is in the game.

The game is shown in a scratchy film format where the lighting drops in and out of bright and dark with jumpy up and down motion much like the old projectors did for those low budget exploitation moves from the 70s. Luckily you can turn this graphic gimmick off because I only lasted 30 minutes before I couldn’t take the up and down motions any more. The other effects tied to it were cool, but the motion just wasn’t working with me so I turned it off. This of course gives you a clear look at the game and it honestly plays well either way, although the graphics take a bit of a hit without the addition of the film scratch. This won’t win any awards for graphics and doesn’t push the system at all, but it certainly moves at a good pace with no slowdown.

It is obvious from the beginning that this game is taking a page from Quentin Tarantino and his Kill Bill movies as well as his collaboration with Robert Rodriguez in the Grindhouse movie. The lead character, Rubi, uses both guns and a sword to dispense of her attackers. The music from actual bands with lyrics has a 70s feel to them and when Rubi goes into her scripted Rage mode you hear much the same high pitched sound from Kill Bill when Beatrix goes nuts. The cool thing is you are then treated to a mostly red screen with all the enemies having silhouetted looks to them with their bodies being black and their outfits being white. It looks cool, but it is sad that the Rage mode sections are scripted and that Rubi cannot unleash it after reaching a certain multiplier doing combos. Going along with the Tarantino feel is the fact that almost every other word spoken is the F word. The voiceovers by Eliza Dushku, Malcolm McDowell and Alan Cumming are basically phoned in, but then again they aren’t given very good written material to work with.

The basic story has Rubi, who I’m guessing is a hired mercenary, hijacking a heart for a client’s father. The game then fast forwards to one year later and the father now has a job for Rubi to find the son in Hong Kong and bring him back home. Rubi doesn’t like to fly, but undertakes the mission anyway. She eventually captures the son, brings him back home and everything goes south as it is wont to do in these situations. In-between all this Rubi shoots and slashes anyone that gets in her way. Since she can dual wield all her weapons, when you jump (A) or slide (B) you go into slow motion and can shoot at two enemies at the same time. One is outlined with a red circle, which is the one the secondary gun is shooting at while you can move the circle recticle and shoot at another character. Most of the time you will be shooting people, but I really liked it when I could get in close and start slashing at people. The shooting usually will pay off in bigger experience points that you can use to upgrade your weapons or learn new skills after leaving an area or finishing a mission.

This all sounds cool, but the gameplay overall is average at best. It tries to borrow liberally from Devil May Cry and Max Payne while sprinkling in a little Prince of Persia as previously said, but it fails to do the mechanics as well. The action isn’t fast or free flowing enough to stand with DMC and the slow-mo shooting is overdone since you can do it whenever and the only limit to the slow motion is Rubi finishing her jump or slide, but then you can go into another jump/slide. There are some extra gameplay elements brought in. The car shooting/jumping with QTE elements from the demo is here early in the game and late in the game. Rubi also blows up a plane in the middle of the story and has to shoot falling enemies and then she goes into a dodging mini-game where airplane parts fly toward you trying to hurt you while attempting to reach a parachute. This section was really frustrating for me, they just kind of dump you into a new situation and there is a certain path you need to take to complete the dodging section. It synthetically increases your game time that is already so small at roughly 6-7 hours to beat.

Then there is the worst offender that creeps up all the time. Rubi will get into a set piece where you are shown how many spawn points there are in the area represented by skulls. You have to kill everything in sight and block off the spawn points in order to proceed. The first few times this is rather cool, but having it happen ad nauseum and watching Rubi do her little cutscene gets annoying quickly. Same goes for her drinking booze in order to get her health up. You see a small cutscene of her drinking it, throwing it in the air and shooting it. All. The. Time! Add into this the QTE boss encounters because the game has no one-on-one sword mechanic where you can block and parry and you start to see just how average the game is. To add gasoline on the fire, the last two battles are fully QTE events and involve no gameplay at all. Just push the button that comes up in the ample amount of time you have and you finish off the two final bosses.

WET is ultimately a disappointment and one I can’t recommend spending $60 on. It has style and good music, but the gameplay is just underwhelming and repeats too much, keeping it from rising above the games it is trying so hard to emulate. Loose jumping controls also hurt this game and Rubi’s acrobatic moves just are not as fluid as they could be. When there are acrobatic moves, it should be something more along the lines of Mirror’s Edge in its smoothness and concept. If you want to play this game, renting it is the best option I can give you.

Score: 3 out of 5 CoGs


Loren says, ”A decidedly average game that tries to combine concepts from a number of games, but ultimate fails at mastering any of them. The style and music, as well as the early gaming experience is good, but once you start seeing the repetition of set pieces throughout the game it just isn’t as fun anymore. If you must play this game, rent it.”

*Note - Review based upon the 360 version of game

[AniAko]

I remember REALLY enjoying the demo, but feeling that if it exposed all the gameplay elements, it would get played out and boring awfully quick. Being only a 6-7 hour game, it actually doesn't seem like I'd tire too quick, but that hardly would make me want to lighten my wallet by $60. Good Review! Rental it is, if I insist on playing, I REALLY loved the soundtrack

Unless someone knows where I can get the soundtrack

Hmm. I was surprised after reading your review and the initial impressions that it still managed a 3 CoG score. I was thinking at best a 2. Is there a description of the rating system? It would be good to know what to expect out of each "CoG", as it were. Do we utilize the full spectrum, meaning 3 CoGs is an average with any above/below that representing a rise above/fall from that average?

[TrackZero]

Originally Posted by civil_pwned

Hmm. I was surprised after reading your review and the initial impressions that it still managed a 3 CoG score. I was thinking at best a 2. Is there a description of the rating system? It would be good to know what to expect out of each "CoG", as it were. Do we utilize the full spectrum, meaning 3 CoGs is an average with any above/below that representing a rise above/fall from that average?

You're thinking about it too much.

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by civil_pwned

Hmm. I was surprised after reading your review and the initial impressions that it still managed a 3 CoG score. I was thinking at best a 2. Is there a description of the rating system? It would be good to know what to expect out of each "CoG", as it were. Do we utilize the full spectrum, meaning 3 CoGs is an average with any above/below that representing a rise above/fall from that average?

As Track said, you're thinking too much about it. This game never would have gotten a 2 since I consider it to be a better overall game than Haze or Fracture (gave both a 2.5). A game has to be almost unplayable or without redeeming qualities to get a 2 or less (think I gave Godzilla Unleashed on the PS2 a 1 over at our former home). The CoGs are more representative of a buy/rent/skip situation. A 4.5-5 would be considered a must buy to me, a 4 would be a possible buy, 3 and 3.5 are rentals, 2.5 and below are either skip or slight rental recommendation.

People do like to see scores though and not necessarily a simple Buy/Rent/Skip recommendation. They do like to compare reviews between 2 or more games.

[Karak]

Wow. It still got a 3? That's surprising. I may rent. Thanks for the review.

[BabyJesus]

I tried the demo and it was fun for about 3 minutes, too repetitive.

[ElektroDragon]

Is there any way to turn off that horrible, stupid, annoying film grain effect while playing? The demo to me seemed like a 2 out of 5 game at best.

[ElektroDragon]

Originally Posted by AgtFox

As Track said, you're thinking too much about it. This game never would have gotten a 2 since I consider it to be a better overall game than Haze or Fracture (gave both a 2.5). A game has to be almost unplayable or without redeeming qualities to get a 2 or less (think I gave Godzilla Unleashed on the PS2 a 1 over at our former home). The CoGs are more representative of a buy/rent/skip situation. A 4.5-5 would be considered a must buy to me, a 4 would be a possible buy, 3 and 3.5 are rentals, 2.5 and below are either skip or slight rental recommendation.

People do like to see scores though and not necessarily a simple Buy/Rent/Skip recommendation. They do like to compare reviews between 2 or more games.

Sounds to me then like a 1 is pretty much a meaningless rating then. The games you would give a 2 to are the ones you should be giving a 1 to. But of course, you probably don't want to upset publishers too much. Sigh.

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by ElektroDragon

Sounds to me then like a 1 is pretty much a meaningless rating then. The games you would give a 2 to are the ones you should be giving a 1 to. But of course, you probably don't want to upset publishers too much. Sigh.

Couldn't give a crap what publishers want. If they want to close off access to stuff, that's their choice. Doesn't hurt me or CoG in any way other than their stuff doesn't get any highlighting whether good or bad.

As for your other question, I explain in the review that you can turn it off. After about 30 minutes I could no longer take the jerking up and down of the camera with the film grain enabled.

1 is not meaningless. It is just not something to even look at whereas a 2 or higher might have at least rental possibility or if you really feel like blowing $60 you can pick it up

[pronounconnoun]

This game reminds me that I should start looking in bargain bins for Stranglehold.

[Zonkuya]

Does that mean that a "0 out of 5 Cogs" rating suggest to a game to "not exist?"

And have you ever given THAT to a game?

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by Zonkuya

Does that mean that a "0 out of 5 Cogs" rating suggest to a game to "not exist?"

And have you ever given THAT to a game?

1 is the bottom. I have done many different types of ratings over the sites I have written for and the hundreds of reviews I've written.

[National Kato]

The film effects were annoying. I know what they were trying to do with it, but had they paid attention to how the frame/shutter acts in actual Grindhouse films, they'd realize it doesn't happen continuously. If it did, audiences would walk out when their eyes started to ache. Ultimately, it takes away from the game's visuals.

They'd have been better off with a simple grain filter, a la Mass Effect and Lost & Damned, with occasional shutter slip.

[spcialk]

Speaking of rating systems; what exactly IS a "cog"? Are you handing out 1-5 colony of gamers? Is it possible to HAVE multiple colonies of gamers? Colonies of gamer? Colonii?! Or are you handing out gears? Literal cogs? And if so....WHY?!?!?

Mea Culpa: might have just drank a french press of fine java.

[pronounconnoun]

Originally Posted by spcialk

Speaking of rating systems; what exactly IS a "cog"? Are you handing out 1-5 colony of gamers? Is it possible to HAVE multiple colonies of gamers? Colonies of gamer? Colonii?! Or are you handing out gears? Literal cogs? And if so....WHY?!?!?

Mea Culpa: might have just drank a french press of fine java.

Were you a writer for Seinfeld in a past life?

[spcialk]

Originally Posted by pronounconnoun

Were you a writer for Seinfeld in a past life?

One does one's best. I DO write for part of a living.

[WhyThree]

Good review, AgtFox. It seemed like a good evaluation of the merits of the game. (which is more important than a simple score)


On a related note to the scores discussion, a scoring scale that I'd never seen implemented before that I would like to see is a money-based score. Basically, how much is this game worth? WET might not be worth $60, but it might be a good buy for $30, so it would get a "score" of $30. Something like Fallout 3 that provides a lot of value could get a score even higher than $60, say $80. Or an innovative, fun game (that might not provide the length value of Fallout) could still score higher than the asking price, something like Braid could be rated $25, higher than the asking price of $15 since it's "worth it." Since reviews are essentially buying guides, it would be a simple, clear way to tell if you're getting your money's worth. Something "rated" $60 or above would be worth getting immediately, while you could wait on a price drop for a retail game rated $30.

Oy, I seem to have touched some unwitting nerve with my comment. Loren you met me, do I seem like someone who would think about anything too seriously?

But I do believe in using a whole rating system. One CoG/Star/Whatever is the worst you can assign something. Practically trash. Five would be the opposite of that and three would be the median of that, or a game that is neither too terrible nor too good. Average. Reading your review I got the distinct impression that the game was below average so I was surprised to see that it got what I feel is an average score. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you suggest that three is indeed below average which I think was the reason for some of the ensuing comments. Personally I feel that reviews everywhere for any medium are skewed towards the upper levels.

Also, the issue of reviews being geared towards not upsetting publishers was brought up. As someone who has met Loren (AgtFox) in person I would say that he is a person whose integrity I would not ever question.

[spcialk]

Originally Posted by civil_pwned

Oy, I seem to have touched some unwitting nerve with my comment. Loren you met me, do I seem like someone who would think about anything too seriously?

But I do believe in using a whole rating system. One CoG/Star/Whatever is the worst you can assign something. Practically trash. Five would be the opposite of that and three would be the median of that, or a game that is neither too terrible nor too good. Average. Reading your review I got the distinct impression that the game was below average so I was surprised to see that it got what I feel is an average score. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you suggest that three is indeed below average which I think was the reason for some of the ensuing comments. Personally I feel that reviews everywhere for any medium are skewed towards the upper levels.

Also, the issue of reviews being geared towards not upsetting publishers was brought up. As someone who has met Loren (AgtFox) in person I would say that he is a person whose integrity I would not ever question.

I read it the same way I read netflix's rating system. 3 stars = "I liked it" 2 stars = "I didn't like it", 1 star = "Hated" etc. Really I am just confused about what a "cog" is. Maybe i can mail it in with some box tops and get a prize!