Why Everyone Else Is Wrong About Jericho

I shouldn't say everyone, of course. Some people gave it good scores. But a lot of major outlets panned it. Let's see what they had to say.

"Jericho's grand promises are not reflected in the game design at all." - X-Play (40%)

"The game's failure to monopolize on its squad dynamic relegates it to a shooter-by-numbers". - Edge Magazine (50%)

"The end result is just too routine to be scary." - PC Gamer (57%)

"At the same time, it's difficult to recommend a game with so many lackluster elements in a world full of Gears of Wars and BioShocks (both of which managed to be scarier than Jericho)." - GameSpy (60%)

"If the AI worked as it was intended, and if there was a cover system beyond "stand behind that pillar and the splash damage 'might' not kill you," Jericho would be great. But it doesn't, there isn't, and it's not." - PC Gamer UK (64%)

What's the common thread through all these reviews? They are all looking at the game as though it was supposed to be something it's not. They thought Clive Barker's name on it meant it would be scary. They thought the AI squad mates meant it would be a tactical game like Gears of War. These reviewers were victims of hype. That's understandable. I would have hoped they could have risen above that, but I've had movies, games, and music ruined for me by high expectations, so I can't judge too harshly.

Still, they saw that much black leather and chrome and didn't realize the game was over the top camp? Tsk, tsk. :)