Hour of Victory

 Xbox 360
  • Publisher: Midway
  • Release Date: Jun 25, 2007
User Score
3.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 47 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 47
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 47
  3. Negative: 33 out of 47
Buy Now
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
view
per page
  1. AlexM.
    Jul 6, 2007
    1
    More like ..."hours of agony"
  2. JohnDoe
    Feb 14, 2008
    0
    In my mind I made up so many insults to it...but really,it's just the worst game ever.Avoid,and may it be buried and forgotten.
  3. AaronOlstead
    Apr 11, 2013
    9
    I really enjoy ww2 fps games and this was no exception. The graphics are competitive, gameplay is realistic, tactical exploitation is available, and there is much weapon diversity. Great game for all, especially if you enjoy Call of Duty or the like.
  4. DanE.
    Mar 5, 2009
    8
    1!? How pathetic. It always makes me laugh how people pretend they can distinguish between these FPS'. If it had "call of duty" on the front of the case, everybody would be banging on about how amazing it is when in reality take the sticker off and there the same. Bang, bang, your dead! Its not crap; there is nothing wrong with it. Its just more of the same, just as Halo is and just 1!? How pathetic. It always makes me laugh how people pretend they can distinguish between these FPS'. If it had "call of duty" on the front of the case, everybody would be banging on about how amazing it is when in reality take the sticker off and there the same. Bang, bang, your dead! Its not crap; there is nothing wrong with it. Its just more of the same, just as Halo is and just as Killzone is. (And its level are better designed than both of them actually)… Expand
  5. MiguelG.
    Jun 29, 2007
    9
    Great fun. When a game is good it never gets old. Jump In!
  6. FPSMaster
    Jul 9, 2007
    7
    I understand the demo was pretty bad, and I understnad how quickly word gets spread across message boards about how bad a game is causing others to say the same without even playing a game, but what I don't understand is how this fun BUT average game is being rated many points lower than it should be. It feels like old school first person shooters, which I and many other veteran I understand the demo was pretty bad, and I understnad how quickly word gets spread across message boards about how bad a game is causing others to say the same without even playing a game, but what I don't understand is how this fun BUT average game is being rated many points lower than it should be. It feels like old school first person shooters, which I and many other veteran gamers like and still want to play. We may not want to pay $60 for them, but still. A cross between Call of Duty and Return to Castle Wolfenstein would be a perfect assessment of this game (wait till you get to the sewers and you'll see what I mean). The aiming is a little weird, the graphics leave something to be desired and the A.I. is not the smartest, but this is how every old school FPS played for a few years. You can look at that and say it is too old school and things have changed too much for a game like this to exist now, but I look at it like the cup is half full, not half empty. Once the controls are mastered (which takes a couple of levels of playing), this shoot 'em up turns into some fun just spraying everything like we used to in games like Wolfenstein and the first Medal of Honor when A.I. was nothing more than cannon fodder. The graphics are not the best, but there are some Unreal Engine 3 features that show up now and then like the blur in the distance and the water running down walls in the sewers that's eerily similar to that in the raining level of Gears, just not as pronounced and overdone. The sound is good, but the weapons don't sound much like the real thing and the weapon models are not accurate, I'll give you that. The A.I. will appear in front of you, but that's the point: It sometimes knows you're there when you are completely stealthy, so they're not always as dumb as everyone is making them out to be. This game gives you some fun, easy kills and mindless killing along with easy achievments until the next overly serious game comes out and gets you stuck at every checkpoint frustrating you making you trade it in in disgust anyway (like Dead Rising). I don't care what reviewers say anymore, mainly because when I look up to the right on the 360 front page here and see the top 20 games on 360, I laugh my ass off. I dislike most of them very much ( like GRAW), absolutely hate a few of them (like Dead Rising)) and the others I thought were just OK (like Gears). 9 out of 10 of those gams are being handed great reviews because of their name or past legacy (like Splinter Cell, GRAW and Oblivion), not because they're great and it seems most gamers now are of the casual market and buy into it every...single...time. I will not let someone tell me what is fun or what I should be playing anymore, and having done that I have had a few hours of old school, mindless, A.I.-less killing while the rest of you wait on another overhyped disappointment that you'll love because you're told to then hate it a week later once you see through it $60 later.… Expand
  7. MateuszL
    Feb 13, 2008
    7
    Respect for FPS Master for not being another mindless gamers who judge by the score. The game is quite fun. I played assassins creed and after three hours of repetitivnes (I know there's a story but this is going to be a trilogy and I don't want to see halo 2 style crappy cliffhanger end) I sold game. After that I finished Hov. And I've had fun.
  8. MechMarine
    Jun 26, 2011
    0
    Short Summary: Make them pay you to play it.

    Long version(rant): This game is horrible, cliche, and the multiple characters idea is horribly confusing. I still have yet to learn any valuable difference between them besides starting weapon. As you can see, most of the positive reviews are from either wannabe pros or people who always pick the opposite of the norm to be "nonconforming".    Short Summary: Make them pay you to play it.

    Long version(rant): This game is horrible, cliche, and the multiple characters idea is horribly confusing. I still have yet to learn any valuable difference between them besides starting weapon. As you can see, most of the positive reviews are from either wannabe pros or people who always pick the opposite of the norm to be "nonconforming". This game has such a lack of a fanbase that it doesn't even have a wikia. One of its entries on the Gaming wiki is a footnote, and its article on wikipedia is mainly about the negative reviews. None of this helps the game be fun. Go buy Medal of Honor: Airborne or World at War if you want to relive 2007.    … Expand
  9. Matty2012
    Apr 20, 2014
    1
    This game is about as great as shatting yourself. The only good thing about it is seeing just how bad it really is. The many glitches, bad A.I etc is simply laughable. It's like watching one of those real bad B rated films.
  10. Danksoft
    Mar 31, 2018
    10
    I liked this fps shooter of your a old games lover i recommend u get this game
  11. Aaace5
    Jun 16, 2007
    4
    This game should have never made it past the "Idea" stage. With so many quality WWII shooters on the market, the last thing we need is another one... Not to mention, one of poor quality! Everything about this game is bad to me. The controls are wacky, the enemy A.I. isn't the smartest, the environment has no emotion, and the overall experience just feels cheap. Oh and there's This game should have never made it past the "Idea" stage. With so many quality WWII shooters on the market, the last thing we need is another one... Not to mention, one of poor quality! Everything about this game is bad to me. The controls are wacky, the enemy A.I. isn't the smartest, the environment has no emotion, and the overall experience just feels cheap. Oh and there's the fact that WWII has been done to death! Almost every other developer has realized this and moved on to modern warfare, or futuristic warfare. After CoD 2 and 3... That was it! I give this game a 4 just because they tried to make a decent game.… Expand
  12. DanielJ.
    Jul 8, 2007
    0
    I wasted £40 on this game. Returning it was a great experience, but I only got £20 back. Still, £20 was better than actually having to see this game for another second.
  13. MikeD.
    Aug 7, 2007
    1
    This game is more than poor. i give it a 1 only because it adds elements long lost in the new age of gaming, like 3 different characters in the same single-player campaign being able to do different things, while it's still mediocre in this it's a good idea. the rest is crap. poor single-player experience, poor online experience. nothing redeeming there. no matter how you adjust This game is more than poor. i give it a 1 only because it adds elements long lost in the new age of gaming, like 3 different characters in the same single-player campaign being able to do different things, while it's still mediocre in this it's a good idea. the rest is crap. poor single-player experience, poor online experience. nothing redeeming there. no matter how you adjust th controls, they just never feel comfortable and accessible. it's another bad WWII game. plain and simple. and, about the"demo" comment, vegas' demo looked like total crap but the gameplay was still excellent, which in turn, caused people to still buy it and give it an incredibly high score (89 on metacritic). while some people may find enjoyment in this game, most will just loathe it. the controls are what REALLY kill it for me though. the right stick is just never accessible enough, no matter what setting you put it on, and that's the most important part of shooters.… Expand
  14. MatthewG
    Jun 10, 2008
    0
    This is seriously horrible. AI sucks, the npcs will use tommygun like a pistol. Your allies never shoot straight, the knife is the strongest weapon in the game, the sounds are horrible, the pistol sounds like a paintball gun... Bla bla bla. I could be talking the whole day about it, if you have Xbox Live, please, PLEASE, DON'T PLAY IT. I beg of you not to download it, you'll cry This is seriously horrible. AI sucks, the npcs will use tommygun like a pistol. Your allies never shoot straight, the knife is the strongest weapon in the game, the sounds are horrible, the pistol sounds like a paintball gun... Bla bla bla. I could be talking the whole day about it, if you have Xbox Live, please, PLEASE, DON'T PLAY IT. I beg of you not to download it, you'll cry and try to kill yourself because you have downloaded the demo. PLEASE. Don't. It looks UNFINISHED! Like a beta or something. Not to forget the voice acting sucks and it seems there is a player talking on the mic. Note: I only played 20 MINUTES and I REFUSE myself to touch a CD of this game again. The last time I touched it was when I broke the CD into pieces.… Expand
  15. ChrisK.
    Oct 25, 2007
    0
    Awful gameplay, buggy sounds, glitches, crashes, dumb AI, multiplayer is onriginal and still a WW II shooter. How did this game get into the market?
  16. LukasM.
    Jul 9, 2007
    1
    Have Xbox Live? Great. Just play the demo, and see how un-inspired it is
  17. TopoG
    Dec 10, 2009
    2
    Too many times is idiot. I thing that enemy intelligence is based on abnormal soldier. If yuo shoot a person, it regenerates unrealistitically. Each level should having a limited number of enemies, strategically positioned.
  18. Gregg
    Oct 16, 2007
    1
    More like Hour of Awfulness...
  19. JamesY.
    Jun 29, 2007
    0
    Possibly one of the worst games ever released for the Xbox 360, this is a broken travesty of a game. Given that there are so many decent WW2 combat games already out, it's a wonder how Midway failed to capitalize on the previous successes. I couldn't recommend this game for a rent, let alone a full retail purchase. Leave this stinker well alone.
  20. unknown
    Jul 13, 2007
    1
    Out of the million WWII games I've played, this was by far the worst. AI sucks and terribly unrealistic. The only reason I gave it a one was because of the physics and graphics.
  21. Theguyoffire
    Apr 23, 2012
    2
    This is the worst ww2 game ever made. I'd rather play Battle for the pacific. The gameplay is unfinished. The graphics look like late ps2 or Xbox 1 graphics, its a generic buggy mess. The controls are horrendous. Everything about Hour of Agony Is horrible. One of the worst game this generation. Worse then Rogue warrior. Please do not buy this hilarious excuse for a game.
  22. Mills117
    Jan 29, 2013
    6
    This game is not that bad, if you like WWII first person shooters, have played all the big names, and are just looking for something to have some fun with, HOV will fill that roll. Right now it is sitting in a bargain bin near you and is worth the $4 price tag. Just don't go in expecting call of duty and you will have a good time with this one.
  23. Calta
    Jan 19, 2014
    5
    This game was ok. I beat it. I only got it for 2 dollars so I couldn't pass it up. One thing is that the graphics and terrible in this game. But it's an old game so oh we'll.
  24. bilbyc0m
    Mar 8, 2017
    5
    Hour of Victory is an absolute mess of a game, with numerous glitches, clunky game play, awful graphics and cheesy cut scenes. Despite this I still had fun playing this game for its arcade like game play and light tone. There were also some moments in the story so cheesy, it was worth laughing at. The game does have one significant redeeming and innovative quality which is worthHour of Victory is an absolute mess of a game, with numerous glitches, clunky game play, awful graphics and cheesy cut scenes. Despite this I still had fun playing this game for its arcade like game play and light tone. There were also some moments in the story so cheesy, it was worth laughing at. The game does have one significant redeeming and innovative quality which is worth mentioning, and that is the ability to select one of 3 characters each with a specific weapon, skill and strength. A sniper, a General and a character known for Stealth. The achievements are fun and very progressive with the story line. I overall did enjoy Hour of Victory but I can recognise how poorly designed the game was. Its fun for a little while, but lacks longevity.… Expand
  25. pootisman420
    Dec 5, 2021
    0
    How can there be a WW2 shooter without blood or swastikas? And it was released in 2007, when WW2 shooters weren't afraid to show dismemberment and Nazi imagery!
    Also constant 10 frames/second, bad voice acting, a boss that takes 5 million magazines to kill.

Awards & Rankings

44
#44 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2007
85
#85 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
37

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 33
  3. Negative: 26 out of 33
  1. TeamXbox
    48
    Technically unsound, with many glitches; some of them major. Playable characters with individualized skill sets is a cool concept. Multiplayer is, well, WWII multiplayer.
    Read full review
  2. GameSpot
    20
    Hour of Victory is practically broken and has no business being on shelves in its current state.
    Read full review
  3. IGN
    57
    Nothing more than a poor knock-off of Call of Duty. It’s hardly worth your time. Though, if you don’t mind the weak AI and boring level design, you can probably get a few moments of joy from Hour of Victory. Like when you return it to EB for store credit. That sure put a smile on my face.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »