
Xbox Critic Reviews
Filter by platform
53
Metascore
Mixed or Average
positive
2(6%)
mixed
23(68%)
negative
9(26%)
Showing 34 Critic Reviews
78
Vicious Cycle did an excellent job in recreating the comic in a video game, too bad there's only one safe house to spawn from.
75
It's downright lame. It feels exactly like what it is – a cell-shaded game where you have to navigate large deathmatch maps essentially picking up "keys" in order to progress to the next level. It's loud, it's uninspired, and gets boring after a few hours.
70
If you don't have any friends over 30, the developers have kindly provided 'bots. [July 2005, p.91]
67
It's simplicity personified, and it will never be the classic that the original was, but Spy vs Spy still has that mischievous spirit to bring a childish smile to everyone's face.
65
A great little game which mirrors Mad Magazine characters perfectly. It's not groundbreaking, but it's fun, and that's the main key to remember.
64
The combat is solid, and the exaggerated spy look/feel to the game gives it an extra something that sets it apart from other combat games. However, the modes aren't varied that much, and the single-payer experience is weak at best, resulting in a title that will be a blast for a few days, and then fades to the back of a collection.
60
It's a shame Global Star didn't spend more energy on the single-player experience, or perhaps even drop the Story mode completely in favor for still more multiplayer modes and/or maps.
60
On the one hand, Spy vs. Spy is a fun, engaging, throwaway platform game that comes in at the right price. The addition of the multiplayer modes and classic game are just a bonus. On the other hand, you've got a fairly buggy and technically inferior platform game that contains just enough inventiveness to get by.
60
With a few friends (or online), you may have some fun for a time, but more than likely its clunky controls and limited offerings will quickly become a bore.
60
Overly simplistic and staged cause-and-effect do not a good Spy vs. Spy game make. [June 2005, p.56]