The fact that it doesn't use uPlay should encourage you to buy the game alone.

It's not the best PC port, but it is a great game nonetheless.
It doesn't have quick save option. It uses checkpoint save system that is quite generous.
It doesn't have FOV slider and some other common graphical options are missing too, but most of those can be tweaked. The biggest gripe I personally had was micro-stuttering, but it can also be fixed with some tinkering.
Just check PcGamingWiki page for this game if you are interested in buying it:
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Call_of_Juarez:_Gunslinger#Issues_fixed
Gunslinger runs well with no FPS drops on mid range machines and with these fixes it's really a smooth experience.

Thanks for clearing that up, I won't buy this then. I don't mind tweaking classic games but I won't waste my time or money on second rate ports.

A real shame certain developers still can't be bothered to include these basic options, it takes minutes to code this (essential) stuff.

This is not a "second rate port", and there isn't any tweaking necessary. The game runs and plays great.

And btw, not every game needs a long list of graphical settings. That always depends on the look and art style of the game. If you expect games to have every graphical setting imaginable, you won't find anything to play at all.

Saying you won't buy great game such as this because you would need to go to some ini file to change FOV with one number only makes you come across as lazy and dumb.

I hate bad ports and low unchangable FOV, but this is neither (That would be for example CoD Ghosts - bad port where you need to hack FOV with 3rd party tool). And this game was released for like 15 bucks, when many ports for 60 are way worse.

Also quick save is design choice as much as functional choice and mouse accelation can be disabled.

The host would be right in his reasoning if it wasn't the case that all titles which include all options named are actually absolute ♥♥♥♥. (post 1999)