PDA

View Full Version : 2/10 from Gamespot! What the F***!


Zombieslayer42
01-07-2008, 09:23 PM
I thought this game was a lot better than civil war. And they give Civil War like a 4 or something. Sure there's a crapload of things wrong with these games, but Battle For The Pacific is much better.

Scotian Bred
01-08-2008, 04:19 PM
I thought this game was a lot better than civil war. And they give Civil War like a 4 or something. Sure there's a crapload of things wrong with these games, but Battle For The Pacific is much better.
It recieved a 2 no doubt because the Campaign is so damn short ( 2 1/2 - 3hrs).. thats my two cents. I'd give it a 2/10 for that reason as well.

xRogue 5x
01-08-2008, 04:29 PM
Never put much stock in review numbers especially from Gamespot and especially after Gerstmanngate.

sgt Bill Doe
04-02-2008, 10:13 PM
it is one hell of a crappy game though!!

Alfman1
05-08-2008, 02:17 PM
still... 2/10?? They gave The Golden Compass 4.5 and that is the worst game i have EVER played.

boofarama
09-14-2008, 08:55 PM
golden compass does suck this gamee is a lot better

SPRAYandPREYcom
01-06-2009, 01:18 PM
its at least a 2.5..

its a good one time run through on hard setting a quick 500 points :woop:

once again no one online...

EOU Findub
01-12-2009, 09:31 PM
Ummm, this deserved a 1. Online is horrible. Campaign is glitchy, short and TERRIBLE. Civil War, I actually enjoyed playing. The guns sound horrible and the enemies are idiots. The "Hard" mode in this game is playing easy/medium on any CoD game.

Terrin
01-21-2009, 02:56 PM
Gamespot reviews are skitchy because its just one persons opininon and its better then that, but at gamespot its not about the game its abut how much you can bribe them.

martnic
02-11-2009, 10:17 PM
Just got round to getting this on rental and 3 hours later sending it back.

Easy 460 points but not a great game by a long way, it actually looks great but the game play is very poor.
At least it's better than Hour of Victory!!!!!!!

bigquackster
03-17-2009, 02:28 PM
well i think it deserves a 5/10 just because i find it fun to play.
this game is way better than hour of victory and civil war

Thorpe
04-26-2009, 02:07 PM
Two hours is long enough for a crappy game.

SpeakDoggYo
05-03-2009, 11:04 PM
This game is pretty terrible. I feel like every level asks you to accomplish the same tasks, the placement of enemies is horrible (and yes they are idiots), and it seems like you are constantly gaining ground just to turn around and go back to where you came from. I also find it obnoxious to have the commanding officer constantly screaming to follow him. The worst part is that they made so many of the achievements online and there isnt anyone online to play.

Not only is getting the online achievements "legit" not an option, but boosting them is incredibly boring. I finished both Civil War games and thought both of them were better than this game.

gameprsn
07-18-2013, 02:03 AM
I give this game 3/10 (maybe 2.5/10 if you consider the fact that I'm biased toward these types of history games). I own all 5 History Channel games for Xbox 360 and this one was the worst.

The biggest complaint I had with this game was the fact that all of the missions are too similar. More than half of them take place in the same generic looking jungle environment and the objectives of every mission are basically the same. Got no sense of variety throughout the whole game.

I also thought the "following orders" part of the gameplay was lame and the fact that your AI squadmates can pretty much complete the mission for you was dumb. Also don't like how the majority of achievements are online yet this game never really had an online community. I think the developers should have known this and made most, if not all, the achievements attainable in SP.

The only thing this game had going for it was the graphics. The graphics were solid by 360 standards and were actually the best out of all 5 History Channel games. I actually did have fun playing this game, since I'm a big History Channel fan.