...if the reviewers will find PS2 an improvement over its original.
As different as this game is from PS1, the original 2003 reviews show some surprising similarities to what you can expect from PS2. Which makes me wonder how they will rate this game compared to PS1. Some snippets from 2003 reviews:
Gamespot (7.9)
"Basically, you'll encounter a surprising amount of inactivity--especially for a game that's supposed to be a fast-paced first-person shooter--as you wait for everyone to assemble"
IGN (7.7)
"After playing quite a few hours, I'm just uninterested about what happens next. I leave the game when my side has three continents almost locked up and then come back two hours later to see that all three are gone and one of them is someone else's completely. It's a frustrating, hopeless, and altogether meaningless struggle."
Eurogamer (7)
"For a persistent world, it's just not very persistent, and the lack of anything to explore or do beyond shooting wildly at the enemy and swapping bases once a day begins to grate after a while. It would be nice to envisage winning someday."
Most of the reviewers seem to have the same positives and negatives with PS1 that will probably apply to PS2 with a few notable exceptions, the biggest one probably being that PS1 appeared to be a lot more buggy and less stable at launch.
Anyway,
PS1 received a solid 8.1 at Metacritic and I expect PS2 in its current state to score around the same, maybe slightly higher.
2012-11-19, 07:53 PM
Threaded Mode