Battlefield 2 gets a 8.9 from IGN

[StrifeSnake13*]

IGN.com gave Battlefield 2 for the PC a total score of 8.9 in their review,

The thing to remember about Battlefield 2 is that it's exceptionally fun. There are most definitely some things that need some improvement, but that certainly isn't going to keep the game from owning our lives for a good long while. Anybody that was a fan of Battlefield before will have a great reason to renew their love affair when the game is released early this week.
BF2 Review (http://pc.ign.com/articles/627/627218p1.html)

[LilAbner]

Woah, that's low when you consider the site reviewing it........

[Hijinx]

This is one game that I don't really care what it gets in the way of scores. I have really enjoyed the demo and I was a huge fan of BF1942.

[Chagrinful]

Doesn't really matter what they score the game as, it's going to suck ass because of its nature, servers filled with ALOT of fucktards that don't know how to put on their socks, running rampant, TKing each other. So I'm going to skip BF2, it wasn't all that interesting anyway, alot of what I hear is it's like that mod for Bf 1942, only with a bit more polish, ah well.

[Heretic Machine]

Hated Battlefield's crappy physics, and I'm sure I'd hate this just as much... Of course, the last WWII shooter I enjoyed was Medal of Honor: Allied Assault...

[thecrazyd]

Holy shit. That article is terrible. They give graphics an 8.5? The hell?

[Deadend]

Well... the graphics are nice... but considering the performance demands and what you get compared to HL2 or even Guild Wars (which may be the preetiest PC game) it's a bit disapointing.

I kinda like the game, I will eventully have a copy... just have to resist the urge to own it.

[trip1eX]

They call it exceptionally fun, but give it a 8.9. Go figure.

Score Schmoor indeed.

[VYPUR]

I love the game.

[thecrazyd]

Guild Wars the prettiest PC game? What the hell?

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Oh, god no! It only got an 8.9.

[Royal Fool]

Considering the flaws they mention, that 8.9 is not a very realistic score to end the review with.

[Goronmon]

I wish they would just throw out the 10 point scale. All they need is 4 scores. No fun, Somewhat fun, fun, and Lotsa fun. I mean, anything more specific then that and you make it too confusing, and it just leads to arguments over why one game deserved .1 points higher than another.

[StrifeSnake13*]

The day game sites add in the "fun" score will be a great day. Games could be really really good but if it's not enjoyable then it's not really a good game IMO.

[thecrazyd]

Oh, god no! It only got an 8.9.
From IGN. IGN generally scales on a 9-10 range. More respectable sites generally judge on a 7-10 range.

[Hizawky]

I loved the demo, but one thing I learned from the IGN review: I hope I like fighting in the fucking desert every map.

[if76]

I agree with IGN that the commander mode is pretty halfbaked. You can only send squads in a straight line. You can only send squads as a whole and when I played half of the people weren't even in squads so I had no control over them.

Furthermore when using the map you can't tell what units are what; they all look like little white and green circles. You have the option of zooming in close but then you have to painfully click around the screen because for some reason dragging the cursor isn't allowed. Also in this upclose mode you have no idea who's selected unless you are positioned over them.

I agree that just giving the player a straightup RTS interface with selection boxes, hotgroups and waypoints would be awesome. Is this really so hard to program? I don't think it is so why does no online FPS have this?

[sebastard]

Well since EA and IGN/Gamespy have a profit-sharing agreement in place for sales of Gamespy Arcade (there is no other way to explain the busted and absolutely unacceptable in-game browser), I wouldn't have expected any less from their review.

[Phades]

I agree with IGN that the commander mode is pretty halfbaked. You can only send squads in a straight line. You can only send squads as a whole and when I played half of the people weren't even in squads so I had no control over them.

Furthermore when using the map you can't tell what units are what; they all look like little white and green circles. You have the option of zooming in close but then you have to painfully click around the screen because for some reason dragging the cursor isn't allowed. Also in this upclose mode you have no idea who's selected unless you are positioned over them.

I agree that just giving the player a straightup RTS interface with selection boxes, hotgroups and waypoints would be awesome. Is this really so hard to program? I don't think it is so why does no online FPS have this?

You can actually use the wasd controls to scroll around the map and that works quite well. Just thought I'd let you know.

[Phades]

I wish they would just throw out the 10 point scale. All they need is 4 scores. No fun, Somewhat fun, fun, and Lotsa fun. I mean, anything more specific then that and you make it too confusing, and it just leads to arguments over why one game deserved .1 points higher than another.

I agree with you which is why I like Gamespy's scale. May not be a great site, but I like their scoring system.

[Orphiuchus]

8.5 presentation? Yea, IGN sucks.

[KarmaGhost]

I've been playing the Desert Combat mod--- I mean, Battlefield 2 demo for a few days now. buggy as hell... i'm not so sure it's enough difference from the previous title to warrant a purchase.