- Publisher: Activision
- Release Date: Jun 18, 2003
- Also On: PC
Buy Now
| Buy on |
|
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
Official Xbox MagazineA case of Jekyll and Hyde. Single player isn't bad, but the multiplayer is head and shoulders cooler than than the PC version, thanks largely to the clever use of the Xbox Communicator. [June 2003, p.76]
-
Game InformerAny game with 55 single-player missions is worth checking out. Add to that equation Double Helix's excellent graphical system and blistering gameplay and you've got a hit on your hands. [July 2003, p.116]
-
Sometimes enemies take time to notice you, but once they do, the A.I. is fairly impressive.
-
This is a very traditional realistic FPS, lacking in any serious innovation, relying on the same gameplay that's worked before. However, ultimately, I found it a bit boring.
-
Rather disappointing. A lot of the strategic edge has been stripped away from the gameplay and there is no new content or bonus features to entice PC gamers to reinvest in a new copy.
-
It does lose points for omitting variety within its multiplayer setup.
-
Sadly, the graphics don’t even come close to the sharp visuals of the PC version--something the Xbox could have easily replicated.
-
Play MagazineUltimately feels like it is a year old, and its technical limitations hurt the finer parts of the game. [July 2003, p.72]
-
It's got great potential, even high expectations, and in every department there is some glaring detail that cannot be overlooked. Had there been just a little more time spent with it, tweaking the small things here and there, it could have been a surefire hit.
-
Comes up shooting blanks with a very mediocre adaptation that has few redeemable features outside its strong multiplayer Xbox Live presence.
-
GMR MagazineThe bad news is this: The game's graphics look dated. Most characters are blocky and reek of a poor PC port job. And Xbox Live support...needs an overhaul. [Aug 2003, p.74]
-
An example to developers the world over that just because there is gratuitous violence, the game is not necessarily a winner. A great PC title can still flop on the Xbox, even with the addition of Live gameplay.
-
Are we operating under regulation Xbox parameters here? Visually speaking, everything's bland, blocky, and the visibility is poor. The game is not pretty. Enemy movements are sluggish as if they're suffering from joint pain as they fire at you.
-
When you have "Halo" and "Ghost Recon" in your library, there's little reason to spend $50 bucks on a very average shooter with sub-standard Xbox graphics.
-
GameNowAlthough SOF2 is ultimately just disposable entertainment - the kind of game you'll forget about minutes after beating it. [Aug 2003, p.33]
-
With lengthy load times, rare slowdown, the occasional clipping problem and an imperfect graphics engine, the basic "corridor shooter" feel of the single player mode can be bogged down and even become tedious to some.
-
Electronic Gaming MonthlyFortune II doesn't have the same visual polish or addictive team-based onlne play of ["Return to Castle Wolfenstein"]. [Aug 2003, p.112]
-
In simple terms, this game was brought to the Xbox unpolished, incomplete, and unready. There’s plenty to go through in SoF2, but it’s too bland and it isn’t worth spending numerous hours trying to complete.
-
Even the overdone gore isn't realistic enough for the morally unhinged. It's a lackluster experience and part-time embarrassment to the hardware potential of this game system.
-
The poor graphics and ho-hum gameplay really killed any chance this game had to compete with the fantastic games arriving this summer. Even Xbox Live compatibility couldn't rescue it from the realm of inadequacy.
-
Double Helix doesn't do anything that hasn't already been done better in Activision's own Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
-
Cheat Code CentralSOF II is not much more than a glorified, or should I say, gore-ified shooting gallery. It's not unlike "House of the Dead" only less exciting.
-
Combine a quickly aging game with a sloppy porting process and you have a lackluster game that can only claim high amounts of gore as a selling feature, although even that comes off flat.
-
Just when I thought I might be able to get back into the FPS mix, I feel like I’m drowning in these poor games instead. Your best bet is to just stay away and wait for some originality to poke it’s head out.
-
Xbox Nation MagazineThis is as stock and uninteresting as it gets, nothing more than the staple prescripted key/switch hunt you've already seen 100 times. [Aug 2003, p.77]
-
Relentless FPS overlords might find their pulses raised briefly by the thought of endless, generic shooting and violence, but the rest of you would be well advised to direct your time and money elsewhere.
Awards & Rankings
|
53
|
#53 Most Discussed Xbox Game of 2003
|
|
61
|
#61 Most Shared Xbox Game of 2003
|
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 8 out of 15
-
Mixed: 1 out of 15
-
Negative: 6 out of 15
-
Aug 17, 2021
-
May 21, 2020
-
BlueFalconJul 30, 2005This is the worst 1st person shooter I've ever played. The graphics are very sub par, but it's also really simple and boring.