- Publisher: Activision
- Release Date: Jun 18, 2003
- Also On: PC
Buy Now
| Buy on |
|
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
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.
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.