http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/battl … index.html
Last edited by CrimsonRaven79 (2006-10-16 20:09:33)
That in comparison to the previous incarnations it didn't rate as well.
But of course you could draw your own conclusions instead of having me spell it out to you.
But of course you could draw your own conclusions instead of having me spell it out to you.
Yeah. I guess because it's very similar to BF2 that hey didn't bump it higher.
I had a lot of fun playing BF Vietnam. Nothing as fun as flying a huey, jamming some Creedance and mugging the main spawn of the opposing team.
IMO, this review was a bit rushed.
And I haven't of that reviewer before. Must be some noob.
Needs more Greg Kasavin.
And I haven't of that reviewer before. Must be some noob.
Needs more Greg Kasavin.
WTF Is THAT?? No more North Africans?!?! What kind of Fraked up reason is that? WTF is this 2 factions non-sense? At least the weapons/vehicles per side operate differently, as opposed to BF2 where they were all clones(with a few exceptions.)GameSpot wrote:
The Bad: Only two new factions, and no more North Africans;
This entire process is a bit confusing, as it's not enough to simply unlock new items, but then you must outfit your character when you join a battle for the first time.
You're right. this is a noo review, espically as everything is streamlined, and the fraking voice over pops up on every map telling you how to customize. The noob only summarized what EA has said, I'd rather follow the PCGamer review in a month than this garbage of a review.