Top critical review
5 people found this helpful
on July 31, 2010
"Disappointing" sums this game up for me and I don't want to spend more time reviewing this than they spent in development. Considering the original was a decent, fun romp, I assumed they would build on the original and make it even more fun. They didn't. They took the same game and added a few new vehicles and zombies. (They call them "freaks" thinking we won't notice that they're just run o' the mill zombies.) If anything, they made the game LESS fun. The zomb...er freaks aren't even a threat. You can just wade into a crowd of them and melee away endlessly without fear of dying or even stubbing a toe....and this was BEFORE I leveled up. I didn't level up far because I just couldn't find anything enjoyable about this game. They did eliminate a lot of the lag in multiplayer, which was horrible in the first game.
What the deal breaker was for me is the objectives NEVER change throughout the entire single player game. It's always the same sequence; start some power sources (mysteriously, the baddies can't figure out how to turn them off a second time), find the location to put the beacon, defend the beacon while it charges. Rinse. Repeat as necessary. After the third or forth time of doing this, I asked myself "why do they drop a beacon before it's charged? Why not just hover above the location, let it charge and THEN drop it!" :o It doesn't need to be plugged in. So, why drop it early? They could save so much money on making these exceedingly expensive agents. Of course, politicians and the general "powers that be" using logic would be too unrealistic.
If I ran Pacific City, it would be a mini-game where you fly a heli around dropping beacons. With all the $$$ I saved, I could offer it on the 360 Arcade for 5 bucks and it would probably be a lot more fun than this game.