Negative Gamer Review: Battlefield 1943

NG writes:

"The game is classic Battlefield and more of a remake than a sequel. Annoying game mechanics and a small amount of content make it very understandable why the game has a budget price tag. With its over reliance on team work and an inability to customise your classes the game's fun crumbles away unless you have friends to help you. But if you're the kind of gamer to have friends you play with regularly, you're probably already playing a better game."

Final score: -8 (-8 out of -10)

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
wardrox3212d ago

To be clear the game got a -8, which as NG uses a 0 to -10 scale, equates to about a 2.

glennc3212d ago

he missed the most important part and probably lacks the ability anyway... FUN. you take the good with the bad when you are having that much fun.

more than likely the guy just sucked badly at the game

what the hell does this mean... "The game, as with most World War games, trivialises war. Even more so than usual as there isn’t a hint at plot or repercussions of any kind. The World War setting could easily be replaced with anything else."

it's a damn fckng online multiplayer video game what did he expect. i know the title of the website is negative gamer but at least make your reviews funny if they are going to be a negative POS. thanks for wasting my time douchebag.

and this... "You should play this game if…you want to spend your money on a game you have already played."
What game? since when did 1942 or even COD have destructible environments. that IS the game changer IMO and only a matter of time before more developers(COD)will implement.

review of the review: 2/10