[quote="General Death":a7bdf]
Quote:
Originally Posted by germ
is pacific assault really that bad?
i played the demos (sp and mp)
they seem fine. is it worst than allied assault? i didint like allied assault's lone man play though. and i hated the boring team deathmatches.
i think invader mode adds flavor, and the whole ironsight deal is great. plus less run and gun(well sometimes)
|
Just make sure you read
ALL of the reviews out on the interent about it. The typical responses I have seen and should not be taken into account:
Q: Why are the maps full of jungles and islands?
A: The game is called
"Pacific Assault"...welcome to the pacific theater.
Q: Why wont this game support 32mb geforce2 cards or my 400mhz CPU?
A: You bought a game developed in 2003-2004. Welcome to the world of gaming.
Most of the people hate the game because its not set in Europe, does not run on an outdated PC, and they hate EA. The bad part is they know these well before they download a demo or buy the game.
They really only "bad" part with the game is there is still no linux server support. We have told EALA they are long past due on these.

[/quote:a7bdf]
And WHY do people hate EA? They don't like their games. All EA seems to care about is money. They have a lack of support for the games they release. They are trying to buy out other gaming companies so they may forward on their mediocre, greedy strategies of producing games.
THAT is why people dislike EA, and their games. I doubt any of the reasons you listed, IE, that the maps are "full of jungles and islands", have anything to do with the fact that people dislike the game.
All the reviews I've read about the game said basically the same thing. Pacific Assault lacks the quality gamers have come to expect, and that PA could have been a lot better.
So, PA is mediocre; People seem to claim it is one of the best games they've ever played, others say it was one of the worst. The range of the reviews would be smaller if EA had developed a better game, and they alone are at fault for that.