View Full Version : Media Reviews

05-22-2012, 11:18 AM
IGN posted their review. (They also stated the SP is roughly 10 hours, pretty decent for a shooter these days.)


They scored it a 8.5 / 10

Play Future Soldier as you would Call of Duty or Battlefield and you won’t last long. It’s a punishing game in some respects, and you cannot stand out in the open and expect to survive for more than a few seconds. It forces you to think strategically, to plan ahead and use cover at all times. Often the best option is to take down the enemy one by one, carefully considering your next target in order to prevent a patrolling guard from stumbling over a dead body and raising the alarm. And sometimes the best route is to not fire a single shot at all, but to move silently to your objective without the enemy realising you’re even there.

For those who like Co-op.

Co-op as a whole is a superb addition to the Future Soldier package. The entire campaign is playable with four people and some missions feel very different when playing with friends than they do alone. There’s also the added challenge of survival – you always know your back is covered if you take a bullet in single-player, but in co-op if you accidentally leave one guy to die it’s game over.

About MP.

Even the straight-forward deathmatch feels unique, because elements of the single-player game are carried over. Individually you don’t have all the gear at your disposal – only a scout is blessed with adaptive camo and sensor grenades for example, so although they’re poorly armoured, they provide invaluable intel on the enemy’s position. It encourages players to work as a team, and while the same can be said for most multiplayer shooters, in this case it definitely feels like an extension of the campaign than a last-minute add-on.

05-22-2012, 11:24 AM
From Gamespot

7.5 / 10


The Good
Pleasing sync shot mechanic
Lengthy campaign is great in both solo play and co-op
Enjoyable competitive multiplayer modes.

The Bad
Numerous AI oddities
Unremarkable firefights.

I'll take exception to the "unremarkable firefights". This is not CoD, it's slower paced and you need to think your way through it. There is no run N' gun in this game.

05-22-2012, 03:56 PM
Game Informer 7.5

Written by a CoD try hard.


You can not compare a Tom Clancy game to other shooters, it's night and day.

05-22-2012, 08:01 PM
Yeah, I pretty much agree with those first two reviews, although the description of the game makes it sound better than the number they give it at the end.

Maybe I'm getting old and cranky, but I don't need new shizz in my FPS games, so when reviewers complain that its "stale" I'm not always sure what they're looking for. What would make it fresh? The sync shots seem to be a new mechanic, but maybe its not fresh enough.

Just give me a darn game that works out of the box and is fun to play with my friends and I'll run with it for months, if not years (in BC2's case). I don't recall that game doing anything new but it was the best multiplayer FPS ever, IMHO.

05-22-2012, 09:40 PM
It's funny that the complaints have been "stale" and "dated graphics".

As you said Scrapps, the sync shot is pretty cool. CoD games get damn near perfect scores and barely anything has changed in 5 years. The game has decent SP, multiple co-op options and fleshed out MP. What the hell more do you want? Not very many games give you the chance to play the campaign in co-op with 4 people.

Graphics? I know they are not the best, but they are pretty damn good. The snow level was fantastic. The movement and animation is smooth and works really well. Taking a lesson from the Gears of War cover system was a brilliant idea. I know the movement can get confusing sometimes but that generally happens when you find yourself going to a run & gun style.

The game is not without flaws (controller layout options) but the flaws are very few. The biggest complaint I've heard is they don't have options for controller configuration. That does suck, but honestly, I think the layout is really simple and effective.

I've been waiting for this game for almost 3 years. If any game could fall for the over hype and expectations for me, this is it. I love it.

Some of the reviews definitely don't reflect their scores. I thought after reading the content from Gamespot they were going to score it a 9. The Game Informer review almost seemed like he was trying to find excuses to make it bad.

05-23-2012, 06:43 AM
I get tired of the graphics complaints too, not just with this game. These consoles are fairly old at this point and there's a limit to what they can do. The differences betwwen this game, COD, BF3, heck even BC2 are minor to my eyes.

05-23-2012, 07:37 AM
I'm starting to think there is some truth to the continued rumors that Activision either pays reviewers for good reviews, or threatens to not send them early copies of COD games (which would have a huge impact on that reviewers advertising revenue) if they give their games a low score, because you see a game like this that IGN says in their review is "a welcome change of pace" from the unimaginative shooters that keep getting released (read: COD) yet MW3 gets higher marks, and then you have GameInformer mark this game down for "lack of innovation" and "dated graphics" yet they also gave MW3 a great review when both those criticisms are often (correctly) directed at COD games.

Don't get me wrong, I like COD games, but if you are going to slam a non-COD game for lack of innovation and dated graphics, or alternatively praise a non-COD game as being a welcome change of pace, yet the most recent COD game doesn't get marked down for the same things then I have to call shenanigans.

05-24-2012, 08:22 PM
Good review from the Guardian:


Although where in the hell he gets the idea that the SP is 30 hours long is beyond me.