2. The larger the difference between your score and the score on metacritic; the more I expect you to explain yourself.
Metacritic score -- 86
Because it is in no way shape or form the "true" Battlefield 2 sequel that EA marketing made everyone believe. It is an utter devolution of the battlefield franchise and a tragic console port. If you want an even more in depth explanation go ahead and reply again.
5 was too harsh and 6 was too generous so i decided upon 5.5.
Yeah I'd like to know more specific reasons as to why you think it's so bad.
Maps are too small for 64 players ( and most maps are a straight line,clustered flags, or just poorly designed leading to boring gameplay), no voice chat options on pc, many pc-centric features present in (2,2142) got scrapped, feels like a direct sequel to bc2 not bf3, destruction worse than in bc2, no ground deformation, hardcore mode sucks, vehicle and player health regeneration, co-op sucks, singleplayer sucks,( they shouldn't have even wasted time on a coop or singleplayer ) flying vehicle physics sucks, buggy and glitched as fuck, console port, no footstep sounds present in earlier frostbite bfs, art direction fails hard, sun is too bright with annoying lens flare- makes me think my soldier has film cameras for eyeballs, requires shitty origin spyware to even play the god damn game, feels like this game is geared towards COD fans and not true BF fans, not a complex or deep multiplayer at all.
Mediocrity at its finest.Not a true BF2 sequel, hell not even a better game than BC2. Shall i say more since obviously you think i'm a troll at this point.
5.5 it stands, deal with it.