Ice Nine Game Boy Advance

User Score
6.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 6 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 6
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 6
  3. Negative: 3 out of 6
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. XDCC
    Oct 3, 2005
    3
    This game is bad. This game will give us duty. I don't play the game that includes duty. Do not buy this game or You will become lost feelings.
  2. SergioS.
    Apr 19, 2004
    4
    I had been waiting for this game for almost one year, and I couldn't be more disappointed. The graphical engine is not bad, but not much better than the ones used in Duke or Doom II, with just a few additions, such a snipper rifle. But when we come to gameplay is where Ice Nine completely fails. You have to complete the missions in a very structured manner, and can be killed at any I had been waiting for this game for almost one year, and I couldn't be more disappointed. The graphical engine is not bad, but not much better than the ones used in Duke or Doom II, with just a few additions, such a snipper rifle. But when we come to gameplay is where Ice Nine completely fails. You have to complete the missions in a very structured manner, and can be killed at any moment for such a stupis reason as "a civil has seen your weapon". Come on, just unbearable. Forget about Ice Nine. Not worthy even for rental. Expand
Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 3 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 3
  2. Negative: 2 out of 3
  1. While Ice Nine is based on the "Duke Nukem Advance" engine, it doesn't offer the wit or intelligence (or shooting accuracy) of its precursor. [Apr 2004, p.110]
  2. Nintendo Power
    58
    Offering 10 weapons and gadgets, including night-vision goggles, the game is a strong entry in the growing library of GBA FPS titles. [July 2003, p.146]
  3. Pocket Games
    40
    Being 3D isn't impressive for its own sake anymore. [Spring 2005, p.77]