User Score
6.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 13 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 13
  2. Negative: 4 out of 13

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. ChrisM.
    Jan 1, 2004
    4
    After the travesty that was Frontline you would think EA might get it right this time. Sadly that's not the case. It's linear levels all the way here. The AI is also extremely dodgey. I would take up a whole page outlining this games problems so I'll just stop there.
  2. CrowNest
    Feb 14, 2004
    0
    The mechanics of this games just plain suck. you spend more time and effort just trying to run than you do accomplishing your objectives. the game had me completely pissed off within 10 minutes. spend the $50 on a good hammer and hit yourself with it. it'll be more fun than this piece od crap!
  3. lala
    Jan 27, 2004
    0
    The first level is great but the others are boring and no action.
Metascore
68

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 24
  2. Negative: 1 out of 24
  1. As awe-inspiring and grandiose as the Pearl Harbor level is, it's still just a rail shooter. The missions are uneven, ranging from uninspired "stealth" levels to well-designed artillery raids.
  2. On retreading the levels enemy attacks become predictable puppet shows, with mad-eyed soldiers lining up to get killed exactly where they did many times before. It's the kind of repetition more commonly associated with lightgun games these days. [Christmas 2003, p.109]
  3. We were disappointed when "Frontline" failed to take advantage of its World War II settings, but it's galling to see that EA still hasn't got it right with Rising Sun. If there's ever a case against World War III, then surely this is it. [Christmas 2003, p.100]