Battlefield 2: Modern Combat PlayStation 2

User Score
8.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 65 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 50 out of 65
  2. Negative: 6 out of 65
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. KlausFeerontak
    May 8, 2006
    5
    The reoson why I gave this game a 5/10 and not 1 10/10 is beacause the campaigne mode sucked big. The gameplay 10/10, sounds 10/10 multiplayer 10/10 but campaign mode -8/10. The campaign was so bloody short. I finished it in like 3 hours! It even took me longer to finish sly racoon! What also sucks is that it has no offline muliplayer what the ****?! And as usuall it has the typical storyThe reoson why I gave this game a 5/10 and not 1 10/10 is beacause the campaigne mode sucked big. The gameplay 10/10, sounds 10/10 multiplayer 10/10 but campaign mode -8/10. The campaign was so bloody short. I finished it in like 3 hours! It even took me longer to finish sly racoon! What also sucks is that it has no offline muliplayer what the ****?! And as usuall it has the typical story about a war going on with Asia and America zzzzzzzz. Even though you can use other military types like EU and MEC, you can only use it in multiplayer BOOOOOOO! The game needs a lot of work. Buy the Pc version instead (highly advised)! Expand
  2. ReviewerReviever
    Jan 31, 2006
    7
    This game coul have been better. The graphics suck the campeign mode sucks, but the online mode is good, the 360 version should be a lot better.
  3. PjotrK.
    Dec 31, 2005
    7
    Nice enough game. Graphics are not bad. Sounds are doable. Does lack the "mercenaries" ability to destroy anything anywhere which really is a big minus. Lots and lots of gameplay it seems, which is always refreshing to see. To may games only offer a mission or 10, if that, and hope that because of some good looking cut scenes the public will fork out 60-70-80 bucks to play a game that Nice enough game. Graphics are not bad. Sounds are doable. Does lack the "mercenaries" ability to destroy anything anywhere which really is a big minus. Lots and lots of gameplay it seems, which is always refreshing to see. To may games only offer a mission or 10, if that, and hope that because of some good looking cut scenes the public will fork out 60-70-80 bucks to play a game that takes less than half a day to play from start to finish. The extremely overrated "God of War" springs to mind. This game with it's 200 missions doesn't have that problem. It does have a big problem though in that some of the missions are just not impossible to do. In other words that you have to play a mission over and over and over because it all depends on getting one thing done in a ridiculous timeframe. Another big error is the random respawning of enemies in the single player mode. which leads to sometimes actually seeing enemies appear out of thin air right before you, if you're lucky, or right behind you, if you aren't lucky. Online it doesn't force players to actually work as a team so this leads to the kiddies who just want to rake up frags and can't be bothered to actually play as a team. In short, a nice game. Gives at times one a better feeling of what it's like to be in a war then the MOH series and on top give one huge amount of missions to play with a nice storyline and cutscenes. Expand
  4. [Anonymous]
    Jan 17, 2006
    7
    Pretty good game, but mared by terrible chopper controls and heaving chunks frame rate when it gets hectic. Go for the PC version if you can.
  5. SamF.
    Sep 26, 2006
    7
    Not a bad game actually. Glad to see the control points are gone and replaced with objectives but things like enemies spaning in front of you takes away from this game.
  6. Feb 6, 2015
    5
    This game is just so average, the campaign was great but Multiplayer had some very negative aspects to it.
    The connection & lag were the biggest issues with online gameplay, Brazilians and Japanese had a distinct advantage if you lived in Europe or somewhere further away because of the slight delay since it's only a 2005 game that has awful connection compared to nowadays. You'd be
    This game is just so average, the campaign was great but Multiplayer had some very negative aspects to it.
    The connection & lag were the biggest issues with online gameplay, Brazilians and Japanese had a distinct advantage if you lived in Europe or somewhere further away because of the slight delay since it's only a 2005 game that has awful connection compared to nowadays. You'd be putting an entire mag of bullets into people and they'd kill you easily with only 3 shots, the delay was horrifyingly bad.
    Campaign was good though.
    Expand

Awards & Rankings

#25 Most Discussed PS2 Game of 2005
Metascore
80

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 42
  2. Negative: 0 out of 42
  1. 85
    We really like the new singleplayer mode. Though the AI is a bit too ambitious (because it'll run forward to its death at all times), the emphasis on shooting down large waves of enemies within the confines of some taxing mission of high priority is pretty exciting, especially considering how diverse our arsenals are and how varied the enemy's attacks can be.
  2. 80
    The game has all the things that have made "Battlefield" a PC favorite. In particular, the vehicles work well, maybe even better with the controller. Flying a helicopter with two sticks feels natural and the ground vehicles, like tanks and humvees, are a snap.
  3. There's a lot more to war than just moving about shooting at the enemy. Fortunately Battlefield 2 ignores that fact and gives us action junkies just what we crave.