User Score
2.3 out of 10

Generally unfavorable- based on 11 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 11
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 11
  3. Negative: 9 out of 11

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. May 9, 2011
    0
    Dear Stupid person who actually wants to buy this piece of bullsh*t. Go to the mirror and look at yourself, is this who you want to be? Someone who likes extremely crappy history tie ins? If don't want to be this anymore, I'm glad not so stupid person anymore, but if still want the game, continue reading. Now let's start at presentation, hmmm not so bad for this crap oh wait what's this are my dead foes floating a couple of inches of the ground? Crap. Ok now let's go to gameplay, Ok what's this? I press R2 and L2 to aim and shoot and L1 and R1 to throw grenades? And the aiming sucks because you don't even use sights and there is still a crosshair!! So what's the point of aiming when you can have crosshairs while using hipshots and you move faster! Crap. Now let's skip story because the game sucked so much that I didn't want to beat it. So that's it for this review and I think you Ex-Future buyers are spending your hard earned money on something better now, and that's good. Expand
Metascore

Generally unfavorable - based on 7 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 7
  3. Negative: 7 out of 7
  1. Ultimately, though, the biggest blow against the game is its brevity. You shouldn't have trouble clearing its single-player mode in two or three hours.
  2. 45
    The History Channel: Battle for the Pacific isn't necessarily an atrocious game, but it just isn't that fun and brings so very little to the table.
  3. Battle for the Pacific brings zilch to an already overstuffed corner of the market. Don't let the discounted price or the The History Channel branding fool you, the game is a poor attempt at historical immersion.