Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 11 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 11
  2. Negative: 8 out of 11
  1. 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.
  2. There are a ton of fine shooters hitting shelves this year that are good enough to go down in history. It would be a shame to waste your money paying full price for this heap, which instead takes history down with it.
  3. Just too little and far too late. The WWII genre isn’t exactly short on titles these days nor is the FPS genre. If you plan on releasing a game in either (and especially both) you had better bring your “A” game.
  4. When a game's only achievement is that it's a better World War II shooter than "Hour of Victory"--and just barely--it's time to pack it up and just go home. [Feb 2008, p.79]
  5. 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.
  6. A black mark for the History Channel. [June 2008, p.72]
  7. World War II shooters simply don't get worse than Battle for the Pacific.
  8. As welcome as getting trench-foot. [June 2008, p.85]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 20 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 11
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 11
  3. Negative: 4 out of 11
  1. Mar 16, 2011
    this game is as close as you can get to a real life world war sim, everything from the controlls to the graphics are quite simply amazing. the gameplay is absolutely phenomenal and the pace is incredible too, this has set the bar for world war 2 shooters, one that maybe can never be matched in the near future. any call of duty fans that have not played this need to trade in their copies for this as it is an incredible piece of software.

    from bone shattering explosions to next gen set pieces, this is a game that NO first person shooter fan should avoid.
    Full Review »
  2. [Anonymous]
    Jan 29, 2008
    Activision should be ashamed releasing such half-baked crap for anything more than $19.99. Thank god I manage a video game store and can steer shooter fans away from this horrible game. If you are willing to subject yourself to trench level, jungle path level, then the same trench level for 10 levels, then you will complete the game in only a few hours. I bailed after 7 levels when the commanding officer, who leads you by the nose got stuck on the environment in a trench level. The mission fails if you are too far ahead or behind this officer. It's tempting to deny this game any points because I wouldn't buy it for $1, but there were a few stupid shooting gallery/fish in a barrel moments that felt arcade cathartic. I'd hardly call it history though. Quite possibly a new low in FPS gaming. Full Review »
  3. MarkB.
    Jan 6, 2008
    This game is not worth the money. I ignored all reviews and still purchased it because it showed promise.(what was i thinking?) Ultimately i was very disapointed. I have played a lot of first person shooters and this is the worst by far. I did not even bother to play this past the second mission. While the graphics are good - it's almost similar to Call of Duty 3 , the framerate sometimes drops. The game is full of bugs and flaws. On the Luzon stage I thought we killed all Japanese troops. I was wondering where this single rifle firing was from. When i joined my allies i saw one Japanese soldier standing behind him and repeatedly shooting him and he was doing nothing. Another ocasion i was exploring the vicinity admiring the scenery and my unit commander was talking to - a tree. They did not bother to tweak this so that the character at least follows where you are standing. Take a lesson from Brothers in Arms! And that was not even next gen. Another problem is that the AI is just plain stupid. They all move the same. They just stand there when you shoot them. They even die the same. It's like a shooting gallery of lemmings! You can predict when the Japanese Soldiers will come out because the Allied soldiers will stop kneel and aim one second before the enemy comes out. Gameplay is linear like Call of Duty but you feel no urgency of completing the mission. The aim button feels useless since it does not bring up the sights. while your may not be shooting from the hip, you're actually shooting from your stomach. Since they had the gall to title this game "History Channel..." I would like to point out that it is not accurate. The Bataan Stage here is presented like a Snakelike or S like ridge and your running in betwen that. I guess this is in effort to make sure you go where they want you to go. Now I may not be a WWII vet but i have been it's a 5 hour drive from where i live. And guess what? I never saw any snaking ridges like the one in the game. Bataan is a Mountain near the beach! Look it up on Google earth! Sound - While the sound is average, you get turned off by yet another glitch - Soldier Chatter. It's like the programmers programmed the soldiers to say random lines. - i have no problem with that. I think it's being done by most programmers anyway but, I do mind when they don't review the dialogue to be flexible. Immagine this- While just moving from one point to another your ally starts to scream - Die you.... or Take that you... I immediately looked for cover and found that there was not even one Enemy (i don't remember the exact lines, because i was laughing so hard) This game is not a dissapointment.... It's a disaster. Full Review »