Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 26
  2. Negative: 4 out of 26
Buy On
  1. Comes up shooting blanks with a very mediocre adaptation that has few redeemable features outside its strong multiplayer Xbox Live presence.
  2. Cheat Code Central
    SOF II is not much more than a glorified, or should I say, gore-ified shooting gallery. It's not unlike "House of the Dead" only less exciting.
  3. Electronic Gaming Monthly
    Fortune II doesn't have the same visual polish or addictive team-based onlne play of ["Return to Castle Wolfenstein"]. [Aug 2003, p.112]
  4. Relentless FPS overlords might find their pulses raised briefly by the thought of endless, generic shooting and violence, but the rest of you would be well advised to direct your time and money elsewhere.
  5. 60
    Are we operating under regulation Xbox parameters here? Visually speaking, everything's bland, blocky, and the visibility is poor. The game is not pretty. Enemy movements are sluggish as if they're suffering from joint pain as they fire at you.
  6. Rather disappointing. A lot of the strategic edge has been stripped away from the gameplay and there is no new content or bonus features to entice PC gamers to reinvest in a new copy.
  7. Game Informer
    Any game with 55 single-player missions is worth checking out. Add to that equation Double Helix's excellent graphical system and blistering gameplay and you've got a hit on your hands. [July 2003, p.116]
  8. GameNow
    Although SOF2 is ultimately just disposable entertainment - the kind of game you'll forget about minutes after beating it. [Aug 2003, p.33]
  9. 80
    Sometimes enemies take time to notice you, but once they do, the A.I. is fairly impressive.
  10. Combine a quickly aging game with a sloppy porting process and you have a lackluster game that can only claim high amounts of gore as a selling feature, although even that comes off flat.
  11. It's got great potential, even high expectations, and in every department there is some glaring detail that cannot be overlooked. Had there been just a little more time spent with it, tweaking the small things here and there, it could have been a surefire hit.
  12. Double Helix doesn't do anything that hasn't already been done better in Activision's own Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
  13. 56
    Even the overdone gore isn't realistic enough for the morally unhinged. It's a lackluster experience and part-time embarrassment to the hardware potential of this game system.
  14. It does lose points for omitting variety within its multiplayer setup.
  15. This is a very traditional realistic FPS, lacking in any serious innovation, relying on the same gameplay that's worked before. However, ultimately, I found it a bit boring.
  16. Sadly, the graphics don’t even come close to the sharp visuals of the PC version--something the Xbox could have easily replicated.
  17. Just when I thought I might be able to get back into the FPS mix, I feel like I’m drowning in these poor games instead. Your best bet is to just stay away and wait for some originality to poke it’s head out.
  18. The poor graphics and ho-hum gameplay really killed any chance this game had to compete with the fantastic games arriving this summer. Even Xbox Live compatibility couldn't rescue it from the realm of inadequacy.
  19. GMR Magazine
    The bad news is this: The game's graphics look dated. Most characters are blocky and reek of a poor PC port job. And Xbox Live support...needs an overhaul. [Aug 2003, p.74]
  20. 58
    When you have "Halo" and "Ghost Recon" in your library, there's little reason to spend $50 bucks on a very average shooter with sub-standard Xbox graphics.
  21. With lengthy load times, rare slowdown, the occasional clipping problem and an imperfect graphics engine, the basic "corridor shooter" feel of the single player mode can be bogged down and even become tedious to some.
  22. Official Xbox Magazine
    A case of Jekyll and Hyde. Single player isn't bad, but the multiplayer is head and shoulders cooler than than the PC version, thanks largely to the clever use of the Xbox Communicator. [June 2003, p.76]
  23. Play Magazine
    Ultimately feels like it is a year old, and its technical limitations hurt the finer parts of the game. [July 2003, p.72]
  24. In simple terms, this game was brought to the Xbox unpolished, incomplete, and unready. There’s plenty to go through in SoF2, but it’s too bland and it isn’t worth spending numerous hours trying to complete.
  25. An example to developers the world over that just because there is gratuitous violence, the game is not necessarily a winner. A great PC title can still flop on the Xbox, even with the addition of Live gameplay.
  26. Xbox Nation Magazine
    This is as stock and uninteresting as it gets, nothing more than the staple prescripted key/switch hunt you've already seen 100 times. [Aug 2003, p.77]

Awards & Rankings

#56 Most Discussed Xbox Game of 2003
#46 Most Shared Xbox Game of 2003
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 13 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 13
  2. Negative: 5 out of 13
  1. BlueFalcon
    Jul 30, 2005
    This is the worst 1st person shooter I've ever played. The graphics are very sub par, but it's also really simple and boring.
  2. BrianK.
    Dec 3, 2003
    Great Game!!
  3. JayK.
    Sep 17, 2003
    If you're looking for something to waste time with then you've found it. If your looking for a challange keep looking. Graphics are If you're looking for something to waste time with then you've found it. If your looking for a challange keep looking. Graphics are more than poor. Looks like something from the last generation of gaming systems. If you want to buy it rent it first. Full Review »