Out of curiosity, is there a particular reason for the drastic difference in review scores (both critic and user) between the PS2 and PC versions?
I understand that a poor quality port can hurt one's enjoyment, but these reviews seem to suggest that the underlying design is lacking, which should apply to both iterations....
The PS2 was never a huge FPS console, so there probably wasn't as much experience with the genre among sony-only sites and magazines. You'll notice the metacritic for the Xbox version of the game are much closer, simply because the Xbox had the defining console FPS experience (Halo) to compare to.
Also, the PS2 version has 30 professional reviews, meaning a lot more of the... shall we say "back of the box" reviewers are there to contaminate the user sample versus the PC, which only has 10 pro reviews.
Still, I remember RFII being poorly received (part of why I didn't get it when it came out on Xbox, IIRC). Basically, metacritic continues to prove how ultimately useless it is, and how much better it is to seek out trustworthy reviewers whose interests line up with your own.