Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A Review...

Following the minor outrage I caused by dismissing both Mass Effect 2 and Aliens Vs. Predator in previous threads here on Dakka, I was asked by Anung whether I liked any video games. The truth is that I actually like video games a little too much, and my reaction to the previously mentioned titles was a response simply born of disappointment. To this end, I thought I'd post a review of a recently released FPS which has caused quite a stir; Battlefield; Bad Company 2.

BC2 has appeared with clever timing. People are no longer swallowing the Call Of Duty games as gospel; the latest offering of Modern Warfare 2 was a victim of huge hype, and never really justified the immense expectations. Although I played it solidly for months, all the bells and whistles do little to shake the stale feel to proceedings. It's a fun game, and still an excellent title. But it never feels like a war.

Enter Battlefield. A long term player in the field of FPS's, BF had fallen by the wayside during COD's rise to power. Although not disowned to the extent of Medal Of Honor, (a franchise still looking to recover), BF has been much overshadowed by its main rival. COD has the mass of support, a solid track record, and the financial power to stay on top for some time. But familiarity does breed contempt, and it's only natural that a rival steps in to up the ante.

Battlefield does this well.

CORE GAMEPLAY
BF provides the player with both online and offline modes. The single player demo pits you and your squad of no-hopers up against legions of Russians, who seem to be the default when it comes to choosing a hostile superpower these days. Needless to say, they're seeking to revive a Japanese super weapon which had vanished since the end of WW2; yet has recently resurfaced. As you'll have probably have guessed, this sees your four man team rush around the globe in an attempt to keep up with the ludicrous plot. So far, so very boring. It doesn't get much better really, but there are some very pretty locations and occassionally amusing quips from your squad mates. The best way to decribe BF's single player is to take the first firefight from Predator and multiply it several times. You'll work you way through jungle and deserts, but the core element is the same; kill enemies; advance. There are a few driving elements but these are largely unecessary, and very similar to the snowmobile ride from MW2.

However weak the main story, one cannot deny that the graphics are great. Buildings and scenery all explode in a realistic manner, and it is possible to flank dozy enemies at times. I found it comparable to Far Cry 2 in terms of visual and physical feel, though thankfully without the ENDLESS need to drive everywhere. The guns are snazzy, with a wide selection to choose from and the ability to select a primary and secondary weapon at all times. This can also be altered on the fly by finding certain crates which allow you access to your own personal arsenal.

The implementation of destruction advances the level of realism in this game. Not only is it satisfying to blow holes in an enemy stronghold; you'll also feel the heat when your cover disintegrates around you. It really is a joy to behold; just a shame the game often overlooks this as one of its biggest features. It is down to you, the player, to use destruction as a tool, which is fine in theory, but aside from creating shortcuts and the odd set scene, the destruction is mainly caused by your own wild fire, and less to tactical nous.

Ultimately, BF2's singleplayer will give you an enjoyable, if linear, rampage through various parts of the globe. Imagine a mix between MW2, Crysis and Far Cry 2 and you're on the right, all-too-literal rails.

MULTIPLAYER
Lacking any fancy ''Special Ops'' game modes, BF has gambled heavily on winning support via its unique multiplayer mode. Luckily for us, DICE have, for the most part, nailed what an online FPS should be.

The first thing that migrating COD players will notice is the sheer scale of BF's maps. They are huge, and just as well detailed graphically as in the main game. Delightfully, the same elements of destruction cross over too, opening up a myriad of tactical options. But more on this later.

The prominent game modes are Rush and Conquest. Conquest will feel familiar to older Battlefield players, as it revolves around a large map containing three or four control points, the ownership of which dictates the amount of losses your side can take as a whole. It's a decent mode for people who enjoy a more stactic and reactionary form of warfare, but I personally prefer Rush.
Rush splits the two teams into attackers and defenders. The map, depending on size, will have a number of MCOM stations which must be destroyed or protected. Deployed in pairs, these MCOM stations must be overcome in order for the attackers to push deeper into the map, and in order for their numbers to remain high. Should the attackers destroy all of the MCOM stations, they are victorious, but it is up to the defenders to bog them down and force a retreat.

Sounds fun, doesn't it? Well the good news is that it actually works, and works very well. Beginning the match as an attacker will typically see your deployment zone thrown into glorious chaos; with players taking to the skies in helicopters, rolling forward in tanks or (for the speed freaks out there), zipping off on quadbikes in order to sow disorder as soon as possible. I forget the name of the arena set in the desert, but entering that for the first time was a genuinely thrilling experience. Leading a column of tanks though a smashed convoy, whilst light transports sped past me was a fantastic experience. As the first pair of enemy installations appeared, a pair of friendly A-10's whipped overhead and chewed up the Russian fortifications, which only added to the cinematic experience.

MW2 players have been noted as hesitant when it come to the idea of vehicles in a multiplayer game. Firstly; that is war, so adapt. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the vehicles are piloted by players, and not by the all seeing eye of the server. Wheras in MW2 the sight of a Hind gunship would make most players seek shelter, the power to deal with that in BF is much kinder to the player on the ground. Yes, you can blend into foilage and escape helicopters. Yes, they can miss you, and yes they occassionally crash! The responsibilty of player control warrants their inclusion, spices up the game, and presents an excellent opportunity to fight something different from the regular grunts. Setting traps for enemy vehicles can be crucial to victory. Whilst human pilots and drivers do make mistakes, they can still ruin your day and are a force to be reckoned with, as they should be.

Rush is at its best when the attackers ''counter'' is dwindling, and each defensive kill takes them nearer to defeat. The attacks on the MCOM stations commonly become more desperate, as the oppressors throw everything they have into the objectives, whilst the defenders attempt to stave them off. Rush is a fantastic game to play if you arre a fun of rolling assaults, heroic last stands, and playing taxis with helicopters.

In relation to the destruction engine, it comes into play in a wide variety of ways. Bypassing MW2's ''camped'' areas with laughable ease, BF will force players to tread warily when taking up positions. Whilst that window in the attic of a house may look like a great sniping position, a well aimed tank round will blast it wide open, forcing you to re-deploy. Similarly, whilst Rush advocates setting charges on the MCOM stations, many of them can be destroyed by collapsing their respective buildings on top of them, killing all inside. Defensive positions therefore carry significant pros and cons; they will help protect you from enemy fire, but they can also be your grave.

SOUND
One of the biggest impressions that BF has made on me is with its handling of sound effects. I can't think of a game that compares to it. Firing an assault rifle, you'll hear it blare it your eardrums before rattling off into the distance. Tanks feel heavy due to their grumbling engines and thumping cannons, and helicopters snarl overhead whilst en route to your teams next objective. Add into this near constant radio chatter, and it's impossible not to be swept up with the feel of it all. It simply works very well, and I would be surprised if DICE did not recieve some official acclaim for their efforts in this often overlooked area.

NO 'I' IN TEAM
A very welcome addition to the FPS war is the idea of a squad. The squad system allows you to become part of an effective force on the battlefield, helping each other gain ground and progress thoughout the battle. Playing well as a medic will not only make you immensely popular, but it also gives you a very repectful points score. The great thing here is that it's not all about the best fighter; I've often help win battles by playing nurse; reviving fallen comrades, healing the wounded and keeping that ever dwindling attack counter high. Such was the effect that my Forrest Gump attitude achieved, I recieved a flood of friend requests from past squad members! BF really is a game that encourages team play. Every class can contribute; the Assault choice allows you to resupply friendly forces, the Engineer repairs (and destroys) the armoured elements of the game, and the recon tree allows you to spot hostiles with ease.
One of the most sublime features in BF is the spotting system. BF would be a flawed game without it, as the levels are so enormous. Spotting enemies simply requires beading up on an enemy and pressing a button. This then points your entire side to his/her location, with a helpful orange triangle above them. Even if someone else gets the kill because of this, you still get points, and thus this feature seamlessly fits in with the idea of teamwork as a whole. Many are the times where I've been pinned down by a bulding full of enemy troops, yet a quick flagging of their position will likely draw the attention of a friendly tank commander who can then level the house from range. In relation to in game sound, spotting enemies will also cause your faction to hear it, in the form of garbled radio reports. Hearing a scripted depiction of what you have spotted really rams home the idea of being part of a larger war. Let's not forget that masses of swearing too; which has an authenticity of its own (Aww s**t, we've spotted a light enemy tank, over!). It's actually nice to hear cuss words; it's realistic and it makes the player feel both more mature and immersed.

SO SHOULD I BUY IT?
Well, that's up to you of course. It's not for everyone. Many players enjoy the close range intensity of COD, or the bouncing Buzz Lightyear effect that Halo brings to the table. Luckily for us as a consumer, we now have another genuine contender for ''best FPS''. Like BF or not, we can expect to see the quality of games in this genre increase, which can only be a good thing.

There are some minus points. The unlocking of items is very welcome, but lacks the length of COD. I wrapped up the Recon tree in little under two evenings, which kind of put a dampner on that for me. I now only have the Engineer to go, but after that I'll simply be playing for extra levels. It would be great to get some real depth into the specializations, and really reward players for dedication in the form of very unique items for only the best snipers or tank commanders, etc.

The guns vary in feel. Some feel very solid, and other very weak. I don't play hardcore mode very often, but it shouldn't take a magazine to put someone down. Buffing the damage of weapons in some areas should be addressed. However, the bullets perform excellently. Not much beats watching your rifle round flash over the map, only to dip into the face of an enemy.

The squad feature can be a double edged sword. Play with mates and you'll have a blast, but if you're stuck with two guys who want to sit way back and snipe, and you'll rarely be able to deploy in the thick of things. Playing with aggressive maniacs normally solves this problem.

Much has been made of the connection issues when the game was released. I live in the UK and play on an XBOX; yes, it was a pain in the two days since its release but there have been no issues for me since. I believe EA have stablized the problem so don't pay too much attention to people who have already dismissed it. Obviously US players might have had a different experience to me; if so, post below.

ANTI-MAGS FINEST MOMENTS IN BFBC2
3. Watching an Apache gunship crash into the street in front of me, rotor blades flying through the air, before exploding loudly and inducing shellshock.
2. Taking out twelve enemy tanks with a TOW missile emplacement, as they tried to edge around their comrades blazing wrecks.
1. Watching an enemy transport helicopter circle our forces, aiming far in front of it, and watching my sniper round hit the pilot in the side of the head as the two crossed paths. I don't think all the passengers realized why the chopper had dropped out of the sky.


To conclude, I am very impressed with BF. It has been a great breath of fresh air after becoming a grizzled COD vet in recent years. The game is pretty much lag free. So far it also seems to be devoid of glitches, which is a great relief to those tired with morons who ruin a game by floating into the air or running under a map. BF is simply to big to suffer from these problems, and that should be recognised. The feel of the game is much more wholesome; battles swing back and forth and its scale allows you to take more of a back seat; occassionally ducking the odd wild fire as you survey a blasted landscape. It's also devoid of overpowered weapons; you find no akimbo shotguns here


I'd give Battlefield a solid 8.5/10.

Please feel free to debate this; I'd love to hear your opinions this debated game. Thanks for reading.

I'm enjoying the game quite a bit.

As for weapon damage, they are much more inaccurate than in COD games; basically the spread when you start firing makes the bullets not hit the mark.

Bursting fire increases your chance of killing. Ironically, the burst fire guns (assault rifles) come late in the game, which would have been ideal to teach players to burst but perhaps they would stick to them too much?

Anyway, the real weapons stats are here: http://denkirson.xanga.com/722757523/bad-company-2/

The connection has issues, the server browser could be better. A lot better.

But I'm really enjoying the game, when I actually connect to a server to play it.

I like this game more than dislike it, but I have some issues that I feel are significant. I've been waiting to formally post to my blog about this stuff in hopes of discovering that I just needed more time to play it, but they don't seem to be resolving...


1) Rush mode favors the Attackers too much, all told, on two counts.

First, the fact that you can destroy M-COM units by bringing down the buildings that house them might make some people happy, but not me. The whole fun of Gold Rush mode in Bad Company 1 was that the objective was to seize and hold a piece of territory for a finite amount of time. You could C4 the gold crates to death, but even that required sneaking into the building with the gold crate to give you time to plant, move away (unless you were fine with killing yourself and wasting the ticket), and detonating.

Now, on certain maps, savvy players can park a tank up on a hill with one or two people on close defense, while the rest of the team focuses exclusively on taking down anti-tank threats, and the tank crew just shells buildings to death without the attackers ever having to attempt to take any territory whatsoever. This can be very much an attrition-based strategy as Attackers have to throw themselves at those anti-tank threats extremely aggressively, but I rarely see this tactic NOT work when the Attackers are smart enough to know to employ it. My squads do all the time, and it works 99% of the time.


Second, the Attackers get back all of their tickets when they destroy a pair of M-COMs. In Bad Company 1, the Attackers began with 100 tickets, and when they blew up a pair of gold crates they got back some, but not all, of their tickets. A healthy amount, but not all - so that if they went with straight attrition tactics they were very likely going to lose at the very last pair of gold crates.

Now, in BC2, the Attackers can fight their way down to their very last ticket, but if they blow the second M-COM in a set they get ALL their tickets back. DICE tried to balance for this by starting the Attackers with 75 tickets instead of 100, but it's not balanced. Each new set of M-COM defenses should not, IMHO, be an entirely fresh battle. It gets very tiring to the Defenders who can do a really good job holding back the Attackers, fighting them down to 10 tickets or so, and then basically have all that work go for naught when the Attackers finally manage to blow up a crate from a distance with a tank shell or bring down a building around an M-COM because they lack the team tactics to actually seize the area for 10 seconds...and then the Defenders have to start all over again.

It seems like on most maps, the final pair of M-COMs are usually housed in buildings which cannot be brought down, so it gives the Defenders one, real change to bleed out the Attackers...but by that point, Defender teams can be pretty demoralized. I don't want an exercise in gumption and resilience of morale. I just want to play a video game. I'd rather the Attackers start with 100 tickets but suffer the consequences of stupid play than give them a fresh start every time. It's almost sometimes at the point where I just don't bother trying, when paired up with stupid teammates, until we hit the final set of M-COMs, and then my efforts really matter because the Attackers just got all the tickets they're going to get...and if you surprise them by putting up a solid fight when you previously did not, you can catch them off-guard.

Again, I'd rather be playing a whole match than just waiting until the end when it matters.


2) Server repopulation is awful. Just awful. No one can tell me that with all the people playing BC2 right now that 9 times out of 10 I can't be part of 12 on 12 Rush matches. Yet I hardly ever, even when playing at peak traffic times in the U.S., get into full games. I'd say this was due to all the new servers that were brought online when they had the day one crashes, i.e. maybe they brought TOO many servers online and now the population is spread too thin, but that seems too incompetent for DICE.

This really needs to get fixed, especially in Rush matches. When you play 8 on 9, or 7 on 8, games can take forever. With 12 people, there are plenty of Attacker targets for the Defenders to whittle down and get that ticket count to 0. The fewer the Attackers, the longer the game takes, and part of the appeal of Rush is that they are quick, frenetic games that you can play a lot of in an evening. Pacing really matters to Rush mode, and # of players is heavily tied to pacing.


3) Holding flags doesn't mean enough in Conquest. Most games of Conquest I play turn into "Hold one flag, keep the other one neutral, and bleed the enemy out." They turn into Team Deathmatch. Why? Because when you hold three flags, your enemy's tickets don't decrease fast enough. I remember in Bad Company 1 flag control was much more important. You had to deal with the situation immediately if they enemy held three flags. Now...my teams win matches sometimes without paying much attention to the flags at all. Set them neutral, wait at a distance for the enemy to try to cap them, kill enemy, decrease their tickets. Just bleed them out.

Conquest needs to be a balance between the two...but flag control needs to be more important than it currently is. If I want to play Deathmatch, I'll play Deathmatch.


4) Easy exploits. You may not agree with me as to what an "exploit" is. There's no concrete definition. It's not the same thing as a "glitch" which is taking advantage of a bug in the programming to competitive advantage. Exploits are using actions with the programming supports, but which can break gameplay.

For instance - C4 on UAVs and Rush mode. It's very frustrating to have it done to you, very fun to do to someone else, and b.s. either way. Truth: a competent UAV pilot can avoid detection forever if he doesn't fire his weapons. Define "competent" as "hugs trees, knows how to shift position to not paint himself against the sky, doesn't call in Hellfire strikes." I'm that guy. You will never, ever realize I am on the UAV unless I make the decision to take the chance of being spotted. Know what I do? I spot people for my team. They never stand a chance.

Take that level of flying competence, and combine it with having two Recon classes with the extra explosives perk strap the UAV with C4. Know what I am going to do? One of two things.

First, I can fly the UAV right up to a building and have the Recon classes detonate, taking the building down and destroying the M-COM without ever giving the Defenders a chance to prevent it. Clever, huh? Sure - but it also breaks the gameplay if the Attackers are given ways to win without risking their tickets.

"But...but the Defender snipers can just snipe you off the UAV console!" you say. Sure - if they know to look for me sitting on the console. They're not looking for me if they don't know the UAV is in the air, and they don't know the UAV is in the air unless I let them know it is. They're too busy shooting the other Attacker lemmings my team and I are allowing to run headlong into the Defenders to distract them. We don't need those tickets. We're saving them by staying out of the fight and using the UAV.

Second, I can fly the UAV up to an exposed M-COM and detonate the C4 on top of the M-COM, destroying it. It's like lacing the gold crate in Bad Company 1, but now I can do it from halfway across the map. This is a little more difficult to pull off as the only way this usually works is if all the walls have come down on the building with the M-COM and it sits perfectly exposed to the world, in which case Defenders can see the M-COM and have some time to shoot down the UAV when they see it hovering near the M-COM.

Problem is, I'm not going to give you enough time to shoot it down. We have it down to a science. I'm counting down the det sequence as I descend with that UAV. You're not stopping me. No one ever does.

Some people call this fair game, "emergent gameplay" which is people being clever and coming up with solutions to problems...but if I want emergent gameplay, I will play Scribblenauts. I want to play a solid, tactical, team-based shooter. Crap like this breaks that design.

And don't get me started on the guys who take a Blackhawk, shoot down the walls of an M-COM building, rapid-descend over the M-COM and have Recon classes toss C4 out the sides onto it, with a pair of Engineers repairing the chopper the whole time, and then life back off and detonate. It is absolutely hilarious, but also not what Rush mode is supposed to be about...

Lacing ATV's with C4 is less egregious because you have time to shoot them down before they get to the building/M-COM, but it also probably should be dealt with. Very funny if you do it to someone else, very frustrating if it is done to you.


Minor issues:

5) Perks. I get that Call of Duty multiplayer borrowed heavily from BF in its design, so it's only natural for BF to borrow back from CoD/MW...but do we really need perks in Battlefield? I was quite happy with static class builds in Bad Company. The truth is, I honestly don't know to what degree perks can break things...but I do know that the lend the potential for imbalance that this game really didn't need.

6) The spotting mechanic doesn't always work. I've got the reticle over the enemy...I'm hitting the select button...so where's my spot? Is it based on distance? Spots per minute (as in you're limited?) It would have been nice to have gone through a tutorial about this before your first multiplayer match because spotting is SO important...it wasn't until I saw a video on Pixel Enemy.com that I realized how important it was in BC2, and that totally changed the way my squad played...for a little while, until we realized that the spotting mechanic doesn't always work and trying to spot and failing was getting us killed.

7) Snipers. Yes, I know there is bullet-drop, but sights don't move. I am the worst sniper in the worst...and even *I* can snipe in Bad Company 2. Consequently, 1/3 of my team is usually snipers. In Rush mode. While we're Attacking. It's simply, simply awful. Go watch the Pixel Enemy video. No, you're not a Sniper, you're a RECON CLASS. There are OTHER things you can be doing up there. Spotting enemies for the rest of us, calling in mortar strikes...or get down off your sniper perch and sneak into the target and use C4 on buildings or M-COMs or static weapons emplacements...but no. Most Recon classes just think they're Snipers. Argh, it's horrible.


The unmitigated strengths of this game: requires team play unlike MW2, is chaotic as hell which is fun, sound design is excellent, guns are much more balanced than MW2.

Unfortunately, I feel as though MW2 caused a lot of exhaustion in the modern military shooter world, such that not as many people are playing BC2 as I would expect. I almost wonder whether DICE wouldn't have been smarter to wait until May, 2010 to release this game when people were properly good and bored with MW2, rather than going head-to-head with them in a crowded market.

Thanks for that detailed reply Cairnius; you've made some excellent points. As my first post was a wall 'o text in itself, I felt the need to keep it concise, and avoid the advanced mechanics. It's a general overview of the game for people that are still on the fence, and not experienced players like you or myself, but obviously I'm looking for constructive responses like yours to help take my conclusions further and offer a worthy second opinion. Please feel free to add any other comments.

I'm not going to take your post apart line by line as I think you've reasoned your points very well and have also covered the plus points of the game. Of course, any game as popular as MW2 or BF will produce tactics that tarnish the feel of the experience, simply due to the volume of players. DICE cannot afford to hire half a million playtesters and they can't be expected to; glitches and exploits are the result of thousands of hours of play clocked up by customers. I like to think of it as similar to the ''monkeys and typewriters'' theory.

Now, the above is different because people who play computer games religiously wise up to how to ''break'' games. We saw the same old problems come crawling out of the woodwork in MW2, with things such as levitation and the unlimited supply drop routine. Nobody thinks it's funny or clever, and those people automatically get put on my avoidance list. I have a feeling that you regard them the same way.

Concerning these points, and your own, I think that BF suffers less when it comes to glitches. MW2 was played on small, tight maps where any unsavoury cheating was obvious from the start. The maps and dynamic of BF goes some way to negating this, but obviously certain methods have been adapted for use in this new theatre.

When reading your main objections, notably the tank positioning and ''UAV of Doom'', I couldn't help but attribute them to player and squad skill. As far as I know, you can only communicate with your squad, so it would take a lot of co-ordination and patience to pull these moves off. Obviously, it's frustrating when the attackers get fully ''recharged'' after a successful attack, but with a couple of well spent minutes an organized team of defenders can create a monstrous fortress of sniper points, mine laden roads and counter armour.

Where this can fall down is the ''every man for himself'' syndrome. As you pointed out, it can be very annoying to be in a squad with two or three snipers, as it can really limit your immersion in a match. When I was ploughing through the recon tree I made every effort to spot enemies for our side, and it seemed to make life a hell of a lot easier for everyone. Unfortunately, many people seem to either ignore or forget this feature, and subsequently everyone suffers the consequences.

As a final point to your response, my impression of BF so far is that chaos often reigns supreme. The amount of crazy sh!t that goes down is one of the joys of the game, even if you're on the sore end of it sometimes. I wouldn't like it if it happened every game, but if I saw the helicopter tactic you mentioned being pulled off sucessfully, I'd applaud the bad guys inside and hope that myself and the other defenders could pull of something equally daring. A game consisting of you and eleven of your mates would make for a great match, but it's rarely possible (for me at least) to get more than four or five friends on at a time.

Either way, I think we're both in agreement that BF is not perfect. But I do think it deserves to be mentioned alongside MW2, and perhaps DICE were looking to beat those forthcoming map-packs that will no doubt drag many people back to MW2. I think the two games could learn a lot from each other

You're welcome.

It pains me that the game has these problems, because I think it is SO close to an almost-perfect shooter. I can't say "Close to perfect" because I don't believe in perfection like that...but it's so close to being GREAT and not "good."

I honestly don't think DICE needs a million playtesters to see some of these flaws. I think they thought things were balanced and left it at that. My issue is making changes for the sake of making changes. Gold Rush was fine - it didn't need to be changed the way it was. New maps, new classes, new weapons, perks - that's enough. Leave the basic game the way it was, change the player skills. Golden.

I honestly don't think that BC2 has any glitches. Glitches and exploits are different things. BC2 has exploits - and those are fixable, maybe. Patch the game such that C4 doesn't adhere to the UAV. Maybe that's impossible, that doing so would break the code for C4 sticking to things it SHOULD stick to like walls or M-COMs or other vehicles you want to blow up. It's why I am patient with the UAV thing, because I think I understand code well enough to know that trying to fix the UAV thing might break it.

I guess my advice for BC3 would be - scrap the UAV altogether. It's unnecessary. Extraneous. Cut away as much fat as you can from any kind of media, IMHO. Except my posts, of course. I trim down my blog posts but on here you get walls.

The unfortunate fact is that it doesn't take too much player skill to pull off UAV of Doom, which is hilarious, btw. You can only communicate with your squad, yes, but all it takes is one squad to do this.

You don't always get a few minutes to organize a defense...and it depends on the quality of your fellow defenders. When four guys in my squad are the only guys actually defending and the rest of our team are sniping, that's when we really feel the issues with the Attackers getting all their tickets back. 4 guys can only do so much against 9 other guys, unless we get lucky and most of the enemy are also sniping.

That's something else I don't know if they could fix without breaking anything, but I'd love to see a match type where only 1 person in 12 may snipe. Everyone else is forced to take a combat class, and respawning is also forced. Keep people in the fight. That sort of game mode would weed out the MW2 leet snipers and get people who want to play more proper, tactical matches teamed up together.

I actually think that BF2 is no worse than MW2, if not better. MW2 plays like an action movie. The single-player campaign cannot be touched by BF2 - but BF2 has more tactical multiplayer gameplay when it works right. So, I don't rank either game over the other. I think they're equal.

I have both games and really like both of them. I do have problems switching from one game to another. Big thing for me is the fact in MW2, you need to empty a whole clip into someone to take them down. Where one or two shots will take you down in BFBC2. Frustrating at first, but makes you more cautious.

Both games have pluses and minuses. What I really like about BFBC2 is the size and landscape. All of the forested maps w/ the shrubbery and leaves and such. Makes it look kinda real.

Gotta say alot of the reviews like the interaction of your team mates in the single-player were great. I gotta admit, more than once it had me cracking up.

"That has gotta be the single most beautiful thing I have ever seen!"

"I gotta go save me some cheerleaders!"

BFBC2 is a great game. Don't be a fanboy of MW2 and pass this game up. Worth your time and money.

I got this game bundled with my brand new PS3 on saturday, however I'm not allowed to play on the PS3 until my birthday party on firday,
so my review will have to wait until then.

Happy Birthday for tomorrow

I don't see why people were mad at your ME2 review. It pointed out obvious flaws and areas that felt incomplete or rushed, praised the improvements over ME1, and suggested things that lots of folks are hoping will be in ME3. It was a good, solid review IMO.

Your BC2 review and some of the chat about it definately has me thinking about picking a copy up. I've always loved the Battlefield series. I never played BF2 or 2142, but BF Vietnam entertained me for at least two years. I might have to clear out MW2 and replace it with Bad Company

Well I'm in two minds as to whether to keep MW2. On the plus side it is a solid, if flawed game, with upcoming DLC. However, I'm not really happy to shell out additional cash to extend the life of a game that feels a little tiresome now.

Thanks for the compliment Metallifan. I think you should check out BF; if you like FPS's then it'll provide a solid investment, especially as you're into the previous games. If one of your mates has a copy, borrow it for a weekend. You'll know after a couple of days if it's a game you'll come back to.

I find that BC2 is far superior to Modern Warfare 2.
(Note, this post, in it's entirety, is flagged as YMMV)

I don't have as many clear thoughts on the single player campaigns, so I'll just say this. I never bothered to finish MW2's campaign, because it just didn't grab me. Perhaps it's because I played a lot of the Spec Ops missions with friends first, and so the game felt like a re-run, but while it had some 'COOL!' moments, in general I wasn't a big fan. Also, I didn't like leaping all over the place between a bunch of different characters. BC2's campaign was a pleasure to play, though, and I heartily enjoyed it. A big thing for me was having a squad with you in most of the missions (both in terms of gameplay and atmosphere) When you were separated from your squad and forced to be on your own, it was much more tense, and you really got a sense of being outnumbered and all on your own (unlike MW2, which made me feel like Rambo for the whole game "what's that, a brazilian slum? Sure I'll kill everyone in it by myself, no problem!") Also, humour in games is pretty important to me. I just couldn't get into how 'SUPER-CEREAL' the MW2 campaign was. I mean really, how could they talk in those super husky voices and have characters named 'ghost' and 'roach' without cracking up? Also, I found the 'gimmicky' bits of BC2 more fun than the 'gimmicky' bits of MW2. For example, the snowmobile race down the mountain was less exciting than suddenly being given a pistol and three seconds to shoot the guy holding someone hostage. Another high point was running down the mountain, having to find fires and buildings to keep warm to prevent yourself from freezing to death.

Multiplayer.
Here's the real meat of both games that keeps people interested. There are a few components to this for both games, so be prepared for another wall o' text.

The unlock system.
I found MW2's levelling and unlock system to be very similar to grinding in MMOs. To get any of the cool toys requires quite a lot of gameplay time. Then, once you unlock a neat new gun that you want to use, you can't carry over your fun stuff like scopes or sensors or what have you, until you complete arbitrary challenges. Also, even if you play enough to reach that max level, if you decide to prestige, you have to unlock everything again. Ugh. Since there's no benefit to being anything above a 1st prestige, it all comes down to a measurement of your e-peen. (which people glitch anyway).
I like BC2's system where playing with a specific kit gets you new toys for that kit, in part because the unlocks don't have such a profound impact on how you play (an assault will almost always play like an assault), and in part because you can clear out an unlock tree in less time. Engineers, from the start, play similarly to other ones, but you still have the customization to feel like you're a unique little snowflake. Also, I haven't seen a build in BC2 that screams 'unfair' to me, unlike dual 1887s or thermal scopes.

Teamwork
MW2 multiplayer often feels like the single player campaign. "hey, sup, I'm Rambo". Grab your blinged thermal scope and heartbeat sensor and take out an entire enemy team without breaking a sweat. Especially with games frequently being 6 on 6, and killstreak rewards, who needs the rest of your team?
Squads are my single favorite thing about BC2. I only ever play online with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 friends, so it's a huge thing for me to have gameplay elements which make playing with my friends easier. I can choose to spawn on them, meaning that I know I'll be playing right beside my friends, rather than hoping that I don't spawn on the other side of the map. Spotting enemies is a big thing, which I'll cover in a moment. Also, having the ability to repair vehicles, heal and revive teammates makes me feel like I'm getting a real benefit from having my friends around. If I die, I can count on a rez, or getting to spawn in the action. Frequently we say 'hey, take cover so we can spawn on you', meaning that even when you're alone and outgunned, if you hold on for just a bit longer, the cavalry is on it's way.
Spotting has a huge impact on our games, and it goes a long way to mitigate only being able to talk to your squad (we use skype any way, but still). It's great to know that when you're getting pinned down, you can pop up and spot them, and you have some people coming to get your back. This, combined with destructible terrain, means that camping is simply not an option. Even snipers have to be constantly on the move, because even if you're hidden behind that bush in your ghillie suit, it's only a matter of time before you've got a red triangle above your head and bullets inbound.

Game modes
The Battlefield series has always been about making players feel like they're in a war, which BC2 does well. While only having 3 game modes (6 if you separate hardcore and not hardcore), they feel well balanced and, well, epic. Larger maps, vehicles, and bigger teams make the game feel like a real war, instead of a little skirmish.

I'll finish this up later, as I have to get to work.

Sadly I'm the only one among our group that games on a PC, Hence my dislike of MW2 - Hackers killed all enjoyment of MP very quickly. At least until you flood one with targets and someone owns his face with a pistol. Then the screaming fit and subsequent ragequit is just priceless.

But from what I understand, BC2's fully destructible environment really negates the point of any hacking. Using a target mod and hiding in a house sniping people? Not once that house gets blown up. So that's a huge lure towards buying it for me. Plus, as I've said earlier, older BF titles have always entertained me and have never let me down. I think I'll stop at EB and grab it after work today. Quick question, I'm running an Nvidia 9800GTX and MW2 runs smooth as all hell for me on max settings. But I hear this game tends to be a bit choppy even on high end systems just based on how much crazy st goes on at one time. Is this true? Or is that just some MW2 fan rumor to try and put people off from BC2?

I can't comment on your PC specs as I only use my (8800) PC for RTS games. If it makes any difference BF runs much more smoothly on my xbox than MW2, which was full of lag a lot of the time.

@ 'saurus; don't worry about the wall of text; I promote and attract them in equal measure . Nice write up so far.

For my next decent into gaming, and with a potential review, I'll be commiting the ultimate heresy and will play a RTS on a console. Specifically, Supreme Commander 2.

Well I can run Company of Heroes without lag, and it's fully destructible, so I'm going to say physics and all that are a go

And MW2 has graphics covered, so I'm thinking I'll be fine.

BC2 is actually very CPU dependent, apparently. It'll run better on a quad core or other high end CPU with a reasonable GFX card than on a lower CPU with possibly a better gfx card.

This game was meh for my part, and no Im not a MW2 fan boy either, It just so... DULL and boring I almost did dall asleep when completing the Sp. And the thing about MP being great... well that is up for debate.

Anshal wrote:This game was meh for my part, and no Im not a MW2 fan boy either, It just so... DULL and boring I almost did dall asleep when completing the Sp. And the thing about MP being great... well that is up for debate.

And why so? At least give an argument towards this end then.

I myself am a BF veteran been playing it since the first game. And I just love how team involved the MP is (note that most of my gaming experience with battlefield is with Clan's). BF clanwars are just epic.

The MP sucks. It's not "Battlefield".

It's MW2 with Vehicles.

Kanluwen wrote:The MP sucks. It's not "Battlefield".

It's MW2 with Vehicles.

Ok, mister fanboy.

That implies I play MW2 enough to be a fanboy

I dislike the "arcadey" style shooters. Give me GRAW 1/2 and Rainbow Six: Vegas. Give me something with cover, give me something where body armor and helmets actually mean something.

Then why make a reply with absolutely no basis?

Sorry, did I need to cite exact examples? If so, here we go:
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a perfect example of what makes MW2 a bad multiplayer experience. You have maps that appear balanced, but in reality become rushes to specific points(the UAV hub being the main one in BC2, and the middle points to lob frags/semtex into spawns in MW2) or in BC2's case, specific vehicles. The defending or attacking teams make no real attempt to deny enemy vehicles, and would rather send in ATVs to steal them and spawn camp.

Cover is completely negated by the fact that somehow a fragmentation grenade can bring down reinforced concrete walls, and yet C4 will sometimes fail to dent said wall.

Do you want more?

Yes, cause all of your reasons are based on crappy players.

Any functioning team won't rush to vehicles but will even out on the individual roles.

Maps are balanced overall (haven't tried them all on all game types etc.) but I have failed to notice this imbalance you speak of. Sometimes the attacker's storm through a game of rush, other times you get bogged down at the very first crate in the same map.

It's a team game, don't call a game bad because the players suck at it.

Except this viewpoint of it being "bad" comes from trying out all the team based game modes, and more often than not with a party of fairly skilled players.

There are some maps(specifically the "Crash Site" and "Dockyard" maps) that are just stupidly imbalanced on the Conquest mode if you're not the Russians. Instant access to the UAV(which if the person using it is skilled, can be used to soften up the American's armored support or hunt their Recon players who're designating the Russian armor for anti-tank missiles), relative ease of access to control points is not a good idea for what SHOULD be a balance.

Kanluwen wrote:Except this viewpoint of it being "bad" comes from trying out all the team based game modes, and more often than not with a party of fairly skilled players.

There are some maps(specifically the "Crash Site" and "Dockyard" maps) that are just stupidly imbalanced on the Conquest mode if you're not the Russians. Instant access to the UAV(which if the person using it is skilled, can be used to soften up the American's armored support or hunt their Recon players who're designating the Russian armor for anti-tank missiles), relative ease of access to control points is not a good idea for what SHOULD be a balance.

Fairly skilled players don't rush for vehicles....

OK fair enough, haven't played conquest nearly as much as rush yet, so I am yet to discover certain map layouts in that mode. Then ok, point towards you for that.

But still, the series has always been about teamwork, problem is, you don't get that unless you make a party of players and use proper communication during the game, so this game is, from purely a players point of view, made bad by the players. That's why I've always played Battlefield with Clan's Gives you the most mileage. Though I guess it would be a fair point to state that a game aiming only for proper clanwars would be a flaw.

See, but there in lies the problem. Vehicles break the balance of a game that seems more aimed towards infantry combat. You either have your own personal squad with people who're talented with the vehicles and have them grab them right off the bat, and have a few others rush and steal the opposing team's--or you have to worry about getting tagged by an opposing team where 8/10 people are sitting in tanks on the control points or in your spawns.

As for Clans:
Clanwars work fine when you're playing on PC and have tons of private servers where everyone is required to use Ventrilo, etc.

They don't work so great on console where even at the best of times, the connections are shoddy and you can't even find a game to build up experience in, or you get stuck on a team full of idlers.

The entire first two days of it, I'd leave my 360 on "Searching for games", with all modes open--for hours at a time.
I got maybe two games in, and faced teams of people at full ranks with all weaponry and who were constantly glitching themselves into areas they shouldn't have been able to.

As I said, the game is made bad by the players.

Vehicles don't make it imbalanced, they are supposed to be powerful, and their supposed to be either primary targets, thing's you work into your plan of attack, or completely ignored and bypassed if your going for a different approach.

Battlefield without vehicles would be like Command & Conquer without buildings..... oh wait....

Yes. I get that vehicles are supposed to be powerful, and yes--I get that you're supposed to take them down whenever necessary.

However, what I do not like is that unlike BF1942/BF2/BF2142--Bad Company 1+2 does not have enough stationary anti-vehicle weaponry to counter the large blitzes that are being done for the most part on Rush/Conquests.

You get the ever-popular ATV rushes where they steal the defender's vehicles on Rush, or where they artillery them while they're still parked. You get the even more popular transport helo full of Engineers who run in and mine the vehicles up, where nobody will touch them(because y'know...they immediately detonate then) and the opposing team gets them, etc.

The problem isn't the players, it's the shoddy level design. There's no real "tank traps", and there's too many spots where people hide the vehicles to shield them from artillery that they shouldn't be able to get cover from. Add in the obscenely long respawn time on anti-vehicle weaponry and you get an infantry game that suddenly is a who has what vehicles when match.

Watch someone on the Railyard level for Rush, and see an M1A1 hiding under the invincible tree to the upper left of the defender's base--where he can be completely shielded from artillery, TOW, UAV Hellfire rockets, and everything and STILL be able to nail the crates, for the best example I can give you though about how stupid the level design is.

Invincible tree? "raises eyebrow" have not noticed that. That is slowed though.

But going back to the initial argument, it's not like MW2

I haven't heard anyone talking about these sorts of issues before, so I wonder if you're not having personal issues with the game, Kan, and thus more speaking to your experience versus issuing valid judgments about the game as a whole.

Vehicles don't imbalance Bad Company 2 at all. I can't recall a single instance where a vehicle dominated a match in either Rush or Conquest modes. If you're playing with even mildly-experienced BC2 gamers, people will spawn Engineer and take out those vehicles as soon as they become a problem, or mine the hell out of the vehicle choke point such that teams start to eschew the vehicles. Even UAV's aren't a problem anymore - just spot them for your team, and watch how quickly they fall out of the sky.

The greatest potential for vehicle domination can be the gunships, as heavy weapons positions can be difficult to maintain position on with snipers and heavy weapons fire sighting in on a HMG position as soon as the gunner opens up, but even that hasn't been a problem for me or anyone I know in hundreds of online matches.

If your teams are depending on static AT weapons to deal with vehicles then no offense, but your teams deserve to get run over. BF is about flexibility and adaptation. Everyone has access to the Engineer class, and everyone dies at a decent clip - so spawn Engineer and deal with the vehicles. Or make sure someone stays Engineer and when he goes down provides someone else with a quick kit swap.

There are very few places where vehicles can be "hidden" and still be combat effective. I've only noticed it being a problem on Port Valdez during the demo where a tank can park up on Sniper Hill and rain shells down on the A objective, but I rarely see this anymore since the game went live.