Log in or sign up to comment
132 Comments
  • 132 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Addfwyn
@CitizenKane:  
Just to be fair, while I agree with you in most areas, it is possible to dislike MW2 for reasons besides being contrarian.  I dunno if you meant that everyone who dislikes MW hates it for that reason, or just that specific group. 
 
Otherwise yes, two different games that do two different things.  One is a more arcadey deathmatch style shooter, one is a more objective oriented battle, and both do their niche well.  Both have lackluster SP, so there's not much competition there.
Posted by Bigandtasty

People must be going apeshit over this score at other game sites, complaining that it brings the metascore down.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed the multiplayer demo of BC2 but I do consider single player to be important, even in FPS, and I can see why Jeff gave it a 4.

Posted by CitizenKane
@Bucketdeth said:
" @CitizenKane said:
" You pro-BC2/anti-MW2 people really need to get a hold of yourselves.  So your baby scored less than the game you love to hate for the sake of being contrarian.  Big fucking deal.    If you want to cry, go somewhere else, because I am getting really tired of all this BC2-MW2 bullshit you guys are parading around this site.  Keep doing it and see what happens to you. "
Just opinion's man, I feel this game deserves more and so do some people and some don't, if we all agreed with everything it would be a pretty boring world. "
I have no problem with disagreeing opinions, but this whole BC2-MW2 "rivalry" has now gone to fanboy-ish levels of ignorance and stupidity.  You like BC2 more than MW2?  Good for you.  I personally don't give a damn what game suits your fancy, but this "MW2 sucks BC2 pwnz0rz it!!!" and, as Jeff mentioned in yesterday's podcast, people saying the whole thing unfolding at Infinity Ward was just a publicity stunt to try to take publicity away from BC2 shenanigans is ending now.
Posted by Bucketdeth
@CitizenKane said:
" You pro-BC2/anti-MW2 people really need to get a hold of yourselves.  So your baby scored less than the game you love to hate for the sake of being contrarian.  Big fucking deal.    If you want to cry, go somewhere else, because I am getting really tired of all this BC2-MW2 bullshit you guys are parading around this site.  Keep doing it and see what happens to you. "
Just opinion's man, I feel this game deserves more and so do some people and some don't, if we all agreed with everything it would be a pretty boring world.
Edited by EpicReflex

I enjoyed the single player campaign much more than in the first game, although i was slightly suprised by how scripted it had become.

Also i have to agree, the audio in this game is amazing.

Posted by gramblor

I'm really glad Jeff gave special mention of the audio in this game.  I haven't played BC2, but the audio from the first BC was really impressive and made up for other aspects which were a bit lackluster.

Posted by gramblor
@Ghostiet: @Ghostiet said:
" I felt the single player portion of the first BC was very bland and served only as a tutorial for the multiplayer, so I am very surprised by Jeff's fond memories of it. "
I totally agree with you.  I liked it for a while, mostly because of the characters, but halfway through its repetition became numbing.
Posted by MAN_FLANNEL
@CitizenKane:
Posted by Jayross

 After playing the campaign, I would have to agree with 4 stars. But the multiplayer is 5 stars, so GET THIS GAME!

Posted by CitizenKane

You pro-BC2/anti-MW2 people really need to get a hold of yourselves.  So your baby scored less than the game you love to hate for the sake of being contrarian.  Big fucking deal.  
 
If you want to cry, go somewhere else, because I am getting really tired of all this BC2-MW2 bullshit you guys are parading around this site.  Keep doing it and see what happens to you.

Posted by Erik

Oh no, Banjo-Kazooie N&B got 5 stars and this only got 4? I can't believe this. RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE (yes, there is a hint of sarcasm in that ^^)
 
Srly guys, this is just one mans opinion. And besides, 4/5 ain't a bad score.

Posted by Jadeskye
@Seppli: lol excuse me for having an opinion? 
 
This is just a stepping stone game for me anyway, i'll be along when BF3 comes out, the REAL Battlefield game.
Edited by Seppli
@jadeskye: 
 
Oh no! You didn't!  
 
Did you seriously just give BF:BC 2's multiplayer a 4 out 5 rating? 
 
May god have mercy on your soul! Heretic! 
 
*no seriously dude - you're sick  - treat yourself to a check up by a health care professional - I worry your illness might be terimal - maybe washing your brain might safe you *
Posted by Mrskidders
@Jeffsekai said:
" le sigh "
Jesus, if you are going to buy it anyway then who cares.  Its a great game whether it has 4 or 5 stars.
Posted by pplus0440

LOL you got to be kidding me...MW2 got 5 stars because you can shoot down UAVs..... for real i dont even need to explain. i feel it got 5 stars bc its popular. i think it sucked compared to bf.
Posted by Seppli
@rift33 said:
" I love the game but it does have some real bad texture's that do get in the way sometimes. Other then that tho all in all it's pretty good. And also I think the single player is a step up from the last,just my opinion!!.. "
I can't understand texture fetish. I don't see superb texturing as 'good' graphics. Good graphics are functional - as in extreme viewing and drawing distance, huge maps/levels, countless enemies and effects on screen and last but certainly not least, interactivity. As in realtime physics, destructibility, ground deformation, ragdoll and so forth. 
 
Many call Uncharted 2 the graphically most standout game of this generation. I see how it's 'effin beautiful, but it ain't better than BF:BC2 - at least measured by my standards. I imagine people staring at their face in a mirror, finding all the small flaws on their face and skin and going batshit insane over every wrinkle and imperfection. In short - silly people with no eye for what matters most. Functionality.
Posted by Jadeskye
@Seppli: honestly i don't even think the singleplayer is worth 4. 
 
i'd say the multiplayer is a solid 4. the singleplayer by itself is barely a game. not at the length it is.
Posted by rateoforange
@CL60 said:
That may have been true when the singleplayer was just the multiplayer with bots...but no..not anymore... "
I'm not saying it's not a valid criticism of the game--they decided to put it in--but I don't plan on playing it. I played through the BC campaign and was pretty bored. I really never saw what Jeff saw in it.
Posted by rift33

I love the game but it does have some real bad texture's that do get in the way sometimes. Other then that tho all in all it's pretty good. And also I think the single player is a step up from the last,just my opinion!!..

Edited by Seppli
@Venatio said:

" Hmm, 4 stars? Expected 5 "

@jadeskye said:

" @Venatio: 4 makes sense. "  

 
There's an easy way to circumvent any critics about the score by giving BF:BC 2 two seperate scores for each. I know it's a bit of a cop-out - but hell. Extraordianry times. 
 
  1. 4/5 Singleplayer 
  2. 5/5 Multiplayer 
  3. Done. 
 
Interestingly, almost all German publications did either do 2 scores, one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer OR they just did a review on singleplayer with the promise of delivering the multiplayer review after playing a substancial amount on retail servers. Singleplayer reviews did range between 76 and 88, while multiplayer is being heralded as the best online multiplayer shooter of this generation and 90+ ratings. 
 
Germans are wierd that way.
Posted by Hunkulese

You people put way to much stock in some random internet dude's opinion. Why do you care if it gets 4/5 or 5/5 or 8.9 or 9.3? 4/5 seems like a pretty good score to me and if you've played enough of the game to throw a fit and say it should be a 5 why do you need a review anyway? Is it that important that your opinion is validated by someone who is paid to review games? 
 
The way I would approach a review is try and decide if the developers achieved their goals. In MW2 they most definitely did. You may not want to play a game that's super duper summer blockbuster action movie on steroids, but a lot of people do and that's what they were going for. MW2 exceeded in everything they were trying to do. I kind of felt BC2 took a step back in the single player and I kind of think they lost some of their charm because they were trying to cater to the MW fans. Not really anything wrong with that from a business standpoint but it kind of soured the experience for me. Don't get me wrong I still think the single player is great and those of you pretentious bastards refusing to look at the single player because you're battlefield vets are missing out on a pretty good experience.

Posted by CL60
@rateoforange said:
" @Metal_Mills said:
" Who the hell plays BF for the single player? I honestly might not even touch it. "
QFT "
That may have been true when the singleplayer was just the multiplayer with bots...but no..not anymore...
Posted by StingingVelvet

I kind of agree, kind of don't.  I like the campaign for its larger areas and more interesting action, but the story and set pieces are lower in quality to the better FPS campaigns out there.  I enjoyed it better than MW2's campaign though, which I thought was frankly terrible and a poor follow-up to the amazing MW1. 
 
The multiplayer is not up to Battlefield 2's standards but is damn close, and has of course much better graphics and polish.  I am a casual online gamer so I get killed quickly in Battlefield games, but when you are on a roll it is very fun stuff and the large, detailed maps this time around are lovely compared to most console port drivel we get on PC lately. 
 
So all in all it's not amazing, but it's damn good.  I guess that's a 4, so well done.
Posted by Bucketdeth

MW2's campaign felt a little flat as in it felt like a late night action movie, I almost get the feeling that game had such great reviews just because of the name, BC2 blows it out of the water in both areas.
 
HOPE YOU LIKED MY OPINION GUYZ.

Edited by Seppli

  I can see how the whole product can be rated 4 out of 5 stars, if you weigh the singleplayer campaign equally to the online multiplayer. The singleplayer campaign appears to be fairly standard and not standout. 
 
By my standards, BF:BC 2 is a clear 5 out of 5 star game. No other online multiplayer game offers this diverse, rich and in-depth gameplay. No other online game has fully interactive/dynamic maps  (as in destructible and deformable). No other game feels as balanced, lifelike and exciting as Battlefield : Bad Company 2. I get the highest highs from BF:BC 2 of any game I've ever played - so there's nothing but the highest praise from me for DICE's online multiplayer masterpiece.  My personal GotY 2010.
 
For me personally, the singleplayer campaign counts as added value, while the centerpiece of the experience is the online multiplayer, which I will play for the entirety of 2010 and most likely well beyond that. Online multiplayer warfare doesn't get any better than this. At least not until DICE once again outdoes their previous efforts with their next Battlefield game, Battlefield 3.  
 
See you on the Battlefield - amigos.       

Posted by AURON570

I stopped reading when I saw the sub-headline "The single-player, however, feels a little flat this time around." 

Posted by vividnova

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one that felt totally disconnected from this game. Squad members teleporting ahead of you constantly through missions, extremely linear pathing that used a generic 'You better turn back or the claymores'll getcha'  to keep you from exploring instead of suitably placed environmental blocks. I also didn't get much out of the MW2 jokes, but that's just my opinion. I just don't think the single player was anywhere near as polished as it would need to be for these 'MW killer' titles people seem to be keen about giving it. I am looking forward to sinking my teeth into the multiplayer though. I'm glad this received a nice work over. *1942 battlefield theme plays in head*

Posted by rateoforange
@Metal_Mills said:
" Who the hell plays BF for the single player? I honestly might not even touch it. "
QFT
Posted by MAN_FLANNEL

Hur dah Har Jeff! You like dat one game more dan me and I like Dis game moar dan you!  You are wrong!  AHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Posted by Addfwyn

I really don't think they need to score games at all, just have people actually read the review and get the impressions from that.  I think the idea of 'scoring' a game is outdated frankly.  Just write a review with the pros/cons and leave out any score.  What may appeal to one player may not to another.  
 
For me, the game would be a lot less than 4 stars cause I mostly want the single-player, whereas a MP only player would happily rate it 5/5.  Both types of players could draw their own conclusions from the review and totally forget the scoring system. 
 
That said, I'm leaving the country in a few days, so probably won't be picking up BC2 until I can get it on the cheap.

Posted by DAFTPUNK

still good score, but come on! mw2 does not beat this:(

Posted by l4wd0g

good word use Jeff. See you all online.

Posted by CarolynP

Anyone looking at any scoring system to tell them everything they need to know about a game is always going to end up being frustrated. A 4-star system sometimes seems too limited. With a much broader system, people search out minute discrepancies, arguing about why one game gets a 7 and another a 7.5 or why one gets an 8.2 and another gets an 8.3. No matter what kind of system you use, consistently scoring hundreds and hundreds of games in a way that makes sense to everyone and that nobody perceives any inconsistencies with is pretty much impossible. There's just too much subjectivity involved.

Posted by SPACETURTLE

Only 4? I havent played the full release yet, but I seriously thought this game was going to get 5...

Posted by TheJollyRajah

Jeff, this is a 5 star game. COD is the most overrated shit ever.  
 
Seriously, MAG gets 4 stars along with this??? Sometimes I feel you should ditch the 5 star system.

Posted by Nemesis

DICE and their legions of fanboys are really showing their douchebagginess. Bad Company 1 single player was much better than BC2's single player because it was actually different. Now they are trying to copy everything from the COD series and are failing miserably. I don't remember Bungie, Infinity Ward, or Zipper ever taking shots at each other. Looks like they are jealous that the crown was taken from them years ago.
 
You bitches can argue while I enjoy both games.

Posted by PhannIOUS

I personally thought the Single player was quite great. Right up there with COD4, a bit less than MW2. Still pretty great. Funny pokes at MW2 also. Even the com guy (riverhead: dispatcher?) has the EXACT same voice as the guy in MW2. They must have used the same person. Multi isn't my favorite. Since all you have to do is camp a tank and rack up amazing amounts of kills.

Posted by Scooper

Great review, Jeff. Maybe could of touched upon that in multiplayer the experience is enhanced many fold if in a squad of friends because that makes the game for me really special.

Posted by shatteringlast

I think the SP in this game is way better than in BC1. I'm actually giving it a chance this time... that also could be because I can't seem to join ANY FUCKING GAMES ONLINE. 
 
My scores so far: 
SP - 4/5 
MP - RAGE/5

Posted by Xeiphyer

I played a good 6 hours of it last night and its amazing. I doubt I will ever play the singleplayer though, maybe for trophies.

Posted by SteveV

Maybe they should have just dropped the singleplayer completely. It seems to be the thing that is dragging down the review scores, and who really plays Battlefield games for the singleplayer? I´m definitely getting this game though :)

Posted by Tennmuerti
@RsistncE: I'm with you on this, feels wierd.
 
This shows very well the limit of the 5 star system. Altho I would rather GB just did away with review scores honestly. I much rather read the review only and not see the "score" so that I'm only influenced by what is said in words. it's hard not to look at the score when it exists. That's just my opinion tho :)
Posted by natetodamax

I officially don't like the 5 star rating system. Doesn't make much sense.

Posted by supercubedude
@RsistncE: 
 Or maybe it's Jeff's opinion that MW2 is better than BC2?
Posted by MAN_FLANNEL
@RsistncE: 
Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.
Posted by OneKillWonder_

Couldn't agree more with this review. I'm about 5 missions deep in the campaign and it just feels incredibly bland, with the exception of a few firefights and the vehicle chases (the one in the 5th missions is particularly awesome).
 
I love the multiplayer in this game. Didn't really care for the original Bad Company in that department, but BC2 hits all the right notes here.

Posted by RsistncE

I don't get this review. MAG had no single player and a multiplayer that was worse than this game's, yet they both get the same score? MW2 had the superior single player but the inferior multiplayer (which is arguably the selling point for both MW2 and BC2) yet it got a 5? Either the reviews are bullshit or we're seeing the limits of using a 5 star score system.

Posted by ultimathule

So the multiplayer is awesome but it's lacking on singleplayer aspect. First MW2 and now this, I wonder if the singleplayer in FPS is coming to an end =/

Posted by Jeffk38uk

Quite tempted to get this game, even tho I've never played a Battlefield game before. Seems this focuses much more on the tactical and capture rather than the total of your kill streak.

Posted by Milkman

About what I expected. It's a shame that DICE seemed to push the single player aside like an afterthought. I love Battlefield multiplayer as much as the next time but without the terrific single player that the original had, it's just a Battlefield game.
 
 
Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Online
  • 132 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3