I don't get the review about the single player. This is not meant to be Crysis but a COD type experience. A shooter on rails in other words. I found the SP a lot a fun and the story was no worst than MW2s what the hells going on.
But I can see no one going to agree on SP but I'm glad we all agree MP rocks. The maps take a few days to work out but once you know what the hells going on the fun starts here. This is the first MP game where I like all the game modes. There are not as many as other shooters but all of them are high quality.
This game is a must for any shooter fan.
Easily 5/5 for me.
Its funny to watch everyone get pissy over the the 4 star review and then say shit like "call of duty fanboy" and "the star system has to go". Its pretty damn hypocritical. Most people only care about multiplayer when it comes to Battlefield games. Jeff mentioned the multiplayer being the focus of the game and that it was good. So shut up, buy the game, and enjoy it. I know I will.
Somehow I completely failed to notice this game coming out until I saw just about everyone on my Steam friends list playing it.
I'll be honest, the singleplayer comes in second place compared to the multiplayer. The singleplayer is very good and my squad is really fun to be around, hearing their anecdotes is a treat. Multiplayer however gives me high octane perk lust like no-one's business. The squad based gameplay is refreshing, it creates awesome moments such as working with my squad in squad deathmatch, holding down a building and working together to keep health up, ammo filled and spotting anyone that comes near; or defending crates in Rush always trying to make sure at least one guy stays alive. The gameplay is fulfilling in every way I want a shooter to be but at the end of every match I want more, thank goodness all I need to do is click big JOIN button to continue on. The game as a whole, multiplayer and singleplayer gets a 5 star rating for me, I don't see how it couldn't, however to judge singleplayer alone I'd understand it having only 4. Good game, honest review. Stop the mw2 hating, its even worth mentioning in the same page as bfbc2, and start spotting people.
I played alittle of the game yesterday and I actually was enjoying the single-player. The graphics seem really good. I am hoping i will get a change to jump into the multi-player this weekend!
the fact there is actually anything good to say about single player in a bf game is a HUGE compliment. this game is looking sick. some real messes to sort out on the pc end (server issues) but it's going to be a great ride.
I was surprised that you didn't feel the game was good enough for 5 stars. I guess I'd understand it more if you didn't like the multi player, but you seem to have nothing bad to say about it. If you're basing the score heavily on the single player campaign, then I guess I'd have take issue with the 5 stars MW 2 received. Either way, it's a little incongruous.
I'll be giving a lot of time to the multiplayer. I shoot better after I've been blazin'. <===~
People play the Battlefield series for the singleplayer?
Give me a break.
My copies coming in the mail today, get wait.
did not relies how good CoD MW2 until I played this game I think ppl who made this should be more than happy for 4 stars...
from me I think 3.5 at best... the whole engine that game is based at is rubbish... the controls are annoying.. dont know what
is wrong with the original controls that are used all over fps games.. I think they are a mess...
play CoD insted, ooor.. just rent a typical hollywood movie... maybe some rambo movie.. coz that what the campaign felt like.
multiplayer... stick with the demo... thats the most fun about the game.
better spend ur money on what ever makes u happy
" I disagree with Jeff this still doesn't feel like a real bf game it feels much more like a cod game unfortunately im dissapointed with it :( but im still going to keep playing it ,if this was a real bf game it would be. 1.PC only 2.no regenerating health. healthbars intstead. 3.jets 4.prone 5.64 players 6.slower pace not so fast and arcady. 7.Commanders I could go on and on i really hope bf3 is the next real bf game bbc2 isnt even close. "I've been playing Battlefield competitively since 1942 and goddamn you are nitpicking
MW2 had the worst single player campaign on a AAA game in a long time, it's just a shooting gallery with some nonsense cutscenes going on between levels, that you barely understand and even understanding what it's going on, the script is so corny and dull you would wish you didn't get it. Come on, BC 2 could just be a multiplayer only game and it would be 5 stars any day, so you lowered it to 4 because of the single player??, why didn't you do the same with MW2??, and the bombcast this week, why the Infinity Ward events were discussed at the very beginning of the podcast??, they are only news like for example EA shutting down Pandemic , but it seems that a lot of people being fired goes on the "News of the world" segment because it's not very important and some rumors about the devs of MW2 goes right after the bombcast theme.
I love the crates in the campaign that let you change your weapon load-out whenever you want. I want more games to act like games. And the banter was easily my favorite part of the single player too.
Sarge v Hulk Hogan, Chopper Flynn, The Predator - I was stopping to let them talk pretty often and it was never not worth it.
This game has single player?
I'm about halfway through the campaign and this review is spot on about it, MP is top notch though.
So it's worth picking up? I picked up the first Bad Company and never played too much of it. I guess I do need another game to add to the old pile of shame.
" did not relies how good CoD MW2 until I played this game I think ppl who made this should be more than happy for 4 stars... from me I think 3.5 at best... the whole engine that game is based at is rubbish... the controls are annoying.. dont know what is wrong with the original controls that are used all over fps games.. I think they are a mess... play CoD insted, ooor.. just rent a typical hollywood movie... maybe some rambo movie.. coz that what the campaign felt like.multiplayer... stick with the demo... thats the most fun about the game. better spend ur money on what ever makes u happy "Your typing speaks for itself.
" @JEC03 said:well you are a ray of sunshine. A lot of your points are completely stupid." I disagree with Jeff this still doesn't feel like a real bf game it feels much more like a cod game unfortunately im dissapointed with it :( but im still going to keep playing it ,if this was a real bf game it would be. 1.PC only 2.no regenerating health. healthbars intstead. 3.jets 4.prone 5.64 players 6.slower pace not so fast and arcady. 7.Commanders I could go on and on i really hope bf3 is the next real bf game bbc2 isnt even close. "I've been playing Battlefield competitively since 1942 and goddamn you are nitpicking 1)irrelevent since everyone knows bad company is more console focused, but goddamn is the PC version superior 2)dated game design, RED = DIEING THERE IS YOUR HEALTHBAR3)bf3 4)badcompany is a faster pace so prone is useless, wait for bf3 5) 32 PLAYER BATTLEFIELD HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUPERIOR. 6) Battlefield is not slow paced, ARMA is slow paced 7) Commanders are a failed BF2 gimmick, 1942 didn't have any. in summary stop being so fucking anal, all my buddies from the 1942 competitive scene absolutely love this. 1942 MADE THE SERIES, fuck off BF2 fanbois. "
Anyone else experiencing problems connecting to the EA servers?
God... how long does it take to edit a video review? I don't have the time to read all this. And reading isn't like seeing.
I thought the Story felt nice, not flat at all :S
The story was better compared to the first. I mean there was no gold this time but it was a good run and it pocked some fun with the shooter that has nothing better to offer a.k.a. Modern Warfare 2 :P
Jeff needs to shut his mouth before Shaft shows up. BF:BC2 is a sterling example of how to get a multiplayer right to the point nobody should give a flying rats ass about single player.
" @Kamasama said:Shit.. it rolls down hill." @MAN_FLANNEL said:Wow, somebody has a good memory (I didn't even remember saying that at first). Anyways, I voted 4 in a "what do you think Jeff will give it" thread after hearing the campaign wasn't too hot. That 5/5 comment came from me being surprised by Jeff giving MAG ( a game which he didn't seem to like all that much) a 4. "" I called it. Great multiplayer + so-so single player - coop = 4 stars. "When was this? You said 5/5 in a comment on the MAG review. "
Good review, bad score.
There's no reason why this game shouldn't have at least the same score as MW2. The both have lackluster campaigns, (with MW2 being only 4-5 hours long on top of that) and great multiplayer depending on what your into. If your into very tight deathmatches, go to MW2. If your into massive war-simulating battles, go with BC2.
Either way, their faults are in the same areas. Either MW2 should've gotten a 4, or BC2 should've gotten a 5. This just doesn't seem right.
Just finished this game and this review is exactly what I was thinking about while playing.