Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

132 Comments

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Review

4
  • PS3
  • X360
  • PC

Bad Company 2 is a terrific multiplayer shooter that offers the scope and strategy that made the Battlefield series so great in the first place. The single-player, however, feels a little flat this time around.


Chopper Flynn. 
Chopper Flynn. 
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 builds off of the previous game by adding more multiplayer options and refinements and delivering a new single-player campaign. As someone who happened to enjoy the previous game a great deal, this is a fantastic thing. But the single-player campaign, despite offering a lot of the same charm and character that made the first Bad Company so memorable, doesn't pack the same punch the second time around. Sure, the wholesale destruction of buildings has gotten a bit better, but it feels like you aren't put in enough situations to actually take advantage of that fact on a regular basis. Instead, it feels like building additional multiplayer modes and refining that aspect of the game was a priority, and multiplayer fans should find those changes to be quite exciting.

The four guys that make up Bad Company are some of the greatest new characters to come out of this generation of console hardware. There's a natural sound to the voicework that makes them seem like some regular guys thrust into some pretty messed-up military maneuvers. Last time around, they broke ranks and attempted to steal a truckload of gold. In fact, the ending of the first game implies that they got away with some of that gold, too. But there's no mention of the gold in Bad Company 2. In fact, the events of the first game aren't really referenced at all during the main story. Instead, the same four guys are sent after a mysterious super-weapon that dates back to World War II, which makes a guest appearance in the game's prologue level before things get going in modern times. After a brief stint in Alaska to set up some of the action, B-Company is transferred into a special ops division and sent off to Bolivia. There's a bit of globetrotting going on between missions, but the core mission of finding out more about this secret weapon and stopping the people who would hope to uncover its secrets and use it against the United States remains the same.

Though you stick with your squad throughout the game, you don't often feel like you're fighting right alongside Haggard, Sweetwater, and the Sarge. After battles cool down, they seem to stand around, and it feels like they're warping ahead of you when you start running to the next checkpoint, just to make sure that they're in position for any scripted sequence or dialogue that may come up. Overall, I felt pretty disconnected from a lot of the action, and the campaign often felt pretty mindless.

 In single-player, there are new guys to mow down around every corner... like this corner up ahead, for instance.
 In single-player, there are new guys to mow down around every corner... like this corner up ahead, for instance.
However, a lot of that is because I wasn't stopping to let the environment and the squad sink in. There's a fair amount of incidental dialogue from your squad in Bad Company 2, but since they tend to stand still and not stick with you whenever there's no fighting going on, it's very easy to miss. If you stand around with the guys for a bit, you'll hear some hilarious exchanges, with jokes usually made at the expense of Haggard, the Texas redneck of the crew. In one moment, he'll attempt to tell the team that he's fluent in Spanish... or Spanglish, at least. But then he'll refuse to actually speak it. In another, he'll comedically brush up against the edges of racial sensitivity by asking the Sarge why "Afro-Americans" pronounce the rapper's name as "Fiddy" Cent instead of "Fifty." In yet another, he'll talk about how there are parts of his brain that could certainly use some washing. They'll debate the existence of God and what makes a man eligible to go to Heaven. At one point one of them will talk about the "big bong in the sky." The characters talk over each other and interrupt one another in a very natural way that sounds more like a movie scene than a video game. But the main story dialogue, by comparison, is extremely on-task and usually very dry. It's also received a liberal sprinkling of Generation Kill-inspired mil-speak, just like Modern Warfare 2, so expect to hear more than a few "Oscar Mikes" in there. And unless you make it a point to wait around for those incidental moments to trigger--and they don't seem to always pop up in the same place--you're going to miss the best part of Bad Company 2's approximately seven-hour campaign.

The action in the campaign feels flat in spots. The big thing about the first game was the introduction of destructible buildings and other covered positions. Walls blast apart beautifully when you launch grenades into them, and using a tank to decimate everything around you can be satisfying, as well. All of that returns for Bad Company 2, and you can now hit some buildings so hard that they collapse entirely. But the areas you're fighting through often don't take advantage of those strengths. There aren't many situations where you're given enough explosive hardware and enough nearby buildings to really tear the scenery apart, and it makes Bad Company feel a little less unique in the process. You'll move from point A to point B, shooting down everything that gets in your path. You can't absorb a ton of punishment, either, so you'll have to play fairly conservatively in hectic situations. Primarily, it just doesn't feel as wild as the first game did, even though it pushes many of the same buttons along the way with tank battles, a few spots where you're firing from mounted weapons on helicopters, and so on.

Meanwhile, the multiplayer side of Bad Company 2 feels like it got significantly more attention during the development process. To the casual onlooker, the differences might not seem enormous, but if you got up close with the first game and stayed there for a good length of time, you'll definitely appreciate the new modes. Conquest mode, which was released as an add-on for the previous game, comes stock now, and you can also play in squad deathmatch mode, where four teams of four players each fight it out until one squad gets 50 kills. There's also a mode called squad rush, which plays like a speed round of the standard rush mode for up to eight players. In squad rush, the attacking team only gets 20 tickets, but there's only one point to destroy at a time. If the attacking team can destroy two such control points, they win. It's a great mode for players who might not always have time to play through a full rush or conquest match. On the downside, squad rush is currently a pre-order bonus for console versions of the game, and will be that way for 30 days following the game's release, at which point it will be unlocked for all to use. Additionally, the game ships with a "VIP" code in the box on consoles, which like Mass Effect 2 and other games before it, is designed to deter second-hand purchasers by locking them out of certain content. Or you could look at it as "if you buy the game new, you'll get a free map pack out of it in a few weeks." Debating the pros and cons of such tactics is outside the scope of this review, but consider yourself informed about the nature of this game's code-based offerings. PC owners get squad rush immediately, with no code required.

The characters of Bad Company are still, well, characters.
The characters of Bad Company are still, well, characters.
Regardless of the modes and all that other stuff, the action in multiplayer remains largely the same, which is to say that it has a tactical depth that most shooters lack. You can hit a button to "spot" enemies, causing them to show up on your team's radar for a few seconds. You can pilot a UAV, giving you a sky-high view of the map, which makes it easier to spot for your team, though the drone can also fire a few missiles at targets. The UAV, as it turns out, leads to one of my favorite things to do in Bad Company 2: sneaking up on someone that's currently using the UAV station and stabbing them in the back, then sending the UAV crashing to earth. Of course, other vehicles are in play, giving you plenty of chances to royally mess up while attempting to pilot a helicopter or drive a tank while shooting at targets. The game retains its layered approach to unlockable items by tying most of its weaponry to the specific classes. So by playing as a medic, you'll gain additional medic weapons, which are usually light machine guns. By playing the engineer class, you'll get more submachine guns and gain access to the repair drill, which you'll need if you want to repair vehicles. Though I'm effectively married to the assault class and its ability to toss out ammo crates to help resupply troops in the field, the classes all have a different feel that makes them compliment each other very well.

The things that sticks with me about the multiplayer, though, is its audio. While most games can do up-close gunfire extremely well these days, once you get further away, it often loses a lot of its character. Battlefield's indoor/outdoor exchanges, where you might hear someone firing their XM8 all the way across the map while standing around a corner, all sound acoustically appropriate. Weapons fire and explosions muffle properly at range and echo around the environment amazingly well. You'll hear callouts from the troops as they perform tasks, and all of them sound, well, kind of savage. Hearing an American soldier curse up a storm as he's stabbing an enemy from behind is downright jarring, compared to the dry military talk that most other multiplayer shooters deliver. It's impressive, and all of that audio goes a long way toward making Bad Company 2 feel huge.

That huge feel has always been the big differentiator between the Battlefield series and other first-person shooters, and Bad Company 2's multiplayer has plenty of that to go around. Where the first Bad Company felt like a solid take on placing the PC-friendly Battlefield experience on consoles, Bad Company 2 settles in and feels right at home on both consoles and PC. This no longer feels like a compromise made to keep the console kids busy while PC owners wait for the next "real" Battlefield game. It feels a lot more like the genuine article, streamlined and bumped up to 2010 standards. If you appreciate the way Battlefield has done this kind of open, spacious warfare in the past, you're going to love it. Fans of the previous game's campaign mode, however, will probably feel a little disappointed.
Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

132 Comments

Avatar image for addfwyn
Addfwyn

2057

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 11

Edited 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.
Avatar image for bigandtasty
Bigandtasty

3146

Forum Posts

6987

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited 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.

Avatar image for citizenkane
citizenkane

10894

Forum Posts

29122

Wiki Points

2064

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 106

Edited 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.
Avatar image for deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96
deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96

8259

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

@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.
Avatar image for epicreflex
EpicReflex

223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

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.

Avatar image for gramblor
gramblor

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited 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.

Avatar image for gramblor
gramblor

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited 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.
Avatar image for man_flannel
MAN_FLANNEL

2472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MAN_FLANNEL
@CitizenKane:
No Caption Provided
Avatar image for jayross
Jayross

2647

Forum Posts

1791

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 6

Edited By Jayross

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

Avatar image for citizenkane
citizenkane

10894

Forum Posts

29122

Wiki Points

2064

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 106

Edited 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.

Avatar image for erik
Erik

424

Forum Posts

87

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited 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.

Avatar image for jadeskye
Jadeskye

4392

Forum Posts

2125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited 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.
Avatar image for seppli
Seppli

11232

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

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 *
Avatar image for mrskidders
Mrskidders

1298

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited 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.
Avatar image for pplus0440
pplus0440

282

Forum Posts

275

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited 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.
Avatar image for seppli
Seppli

11232

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited 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.
Avatar image for jadeskye
Jadeskye

4392

Forum Posts

2125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited 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.
Avatar image for rateoforange
rateoforange

408

Forum Posts

245

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited 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.
Avatar image for rift33
rift33

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited 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!!..

Avatar image for seppli
Seppli

11232

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

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.
Avatar image for hunkulese
Hunkulese

4225

Forum Posts

310

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited 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.

Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited 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...
Avatar image for stingingvelvet
StingingVelvet

596

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited 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.
Avatar image for deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96
deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96

8259

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

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.

Avatar image for seppli
Seppli

11232

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

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.       

Avatar image for auron570
AURON570

1778

Forum Posts

1029

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By AURON570

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

Avatar image for vividnova
vividnova

27

Forum Posts

68

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited 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*

Avatar image for rateoforange
rateoforange

408

Forum Posts

245

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By rateoforange
@Metal_Mills said:
" Who the hell plays BF for the single player? I honestly might not even touch it. "
QFT
Avatar image for man_flannel
MAN_FLANNEL

2472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited 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!!!!!

Avatar image for addfwyn
Addfwyn

2057

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 11

Edited 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.

Avatar image for daftpunk
DAFTPUNK

1307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By DAFTPUNK

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

Avatar image for l4wd0g
l4wd0g

2395

Forum Posts

353

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By l4wd0g

good word use Jeff. See you all online.

Avatar image for carolynp
carolynp

102

Forum Posts

1404

Wiki Points

79

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited 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.

Avatar image for spaceturtle
spaceturtle

1660

Forum Posts

5299

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By spaceturtle

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

Avatar image for thejollyrajah
TheJollyRajah

1605

Forum Posts

1520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

Edited 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.

Avatar image for nemesis
Nemesis

330

Forum Posts

569

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited 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.

Avatar image for phannious
PhannIOUS

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited 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.

Avatar image for scooper
Scooper

7920

Forum Posts

1107

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited 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.

Avatar image for cluter
Cluter

482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Cluter

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

Avatar image for xeiphyer
Xeiphyer

5962

Forum Posts

1193

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited 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.

Avatar image for stevevice
SteveVice

280

Forum Posts

148

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

Edited By SteveVice

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 :)

Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited 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 :)
Avatar image for natetodamax
natetodamax

19464

Forum Posts

65390

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 5

Edited By natetodamax

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

Avatar image for supercubedude
supercubedude

573

Forum Posts

226

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By supercubedude
@RsistncE: 
 Or maybe it's Jeff's opinion that MW2 is better than BC2?
Avatar image for man_flannel
MAN_FLANNEL

2472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MAN_FLANNEL
@RsistncE: 
Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.
Avatar image for killem_dafoe
KillEm_Dafoe

2739

Forum Posts

249

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 6

Edited By KillEm_Dafoe

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.

Avatar image for rsistnce
RsistncE

4498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited 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.

Avatar image for ultimathule
ultimathule

68

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited 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 =/

Avatar image for jeffk38uk
jeffk38uk

726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited 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.

Avatar image for milkman
Milkman

19372

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited 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.