| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (118)

Posted: Mar 8th 2010 11:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The single IS a borefest, I'm surprised Dice came up so short in that dpt; I expected a lot more.

Posted: Mar 8th 2010 11:44PM jport1975 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OK, the campaign on this game was fantastic compared to the first game - and was NOT work - the first bad company felt like work. This was a step in the right direction for this franchise. The action sequences, the graphics, the detail, the story...I mean, how could you even compare BC1 with BC2??? They felt like completely different games. I actually enjoyed the single player more than the multiplayer, I mean I liked the multiplayer...but I REALLY liked the campaign. The checkpoint system was not bad in my opinion, It made the game a bit difficult at times - but that's what I wanted.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 12:30AM freaparn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I enjoyed the singleplayer campaign, played through twice, but I doubt I'd feel the need to play through it again. That said, the dialogue is constantly amusing, the characters have substance to them, and even if Justin didn't remember Marlowe (he's pretty much mute unless in a cutscene, so it's kind of understandable) I certainly found the squad members much more memorable than most shooters.

Those idle conversations about clarinets, Shakespeare, spanglish, the Predator debate... yeah, bizarre and out of place, and you have to stop and listen, but it's always worth a chuckle. I will say the SP experience is greatly enhanced by playing with a friend or relative. It's never much fun to watch a comedy alone.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 12:38AM TJ123 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't completely disagree with Justin's review...except I'm having fun playing the campaign this time around. In BFBC, the campaign was worse than dropping a tire iron on my manhood. I've played through the first half of the campaign on BFBC2 and so far I haven't stopped playing. Its flawed, not perfect, maybe takes a little more effort to play than say Doom 2...but its FUN. If you like campy humor, or the one liners from any Die Hard movie...you probably will like the humor and dialog this time around too. Do not avoid picking up this game based on this review or the single player campaign. If you are, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 7:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you vehemently disagreed with my review, like you really love this game, I get it. If military FPS is your very favorite genre, this is a decent one of those, so it's really going to click with you. Completely fair.

Some of you don't agree with my complaints about the checkpoints because I'm "not good enough" at the game. That's fine, I might not be l33t enough, but whether or not you experienced it, the issue is there. How silly would it be to ignore it because people who do nothing but play this sort of game weren't bothered by it? Beary silly, that's how silly.

It's the rest of you I'm really interested in talking to. I'm seeing a lot of people who disagree with me because they thought it was "OK" or "not that bad" or "a decent way to pass time." Is that all we want? "This is sort of like other things I've played before but now there is more of it." Is that really good enough? I don't think so. If you aren't willing to demand for from my (and probably your) favorite medium, that's fine. But that's kind of what I get paid to do.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 9:41AM Jack Tretton said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"[T]that's kind of what I get paid to do."

Yours is a higher calling than video game blogger? Do explain.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 10:57AM jar155 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the issue lies in the fact that many of your criticisms seem to be wildly different than what many of us experienced. Now, if that's the experience you had, your critical comments are fair, but they probably need to come across more in of an opinionated voice. Too much of what you say sounds like you're stating it objectively, which is hard to swallow in this case.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 3:15PM mdsll said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I get it. If military FPS is your very favorite genre, this is a decent one of those, so it's really going to click with you."

Why is it you reviewing it then if you clearly military FPS is not your genre? I'm sure there are enough writers around that could write a more sensible review than the one you wrote.

I would never dare to write a review about Hack'n'Slash games, because I don't get them, so I don't even try.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 3:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you see the word "review" at the top, you have to know that it's opinion. That's why all the outlets have different reviewers, rather that just one that we all rely on.I didn't say it's not my genre, I said that someone who loved it above all other genres may be be able to overlook how humdrum, common and frustrating BFBC2 is.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 10:54AM jar155 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Woah, this review felt incredibly off. I mean, it seems just...wrong. I don't know how some of the criticisms made here are even justifiable at some points.

I'm all for opinionated reviews, but saying that the destructible environments doesn't play into strategy is faulty at best. Also, I found my teammates to be very helpful throughout the campaign and they were great at mopping up the last guy or two when I was having trouble flushing them from cover myself. The checkpoint argument is odd, as it seems like you'd really only run into that issue if you were just trying to bulldoze your way ahead or were neglecting cover. I always found that if you moved forward methodically and engaged the enemies in small pockets that dying was not much of an issue unless I got careless. Finally, the storyline is paced well enough for a FPS game. It moves you from unique area to unique area and sets up some cool set pieces. It's not like any real world wars are anything more than just get your armies from here to there while killing every tango in between.

I'm not trying to come across in an accusatory manner, but this review sincerely feels like a case of having your mind made up before playing. There are just too many demonstrable counterpoints to the main criticisms here.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 3:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Since you did the courtesy of responding to my specific points, I'd like to do the same.

"I'm all for opinionated reviews, but saying that the destructible environments doesn't play into strategy is faulty at best."

Sorry, but it's almost always more effective just to shoot guys. They just don't play to that strength in the design. It's present, but not well-utilized.

"Also, I found my teammates to be very helpful throughout the campaign and they were great at mopping up the last guy or two when I was having trouble flushing them from cover myself."

We're going to have to agree to disagree, but there were enough moments where my team tried for a couple minutes to kill a single dude before I took care of business myself.

"I always found that if you moved forward methodically and engaged the enemies in small pockets that dying was not much of an issue unless I got careless."

The problem was that I WAS moving methodically, so when I did die, I lost a lot of time.

"Finally, the storyline is paced well enough for a FPS game."

I don't know what this means exactly. The narrative of games like BioShock, HalfLife, Portal, etc. makes this game seem embarrassing by comparison.





Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 3:49PM jar155 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fair enough.

Either way, thanks for not pulling the punches on the review. It's far too common that people feel like they need to level out some criticisms and they go the safe route and keep things general rather than saying exactly what it is they don't like. Sure, it paints a target on you for some, but it really helps the readers in the long run.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 4:59PM MassOne said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love the battlefield series but I wish I passed on this one. It feels tailored to the COD crowd rather than the BF crowd.

Posted: Mar 9th 2010 8:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First off, my problem with game critics is that they mainly focus on the bad parts of the game. I'm new here and im not going to right off the bat start ripping on every downside of these reviews but I would really like some optimism sometimes. Personally, the campaign was a great experience compared to MW2 because it was so light hearted and I actaully had a good laugh at some of the dialouge (shout out to DICE for making fun of MW2 twice =D). Your review pretty much tells a potential buyer that might actually like it that its a waste of time. I also understand that you have your own personal viewpoint and thats obviously what your trying to do. I just think that shouldn't effect someone else's viewpoint so heavily. So... Make some ten year old happy. Can uo maek theese rvieewes mooree optimastic? KTHNXBI

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:44AM Eckyman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Bad Company 2's single-player game is just plain not fun."

Add an "in my opinion" to that statement and realise why it needs putting there and you are one step towards the path of enlightenment.

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 2:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am not impressed, I think ??
Funny campaigns keep them rolling....

Robbie

www.mygames-zone.com

Posted: Mar 17th 2010 5:51PM SurlyDuff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I felt the game's single player was better than the original, but not "great." It was competent, fun, varied, and tried a couple different mechanics that weren't mindblowing, but different enough to be interesting for a short time. The story was moronic, but I don't need there to be an amazing in-depth story personally.

The thing that bothered me the most was the lack of enemy density. Prior to playing BFBC2 I had just finished a Veteran playthrough of CoD4. The differences were glaringly obvious. BFBC2 was much more realistic, but every level, which intentionally mirrored the progression of a CoD game, I kept thinking to myself, "that was fun, but MW did it better."

For example (minor spoiler), the final level in the airplane. BFBC2's take was fun. But there was no difficulty, hardly an enemies, and combat was not terribly satisfying. After finishing, it just felt like it was intended to be, and could have been, so much more. Compare that with "Mile High Club" on Veteran in CoD4. Frustratingly hard for some I'm sure, but playing it on any difficulty was intense, exciting, scary, and upon completion, extremely satisfying.

I enjoyed Bad Company 2 enough to recommend it to friends... but not for the single player component. The campaign was a fun diversion for when I had no friends online wanting to play the multiplayer. Its a game that I can see many people liking, but an equal number of people getting quickly bored with. From my experience, and in my opinion, Justin's review was spot-on.

Posted: Mar 23rd 2010 12:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Battlefield on a console will never live up to the Real Battlefield 2 on the PC. That game defines all what a multiplayer online FPS should be. 30 on 30, solid team work and great maps. COD MW2 is pale in comparison, although fun. I tried out the first Battlefield 2 on the 360 and well, I never played it a second time as I was so disappointed. When you get bored here, you can check out some fun Sniper Games Online

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW