maynard

I was really looking forward to a BF-style game for the 360, but after playing the beta, I realize this wasn't the BF-style game I was hoping for. I thought it was pretty bad.

Graphics were very mediocre: far-away textures remind me a little of the Atari days. Almost literally. The animations and gameplay itself felt extremely bland. There is almost no satisfaction in killing someone and it seems to take an entire clip with a full-auto weapon to do so. You know how in COD4 when you hit someone there's that little "plunk," which makes you feel some satisfaction? BF:BC is missing anything of the sort and when you hit someone it feels more like you've shot a piece of paper that may have blown over with the wind anyway.

But I digress...the maps are way too big for the # of people playing on them: a map quadruple the size of the largest COD4 map needs to have more than 24 people on it, and of those 24, it helps if 18 of them aren't in vehicles.

Blowing stuff up, the chopper and the huge maps are the only things I like about this game, which sucks when you consider all it takes to truly like a game.

A definite and indisputable PASS from me...regardless of this weapon debacle.

Ha! These comments are great...I thought this game would garner much more positive attention than it has.

I also had the displeasure of being in the beta and what once was a game I thought I had to have became a game I know I'll never look at again. Absolutely horriblle in comparison to what's out there today.

Maybe Frontlines is the next BF, because BF:BC only allows 24 measly players on maps the size of Mexico. Not only that, but of the 12 players on each team, 8 of them are in vehicles! What a complete joke.

Bravo, EA...bravo for continually proving what a piece of trash you are as a company. The Wal-Mart of video games strikes again.

I agree with Marc in everything but the "great graphics." The fact that the beta lived on my hard drive for over a week makes my 360 feel dirty and cheap.

What a terrible game. If you've yet to play a top-rated FPS like COD4 or Halo 3, you may like this. If you have played a top FPS, you'll quickly see this game for how bad it is. I was very surprised, actually...

The ign article says the blue-ray drive is $100-$150. I think that one is more accurate. I was looking at the engadget article for the cell's cost.

If you look in the right column of the engadget article, it DOES say the cost will come down to $100 in 3 years. They seem to have misjudged how quickly it would come down in cost.

Here's an even better article, listing the costs for each component in the ps3. The numbers may be a little off from what were the final figures, but they're most likely accurate.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/

My point about the cell: considering the cell really doesn't push gaming any further ahead in terms of tech., was it necessary to include that processor considering the costs associated (including dev. costs and especially dev. time)? Sure, the cell is more than likely more powerful than the 360's cpu, but that cpu takes half the time to develop for, is making its games look better (atm), and is more cost effective for devs.

I keep hearing, "wait until such and such date to judge the cell," but am I to believe that devs. are going to suddenly unlock this explosion of cpu power as opposed to what I see today? It may get "marginally" better, but I don't ever see ps3 games doing much more than what can be done on the 360.

@ Stef

I suppose you could be right, but every article I've seen on the subject suggests otherwise. I'm sure the cost has come down since this article was written, but it has been a while since I've seen anyone talk about it. I've definitely never seen any articles saying it only raises the price by 2%. If you could provide some proof of that, it would be appreciated.

This article actually says $100-$150 and there are millions of similar articles:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/749/749868p1.html

@ Stef

I really didn't mean to imply that Sony was forcing anything on anyone. We all make our own choices whether to buy something or not.

Blu-ray coupled with the cell chip are 2 items in the ps3 that could have been left out and ps3's would be selling like hotcakes today - while putting out the same quality in games as the 360.

Sony stands to make billions on blu-ray and if you don't believe that is the sole reason there is such a drive in the ps3 then just check the front page for the "ps3 boosts blu-ray sales in Europe by 1000%!" article.

@ Staf

I didn't say Sony forced anything on anyone, but the console would've been much cheaper without blu-ray... whether it's due to the laser diode or not. It's a simple fact. If you don't want it, don't buy it - but I didn't say it was forced on you. Sony's not putting a gun to anyone's head. Let's face it, though, the main reason for blu-ray being in the ps3 isn't because of its games usage.

Here are 2 links to articles explaining how Sony has "paid" for exclusive games and content. So Sony again lies right to our faces to make themselves look better. I like the ps3, but this is why I hate Sony.

This is why Jack's statements fail:

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=200611021393703056&releaseId=20060314115917309058

http://ps2.joystiq.com/2007/03/09/flow-almost-was-a-wii-title/

There are too many things wrong with this article to list, so I'll try to stick to the main points...

1. I keep hearing the Sony execs. say that a better game can be made on their console, but we've yet to see any evidence of that.

2. MS is in a position where they have no choice but to pay in order to make up market share from last gen. They can't possibly just "hope" everyone will buy an xbox the same way Sony "expects" you will buy a ps3. If MS wants to make up ground, they have no choice but to pay for it and they have the money to do so.

3. Someone talked about customer loyalty from MS. Blu-ray anyone? Did Sony worry about your bank accounts before they put a tremendously expensive and hugely unneccessary player in their console?

4. The game is changing so either adapt or die off like the dinosaur.

5. Sony needs to put games on their console and by just allowing exclusives to slip away they are putting themselves in a bad position. People didn't buy ps2's because it was a ps2... they bought it because it had the most and best games. Sony has lost site of this in favor of pushing formats.

6. The only reason Sony had so many more exclusives was because there were 100 mil. ps2's in the world. Sony doesn't have that luxury any longer.

7. Having the best selling console (ps2) allows you to bargain in ways other than payoffs.

People don't agree with stubborness. This is business and Sony could care less about you any more than MS cares about its customers. At the end of the day, it's all about the cash and as the old saying goes, "you have to spend money to make money."

Splinter Cell surpassed this game years ago. I think it's only popular because of nostalgia any more because it's not the greatest of games.

PS3 can keep it, but I highly doubt that'll end up being the case. Sorry Sony Drones, but your beloved piece of garbage isn't selling well enough to make it worthwhile for anyone to make games for it. People just want publishers and developers to stop worry about making a profit because they're a bunch of idiot brats who only care about being able to brag about their console being better. There may not be a MGS5 or even a Konami if this stays exclusive because they'll be out of business!