Bad Company 2...I just dont get all the hype...am I the only one?

The game still looks pretty good on DX10 with medium settings. So much so that I run it like that just for the extra smoothness, since it looks about the same as high settings.
 
merlin704 said:
I loved playing through COD4. Great graphics and a decent story. Then MW2 comes along. Same graphics of the first but now instead of a story, it was just a bunch of 80's/90's action movie clips thrown together. Really, I have seen The Rock and Navy SEALs, I don't need to play through them.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

horrible argument, because while MW2s SP isnt anything to write home about, BC2s SP campaign is even worse.

I think the main argument is MP here.
 
I have played for about 5 hours. So far, I am very underwhelmed and kind of bored. The graphics are mediocre at best. The movements and combat seem kind of clunky compared to MW2. I loved BF2 and still do. Ah well, when does BF3 come out? :p
 
4saken said:
horrible argument, because while MW2s SP isnt anything to write home about, BC2s SP campaign is even worse.

I think the main argument is MP here.
Click to expand...

There was only one chase sequence instead of fifty, and the plot wasn't so contrived and amateurish that it made your face implode you cringed so hard. And the enemies didn't respawn endlessly, you weren't expected to kill every single one of them while your team-mates bumbled around bouncing off walls and every enemy AI shot at you and nobody else.

P.S. it's subjective. "Worse"?
 
GreenGoose said:
I have played for about 5 hours. So far, I am very underwhelmed and kind of bored. The graphics are mediocre at best. The movements and combat seem kind of clunky compared to MW2. I loved BF2 and still do. Ah well, when does BF3 come out? :p
Click to expand...

Upgrade or overclock you CPU to get smooth gameplay. Helped me a lot! Before I though like you :)
 
Get 3 friends, teamspeak/xfire/vent, and form a squad. You're not experiencing the game as it should be if you don't try this.
 
They really need to up the server count to 256. This is Battlefield. 24 people per game just isn't enough mayhem.
 
Droc said:
The SP is complete garbage.
Click to expand...

To be completely fair, the dialogue in BC2 is at least built around conversations between characters as opposed to cliche action movie snippets re-purposed for the games story in MW2.

I've enjoyed both single player campaigns for different reasons on both games.

I also enjoy the more open ended nature of BC2's MP
 
The single player I have to completely agree with you, it was very buggy, AI was terrible and story was mediocre at best. The multiplayer is what's really sticking to me it's mostly team work and unlike MW2 being a lone wolf in this game won't make your team win. The graphics are decent the anti aliasing is kind of a pain. Other than that the game isn't a MW2 killer because they are two COMPLETELY different styles of gameplay. It's really a breath of fresh air.
 
event_horizon said:
How would Bad Company 2 run on my signature machine? I'm not someone who likes to turn settings down but want fluid gameplay at the same time. lol it's requirements scare me.
Click to expand...
Look at my sig.
1280x1024. 4xAF no AA all settings low except medum textures. FPS still drop when overlooking the whole map and a lot of combat in a small area. Time for an upgrade ;) All medium is still playable. I think it may be my CPU
 
Last edited:
In the new COD are you still able to hide behind a barrel to regen health? If so, then there is no doubt that any of the Battlefield series blows COD away.
 
deweatherly said:
There are still more players on MW2 MP than in BFBC2

your speculating, no proof it will be fixed completely, and its YOUR opinion that its a better game, i dont like the BF type of games so MW2 is better.


first off its $10 for the DLC and were getting at least 6 new maps and up to 9 new maps with a possible new game type, and im glad they waited to release it becuase it will be like a new game to me, not entirely but if they released all the maps to begin with i would get tired of the game quicker

-and what makes it a POS, let me guess your a PC player and mad about no Dedicated Servers? i can understand the frustrations of that but theres no need to bash the rest of the game, especially on the consoles.... since the last update i have not encountered any hacks, glitches, or stuff being out of balance(i.e FMJ 1887 shotgun range pre-patch). so to me the game is great. i cant see how anyone that enjoys modern day combat FPS can say MW2 is a bad game!
Click to expand...

Got screwed by Activision. $15 for DLC. 5 Maps, 2 are ported from MW1. No new game type and no guns. ROFL
 
Silverghost said:
Look at my sig.
1280x1024. 4xAF no AA all settings low except medum textures. FPS still drop when overlooking the whole map and a lot of combat in a small area. Time for an upgrade ;) All medium is still playable. I think it may be my CPU
Click to expand...

upgrade! but the textures are still at medium :D
 
AndroidVageta said:
For instance, the game play is no where near as good as MW2 or most other FPS out there...not saying that its bad per se, but its nothing new at all in this genre...and I mean nothing new...tell me one thing this game has that some other game doesnt.
Click to expand...

Good gameplay is subjective, some people like me love the gameplay and others may not like it, some things we'll never agree on I suppose. As for new things, BC2 has almost fully destroyable environments which is basically new to multiplayer gaming, a few games have dabbled with this in the past but nothing on this scale and most not terribly relevant to gameplay.

Graphics, which are something that Ive heard A LOT of people say are as good as Crysis...and if they dont say that they claim they are the best graphics theyve seen on a console...again, what? They come no where close to Crysis...and I see this as a fact...and compared to other games, again, I just dont see it...if someone were to tell me this was a game from 2007 I would have no problem agreeing...I just dont see it!
Click to expand...

They're not as good as Crysis IMO however the level of graphics in the game are constrained by the destroyable environments. They require more effort to render, each mesh is pre-broken which means even a simple slab of concrete has many more polygons than at first glance, you only realise quite how many once you see it half blown to pieces.

The "destructible" environments I have to admit are something semi-new, but again, nothing really game changing. Not only that, but all the "destruction" is all animated and none of it is dynamic...blow a hole in a wall its the same hole in the wall every time, and theres no physics involved anywhere...everything just falls through the ground...lol what?
Click to expand...

Semi-new? What is that exactly?

Not really game changing?! Have you actually played the multiplayer? It completely alters the way multiplayer is played. Anyone that has put in any decent amount of gametime in to multiplayer will know this is an experience you simply can't get elsewhere, it's unique and tactical and just way more fun IMO.

The destruction is partially dynmaic, the actual meshes are pre-broken which means that sections of an object that can be destoryed will dissapear the same way every time. This is done because truly dynamic breaking objects is way beyond the capability of the average computer and internet connection.

There is plenty of physics involved, debris that falls through the floor is still calculated using a physics engine and isn't animated. Not all debris actually falls through the floor, the majorety of small particles do because tracking them would be an unreasonable requirement for the average computer.

However there are several larger objects that will throw out physics based objects, sandbag walls from what I've seen will spawn several physics enabled sandbags which are flinged around from the explosion using physics and when tanks and other vehicles explode they throw out metal panels and other pieces which are all true physics objects.

There is also a number of objects that when they take damage will become true physics objects also, if you blow a tree in half, the top half falls over and becomes a physics object that blocks your path, that can't be pushed by troops on foot or small vehicles like a quad bike, but a tank has no problem pushing out of the way, same for lamp posts and a few others. A number of other effects are dynamic as well, if a pre broken mesh has a piece destroyed that is the sole support for another piece(s) then everything it supports will also be destroyed or become free physics objects.

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the buildings also colapse using physics, if you leave some of the lower walls intact on a multi story house, and it then colapses you can see pieces resting agaist it.

Only good thing I can really say about the game is multiplayer...which I feel Battlefield 2 has already done...all the vehicles, the wide open maps...good to have, but nothing new, so again I dont see the excitement here...I mean its good and all, but not "OMG WTF AWESOME!" good.
Click to expand...

Multiplayer is 99% what battlefield is about, a lot of what is in BC2 isn't new you're right, but who cares? A game doesn't need to innovate to be good, especially now a days when we're afloat in a sea of medicore games.
 
Last edited:
l0x said:
In the new COD are you still able to hide behind a barrel to regen health? If so, then there is no doubt that any of the Battlefield series blows COD away.
Click to expand...

lol you can do that in the new Battlefield.
 
almalino said:
Upgrade or overclock you CPU to get smooth gameplay. Helped me a lot! Before I though like you :)
Click to expand...

I have a i7 920 @ 4.0 with a HD 5970 and 6 GB of RAM. The FPS are perfectly fine. The movement feels clunky compared to other shooters.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Good gameplay is subjective, some people like me love the gameplay and others may not like it, some things we'll never agree on I suppose. As for new things, BC2 has almost fully destroyable environments which is basically new to multiplayer gaming, a few games have dabbled with this in the past but nothing on this scale and most not terribly relevant to gameplay.



They're not as good as Crysis IMO however the level of graphics in the game are constrained by the destroyable environments. They require more effort to render, each mesh is pre-broken which means even a simple slab of concrete has many more polygons than at first glance, you only realise quite how many once you see it half blown to pieces.



Semi-new? What is that exactly?

Not really game changing?! Have you actually played the multiplayer? It completely alters the way multiplayer is played. Anyone that has put in any decent amount of gametime in to multiplayer will know this is an experience you simply can't get elsewhere, it's unique and tactical and just way more fun IMO.

The destruction is partially dynmaic, the actual meshes are pre-broken which means that sections of an object that can be destoryed will dissapear the same way every time. This is done because truly dynamic breaking objects is way beyond the capability of the average computer and internet connection.

There is plenty of physics involved, debris that falls through the floor is still calculated using a physics engine and isn't animated. Not all debris actually falls through the floor, the majorety of small particles do because tracking them would be an unreasonable requirement for the average computer.

However there are several larger objects that will throw out physics based objects, sandbag walls from what I've seen will spawn several physics enabled sandbags which are flinged around from the explosion using physics and when tanks and other vehicles explode they throw out metal panels and other pieces which are all true physics objects.

There is also a number of objects that when they take damage will become true physics objects also, if you blow a tree in half, the top half falls over and becomes a physics object that blocks your path, that can't be pushed by troops on foot or small vehicles like a quad bike, but a tank has no problem pushing out of the way, same for lamp posts and a few others. A number of other effects are dynamic as well, if a pre broken mesh has a piece destroyed that is the sole support for another piece(s) then everything it supports will also be destroyed or become free physics objects.

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the buildings also colapse using physics, if you leave some of the lower walls intact on a multi story house, and it then colapses you can see pieces resting agaist it.



Multiplayer is 99% what battlefield is about, a lot of what is in BC2 isn't new you're right, but who cares? A game doesn't need to innovate to be good, especially now a days when we're afloat in a sea of medicore games.
Click to expand...

Well I can see what he means about destructible environments being semi-new. Red Faction had destructible environments and they were usable in multiplayer. So BC2 using this model is semi-new.
 
merlin704 said:
Well I can see what he means about destructible environments being semi-new. Red Faction had destructible environments and they were usable in multiplayer. So BC2 using this model is semi-new.
Click to expand...

Actually you maybe right, there was geomod tech in the multiplayer for Red Faction although from memory it was just the landscape and not actual structures in multiplayer?

Anyway it's a completely unique experience no matter how you cut it, blowing apart houses while people scuttle around inside is just quality. And scuttling around is equally as fun, one moment you're crouching behind your wall nice and safe from everything, the next moment the wall is missing, you can't hear anything and you're stumbling about through dust and rubble staring at a T-90 tank who is re-aiming his main gun at your face.

I've being seeing some really cool/cinematic moments in this game recently, the more I play it the more fun it becomes. Diving out a building window just as it colapses behind you...sniping a black hawk pilot and watching the thing drop out of the air as all the crew bail out...shooting a heli down with a guided missile only have have the heli go in to a nose dive a crash right in to your face...getting the perfect grenade in a little hole/trench full of enemys to see all the ragdols fly out in different directions...doing kamakazi revives of squad mates by running in front of tanks and other gunfire...screaming around the map on a quad bike dodging explosions, mines and gunfire while your best buddy is sitting on the back pelting the enemy with gunfire, man they need more quads those things are badass.
 
I second the enjoyability of many of the in-game experiences.
I'm not a huge gamer (I suppose I'm a BF fanboy), but I've never felt the kind of amazement as I have at sights in this game. Like the snow princess said above, it's great being on either side of a wall that gets destroyed! Although it's not so fun to have a squadmate that doesn't approve of ones sniping from inside a building and having him drop the building on your head to kill you without getting a TK.
This game has evoked laughter and rage from me (all in-game, not related to server issues!)
 
PrincessFrosty:

*fffffFFFFRRRRROOOOMMM* I look towards the oncoming quad,"Flip, chk, click...POOMP!" "BOOOM!" Screaming wreck burns and tumbles as it passes by harmlessly.

Kill +50; Kill +50; Double Kill +50; Vehicle Destroyed! +100 ;Flag Defense! +60

*Grins*
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Actually you maybe right, there was geomod tech in the multiplayer for Red Faction although from memory it was just the landscape and not actual structures in multiplayer?

Anyway it's a completely unique experience no matter how you cut it, blowing apart houses while people scuttle around inside is just quality. And scuttling around is equally as fun, one moment you're crouching behind your wall nice and safe from everything, the next moment the wall is missing, you can't hear anything and you're stumbling about through dust and rubble staring at a T-90 tank who is re-aiming his main gun at your face.

I've being seeing some really cool/cinematic moments in this game recently, the more I play it the more fun it becomes. Diving out a building window just as it colapses behind you...sniping a black hawk pilot and watching the thing drop out of the air as all the crew bail out...shooting a heli down with a guided missile only have have the heli go in to a nose dive a crash right in to your face...getting the perfect grenade in a little hole/trench full of enemys to see all the ragdols fly out in different directions...doing kamakazi revives of squad mates by running in front of tanks and other gunfire...screaming around the map on a quad bike dodging explosions, mines and gunfire while your best buddy is sitting on the back pelting the enemy with gunfire, man they need more quads those things are badass.
Click to expand...

I agree. The multiplayer is fantastic in this game. My brother, dad and I all live in different towns but yet we all play together on Live. Such a fun experience when you have a good squad.
 
Poor me. Forced myself to play only over weekends. Trying to get rid of gaming addiction. Works wekk so far.
 
I haven't felt compelled to play a FPS online until BC2, which is why I bought it. The single player isn't bad.

VertexShader said:
I maintain that BC2 sports the best graphics quality/performance ratio ever seen in the gaming industry. Comparisons to Crysis might be made, but I am much more impressed by what has been done in BC2. Don't get me wrong, I've spent hours upon hours tweaking the Crysis config file and it holds a special place in my heart, but it has been effectively dethroned by this game. End of story.

I mean, really, the performance is staggering for how good the graphics are. They have optimized the hell out of this game. The horizon-based ambient occlusion IS the best implementation of the AO the gaming community has seen. How can anyone not be amazed by how good it looks? I'll be playing and get caught staring at a pile of rocks because the HBAO is so amazing looking. It makes crysis look like shit. This effect is the most important thing to hit realtime computer graphics in a long time - and it boggles my mind that some people don't notice it. It marks the beginning of a new era in graphics.

Not to mention, I'm getting a constant 60fps @ 4xAA, 8xAF w/ HBAO and all I have is a 5850. I am extremely impressed by the graphics programmers at DICE.
Click to expand...

Crysis looked better and ran better than BC2 does on my rig. I can't move the detail past medium if I want anything that resembles smooth gameplay. While in Crysis everything ran much smoother and I could set some things to high,
 
AndroidVageta said:
blah blah blah, something about single player mode
Click to expand...

It's a multiplayer game. The single player mode is dull and clearly tacked on at the end of development.

Having said that, I don't know why they bothered with the campaign. The development time would have been put to much better use by having some kind of boot camp, professionally done with decent voiceovers and some kind of progressive structure to it.

They could have had several firing ranges that were each designed to show off different weapons' strengths and weaknesses, as well as driving sections where you're taught to use the vehicles and devices/gadgets. Maybe flying through rings in the sky or destroying structures, or both, as well as a firing range for vehicle gunners. They could have offered medals and achievements, as well as online leaderboards with world best times for the trials.

There is so much they could have done to make a fun single player experience that prepares people for the real game. (which is the online multiplayer) It's amazing they came up with some shitty me-too campaign storyline that isn't really worth the time it takes to play through. It's so poorly paced, with bad checkpoints, ridiculous AI, lots of random explosive insta-deaths. It's just rubbish.

The front-end could also have done with more development time. The pins and insignias are randomly thrown together in a muddle instead of being correctly categorised. There are high resolution zoomed in versions of the pins and insignias that could quite have happily been displayed in the spacious UI without having to click a 'zoom in' button. The server browser sucks big balls. etc. etc.
 
ekmipk.jpg


Can't say its collecting dust now because I don't actually own the disc
 
GreenGoose said:
I have a i7 920 @ 4.0 with a HD 5970 and 6 GB of RAM. The FPS are perfectly fine. The movement feels clunky compared to other shooters.
Click to expand...

you have no right to talk about "The FPS are perfectly fine" when you are running the best hardware (also most expensive) out there, go talk about how well your fps is and how clunky is with someone who can afford the hardware you have.
 
clay17dog said:
you have no right to talk about "The FPS are perfectly fine" when you are running the best hardware (also most expensive) out there, go talk about how well your fps is and how clunky is with someone who can afford the hardware you have.
Click to expand...

If I can't talk about my high end hardware on [H], where can I talk about it? Maybe you need to go back to the Gamespot forums and chat with the other kiddos that have integrated video in their eMachines.
 
Ihaveworms said:
Destructible environment has added a ton new angles of gameplay. I don't even care about the singleplayer aspect, all I play battlefield games are for the multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Same here. Buildings just aren't the same things they used to be. They are barely cover anymore. At best they are concealment. At least, until the things collapse.
 
GreenGoose said:
I have a i7 920 @ 4.0 with a HD 5970 and 6 GB of RAM. The FPS are perfectly fine. The movement feels clunky compared to other shooters.
Click to expand...

Well that was a waste of money :p I have i5 750 and 4870 and it never drops below 55fps in dx9 mode.

But yeah, if you think it feels clunky, have you tried widening the FOV and fiddling with the mouse settings?
 
I think this goes for most (if not all) the BF games. I remember when I first started playing BF2 online after years of CS and CS:S that the mouse interaction didn't seem as precise or "quick". However, I do think the "clunkiness" adds a certain element of realism to this game that I haven't seen replicated elsewhere.
 
Crashing an ATV into an enemy tank and watching it explode is a beautiful thing.

Seriously, this game shits on MW2 and uses IWnet for toilet paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top