GameInformer Battlefield Bad Company 2 Review

GameInformer gave BFBC2 a 9.5 in its recent issue of its magazine. Sorry but no link since they haven't posted their review online. But just a key points from the review are that the multiplayer is great and the best since battlefield 2. But there's still some issues with matchmaking with a big party and getting on the same team and there's no prone. Also, the single player has been greatly improved over its predecessor and I heard there might be some mocking of MW2. What do you guys think?

why did the review mention match-making? i thought it supports dedi serv? or maybe it's just beta review?

why did the review mention match-making? i thought it supports dedi serv? or maybe it's just beta review?

Jinroh_basic

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

why did the review mention match-making? i thought it supports dedi serv? or maybe it's just beta review?

biggest_loser

Not to burst your bubble, but this is irrelevant. Game Informer magazine did not include the PC version in their magazine review - under platforms, there are only PS3 and XBox 360 listed.

Not to burst your bubble, but this is irrelevant. Game Informer magazine did not include the PC version in their magazine review - under platforms, there are only PS3 and XBox 360 listed.

commandercrap

Its not irrelavent and I'm glad this thread exists. This isnt Graw where the pc version is different, its the same game. You rarely see a huge difference in scores between multiplat games.

The PC game can only be better - better graphics, frame rates and bigger battles with more players.

The PC game can only be better - better graphics, frame rates and bigger battles with more players.

RocKtheCasbaH

Pfff you seem to forget the most important thing...THE CONTROLS...

I played the beta and found it to be a horrible experience.

I'll stick with TF2 thanks.

[QUOTE="commandercrap"]

Not to burst your bubble, but this is irrelevant. Game Informer magazine did not include the PC version in their magazine review - under platforms, there are only PS3 and XBox 360 listed.

Cranler

Its not irrelavent and I'm glad this thread exists. This isnt Graw where the pc version is different, its the same game. You rarely see a huge difference in scores between multiplat games.

Take Dragon Age: Origins for example. If I could have changed the camera angle on the console version, it would have been nearly as good (if not the same) as the PC version. It's irrelevant only because there will be differences - however slight - that will make or break the experience between platforms.

Someone posted this earlier so, i'll repost.

Check out this 3 min youtube video from the developers detailing the PC-specific features and enchancements. Needless to say, i'm excited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGWzutU9E

Someone posted this earlier so, i'll repost.

Check out this 3 min youtube video from the developers detailing the PC-specific features and enchancements. Needless to say, i'm excited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGWzutU9E

mkaliaz

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="commandercrap"]

Not to burst your bubble, but this is irrelevant. Game Informer magazine did not include the PC version in their magazine review - under platforms, there are only PS3 and XBox 360 listed.

Its not irrelavent and I'm glad this thread exists. This isnt Graw where the pc version is different, its the same game. You rarely see a huge difference in scores between multiplat games.

Take Dragon Age: Origins for example. If I could have changed the camera angle on the console version, it would have been nearly as good (if not the same) as the PC version. It's irrelevant only because there will be differences - however slight - that will make or break the experience between platforms.

[QUOTE="mkaliaz"]

Someone posted this earlier so, i'll repost.

Check out this 3 min youtube video from the developers detailing the PC-specific features and enchancements. Needless to say, i'm excited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGWzutU9E

kevy619

[QUOTE="kevy619"][QUOTE="mkaliaz"]

Someone posted this earlier so, i'll repost.

Check out this 3 min youtube video from the developers detailing the PC-specific features and enchancements. Needless to say, i'm excited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGWzutU9E

Swiftstrike5

not too bad but we must see how seaworthy she is for ourselves..

after all 1 magazines accodlades dont make it a CS:source..

[QUOTE="mkaliaz"]

Someone posted this earlier so, i'll repost.

Check out this 3 min youtube video from the developers detailing the PC-specific features and enchancements. Needless to say, i'm excited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGWzutU9E

kevy619

LOL, well of course it will. It's going to be a BF title specifically built for the PC. It's going to most likely be completely epic. However, it's also most likely a year or two away. I need my fix now! :x

I don't want prone in the game, it promotes camping too much.musclesforcier

this

i like prone, dont get me wrong, but what makes BC2 such a good game is the frantic pacing. If people could go prone, it would slow down too much. Half the fun is storming an objective in Rush with squaddies spawning behind you and bullets flying everywhere.

hell, people camping as recon class is bad enough

It is strange, review scores doesn't hold so much weight anymore for me. The scores in this day in age have become nearly predictable. Years ago it was exciting to see a high review score from critics, but fundamentally this has interchange with user community.

I will be holding judgement until I see some average user scores.

It is strange, review scores doesn't hold so much weight anymore for me. The scores in this day in age have become nearly predictable. Years ago it was exciting to see a high review score from critics, but fundamentally this has interchange with user community.

I will be holding judgement until I see some average user scores.

OoSuperMarioO

It is strange, review scores doesn't hold so much weight anymore for me. The scores in this day in age have become nearly predictable. Years ago it was exciting to see a high review score from critics, but fundamentally this has interchange with user community.

I will be holding judgement until I see some average user scores.

OoSuperMarioO

I agree

i see way too many average, over-hyped games getting good scores. Theyre not bad, they just dont deserve over an 8. Theyre giving so many undeserving games 8.5's and higher that it just takes all value out of the point system

I miss t he old Gamespot score system, this increments of 0.5 is bullcrap

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"]I don't want prone in the game, it promotes camping too much.mrbojangles25

this

i like prone, dont get me wrong, but what makes BC2 such a good game is the frantic pacing. If people could go prone, it would slow down too much. Half the fun is storming an objective in Rush with squaddies spawning behind you and bullets flying everywhere.

hell, people camping as recon class is bad enough

I disagree. I believe there is little to no correlation between prone and camping. If anything, the BC2 beta is proof that campers camp whether they have prone or not.

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"]I don't want prone in the game, it promotes camping too much.mrbojangles25

this

i like prone, dont get me wrong, but what makes BC2 such a good game is the frantic pacing. If people could go prone, it would slow down too much. Half the fun is storming an objective in Rush with squaddies spawning behind you and bullets flying everywhere.

hell, people camping as recon class is bad enough

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"]I don't want prone in the game, it promotes camping too much.fetfet99

this

i like prone, dont get me wrong, but what makes BC2 such a good game is the frantic pacing. If people could go prone, it would slow down too much. Half the fun is storming an objective in Rush with squaddies spawning behind you and bullets flying everywhere.

hell, people camping as recon class is bad enough

the trade off is all the finite hiding behind a low lying brick wall and not be seen tactics which really piss ppl off.

is cs:source any less fun without it i should think not ;P

Going prone in this game would make it really hard to knife or spot snipers who hid in thick bushes and so i am glad they left it out.

Score aside I find the review very very weak for a professional site. Most of the vid is focused in the Bad Company 2 campaign and how fits vs the latest COD campaigns, instead of fosusing the article in the multiplayer aspects of the games, which probably will fill the 99% of the time with the game from the 99% of the players.

No interest in show how the squad system works, how are the Rush mode or Squad Rush mechanics, how deep you can customize your gear and change between classes according to what's happening in the battlefield, or how you can help your team deploying detectors, targeting enemies, using the dart beacons, deploying mines, reviving or resupling teammates.

This kind of vid review is more close to the gametrailers lack of quality than to the IGN standards. For sure I can do it better -and maybe I'll do when the full game arrive to my hands next week-.

This does not seem like a battlefield game to me, i don't know the maps just feel, you know, cramped.......Artosa

it takes some getting used to, I agree. I love the huge maps of prior games.

but you do get used to it, and its a good game. I wont say its better than BF2, its just different...but it is definately as good

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"]I don't want prone in the game, it promotes camping too much.fetfet99

this

i like prone, dont get me wrong, but what makes BC2 such a good game is the frantic pacing. If people could go prone, it would slow down too much. Half the fun is storming an objective in Rush with squaddies spawning behind you and bullets flying everywhere.

hell, people camping as recon class is bad enough

the BF games were never about realism though.

I mean, a cannon round out of an abrams has a flight time of 3 seconds to a target 400 yards away? And drops five feet during flight?

Jets and airplanes can somehow manage to maneuver in a fighting area thats four kilometers square?

Battlefield is a gritty and looks realistic, but the gameplay is fairly arcade.

why did the review mention match-making? i thought it supports dedi serv? or maybe it's just beta review?

Jinroh_basic

I honestly think this game is well over-hyped, and the reviews are just going to go with the flow of things and have inflated scores.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"]I don't want prone in the game, it promotes camping too much.fetfet99

this

i like prone, dont get me wrong, but what makes BC2 such a good game is the frantic pacing. If people could go prone, it would slow down too much. Half the fun is storming an objective in Rush with squaddies spawning behind you and bullets flying everywhere.

hell, people camping as recon class is bad enough