More Reviews
REVIEWS Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel Review
Borderlands: The-Prequel promises the moon, but does it even get off the ground?

The Evil Within Review
Developer Shinji Mikami wishes for the survival-horror genre. Does The Evil Within make a case?
Release Dates
NEW RELEASES Disney Fantasia: Music Evolved
Release date: 10/21/14

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
Release date: 11/04/14

Far Cry 4
Release date: 11/18/14

Dragon Age: Inquisition
Release date: 11/18/14


LATEST FEATURES 7 Problems With Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 ReMIX [Hands-on Preview]
For the last time, Aqua, NO I will not go out with you! (Yes, yes I will, actually.)

Xbox Downloads October 2014 - Updating Each Week
Microsoft's Xbox One console continues an Xbox Live revolution started over a decade ago. Here's hoping Summer of Arcade makes it to the platform next year.

LEADERBOARD
Read More Member Blogs
FEATURED VOXPOP oblivion437
I Don't Want to, but I Have To...
By oblivion437
Posted on 10/20/14
Well, Gamergate has spilled over into the mainstream media and the coverage appears to be nearly uniformly dreadful. Take " What is Gamergate, and What Does It Say About Gender In Video Games? " by David Konnow as an example.  It appears that the writer has done little to no...

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Member Review for the Xbox360

damo_rox619 By:
damo_rox619
05/19/10
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
EMAIL TO A FRIEND
GENRE FPS 
PLAYERS 1- 24 
PUBLISHER EA 
DEVELOPER DICE 
RELEASE DATE  
M Contains Blood, Strong Language, Violence

What do these ratings mean?

The most frustrating game for skilled players

There's no point in company battlefield: bad company 2 to Modern warfare 2, most people would but the truth is they are very different, despite how much it looks like battlefield is trying to copy call of duty with the general look of everything that you may have seen in videos.

I haven't played the first bad company but what i do know is that the sequel keeps the same four cliche characters and unfolds a new story about a weapon that has been kept secret since WWII and could very well bring about WWIII. The first thing i noticed while playing the campaign is how good the visuals are. The characters look real enough, the weapons are detailed and the backdrops are amazing, it may not be up there with uncharted 2 or god of war 3's graphics, but for a mainstream multiplatform first person shooter, this is probably as good as it gets (aside from call of duty).

The game does feel fun to play, with the way the player moves and how when firing with the iron sights, there is always a flash and quite a bit of recoil to make it look as realistic as possible. It gives the game a real cinematic feel and is easy to adjust to. With that being said, this game is far too easy. i was able to do the last level only getting shot twice on hard. And yes, the level is short and quite possibly one of the easiest levels, but it should, for no reason, be THAT easy.

Good graphics and fun gameplay aside, the campaign is far from perfect. It is very short, DICE obviously only had the multiplayer in mind. What makes the short length even sadder is the fact that you will not want to go back for any reason. None of the levels will strike you as memorable and there is absolutely no fun to be had looking for collectables. It will be fun on your first playthrough, but you won't really be too drawn in.

The story could not keep my attention. I just did not care about what was going on, it's just not that interesting. What's worse is that the characters are very, very cliche and you will feel no connection between you and them. There is the tough sargent who is supposed to be retired, the nerdy white guy with glasses who does the computer work, the redneck guy with a mustache that goes all the way down to his chin, and of course, the typical white male american with abosutely no unique qualities whatsoever, and in case you haven't figured it out, you do play the typical american. his most cliche asset is the monologue at the start of each mission. It's like we're expected to care what he thinks.... lame! And how is this for a chessy line from the sargent: "aw ****, retirement would have been boring anyway." That is, of course, his line in the cinematic before the final mission.

The campaign is OK, but the real meat of the game is in the multiplayer. The first thing i noticed, as with the campaign, is the graphics. oh my god what has happened to the graphics?! They take an absolute shot to the head in the multiplayer. The backdrops were the best part of the scenery in the campaign, now they're the worst part. I could not believe how much of a downgrade the visuals had gotten, it literally looks like a different game. The main reason for this is probably the huge maps, but as far as i'm concerned, they are too big. far too big. Sure, there are vehicles, but most of the space is not being used, instead of having the place looking like an actual battlefield, only a small section is where the fighting is going on, the rest of the map will really look like a peaceful jungle, a desert that your plane could have crashed in and you would be left alone, or a snowey town that has been abandoned and is now haunted.

It's obvious that the maps are so big because of the addition of vehicles, which actually just brings up another negative point. The only first person shooter that has ever been able to incorporate vehicles into the multiplayer and actually make it work is halo. Tanks and helicopters are birthday presents for noobs and a nightmare for those who want to play the game properly. While the vehicles can be taken down relatively quickly, the just throw the whole game out of whack and you will have camping tanks and helicopters that circle your original spawning point when you have obsolutely no way to take them down swiftly. so basically it goes like this.... spawn, blow up, spawn, blow up, spawn , blow up, spawn, blow up. and so on...

The multiplayer is fun for a while but it gets old quick. It's still fun to play but unusual that an online game would start to feel repetitive when im only at rank 12. Maybe i'm sick of the noobs, maybe i don't like running for 5 minutes to finally get to where the action is every match, or maybe i'm sick of the fact that an entire clip of 30 bullets from an m16 can often not be enough to kill one person. The damage system in this game is absolutely horrible. It takes soooooo many bullets to kill enemies. This is ok in games like halo because of shields and armor, battlefield has neither. You are just a regular soldier who should go down with a few bullets, but no. Instead you just kind of develop skin as strong as that of a dinosaur. While this is just my opinion and some people might actually enjoy the way things are done, there is still a major annoyance with this system. Have you ever been in a gunfight with an opposition player who started shooting at exactly the same time as you? how many times have you won this little battle based on how skillfull you are? forget what you know! there have been countless times when i have fought an enemy in this manner, only to have him kill me so that i can look at his stats bar, AND FIND OUT HIS IS WALKING AROUND WITH 0% HEALTH!!!! That is a major ****ing screw up and shows just how bad this games multiplayer can be.

I've never really had much luck with good connections or anything, seeing as i live in australia, but Bad Company 2 actually seems to slow my internet down like a virus. I have mobile broadband, so basically, if i am online at the same time as many other people using the same network as me, i will lag. if no one is online, i can run my internet at speeds above ADSL+2. Picture this, i turn on the xbox, everything at the dashboard loads straight away, i can even watch an entire "sentuamessage" video without it needing to stop to buffer, i start playing battlefield, i enter a match and somehow am lagging. How many people could possibly be online in one area at 2am on a wednesday night? Every other online game works fine, so why doesn't battlefield? Either Australians get no support from DICE or Bad Company 2 is a very buggy game. I'm going to say it's both!!

Despite how much i do complain about the multiplayer, it really was very fun when i started. But i just cannot bring myself to praise a game that has caused me so much frustration simply because of how unprofessional everything about the game is.

Those of you looking for a comparison between this and Modern Warfare 2, go for Modern Warfare any time. There is nothing that can make this game better than the it's competitors, and it's just so sad to hear how a lot of people actually do prefer Battlefield over Call Of Duty. CoD is much more professionally done, it is the best multiplayer game around, and even things that dont impact the gameplay are better (graphics, story, voice acting). Battlefield is not 'the ****', it is a quick fling at best and should never be compared to Call Of Duty. It is MW2's dorky little brother. The only thing keeping me playing Battlefield is achievements, and they should never be a big factor.

+ Great campaign graphics

- Shocking multiplayer graphics

+ Fun game engine

+ Campaign is fun on the first playthrough

- absolutely no reason to go back

- Boring story

- Boring characters

- Cliche characters

+ Multiplayer is fun...

- ...While it works

- Unnecisarily big maps

- Very noob friendly

- Why the awful damage system? why?!?!

- Does not handle lag well at all

- Cannot hold a candle to the only competition it has when it has had a long time to beat it

- Achievements should not be the soul purpose of lasting appeal

- No game should have this many problems




More information about Battlefield: Bad Company 2
 
C- Revolution report card
Views: 910 Review rating:
comments powered by Disqus

More On GameRevolution