Results 1 to 17 of 17
25-06-2014, 01:05 PM #1
What You Like About Battlefield Bad Company 2?
This is a question DICE what to seek out the answer they can't figure out for now, and will not release a long anticipated Bad Company 3 if they couldn't have a conclusion on it.
Very interesting business situation. Customer want a product and you want to sell it, but you cannot because you don't know why it's so appealing in the first place. And if you don't have the answer, you risk making a product not meeting the anticipation and therefore disappoint the market.
25-06-2014, 01:10 PM #2
Maybe because the game didn't took itself so seriously (Characthers were fun)? And destruction of course,which is now in all BF games.
25-06-2014, 01:12 PM #3
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
I haven't played BF4, only BF3.
The campaign wasn't taking itself overly seriously, it had a sense of humor and the game didn't prioritize graphics over gameplay.
The multiplayer didn't have map packs, the unlocks weren't so ridiculously excessive, there were no jets and all of that balance-breaking fluff.
25-06-2014, 11:14 PM #4
Small scale multiplayer combat ftw.
The multiplayer didn't have map packs,
the unlocks weren't so ridiculously excessive,
there were no jets and all of that balance-breaking fluff.
25-06-2014, 11:34 PM #5
Totally forgot,the sound! was kinda awesome,yes ?
26-06-2014, 12:52 AM #6
Arica Harbor and Atacama Desert.
Total destruction - BF4 has its moments but it's not that good.
The multiplayer voices were better and the lines were better.
26-06-2014, 01:39 PM #7
Being under the impression that the Bad Company titles were supposed to feature more arcade-style gameplay, I was quite astonished that BF3 felt even more arcady to me. I didn't mind the smaller scale battles, I think it had superior map design, the destruction engine in BF3 felt like a huge step backwards ... and the sound design in BFBC2 was just exceptionally good.
26-06-2014, 02:19 PM #8
Slightly smaller scale so even public games have some form of teamwork going on, even if by accident.
26-06-2014, 02:37 PM #9
Well based on the single payer alone, I personally thought the first Bad Company game was the better of the 2. It actually made an attempt to bridge the open map gameplay of the first 2 multiplayer games with a single player element. I thought it worked quite well. It had objective based single player story elements but let you proceed over the open map how you wished, using what ever vehicles you could get your hands on, including armoured cars, jeeps, tanks, golf carts and a gold plated Hind! Bad Company 2 by comparison was a mostly linear romp offering very little in the way of deviation from its proscribed routes and scant few vehicles to use. I was quite disappointed that it seemed to have ditched its Battlefield heritage in favour of a more typical formulaic structure. Also story wise the second one got a bit more serious and less jokey. The sound design was superb too, gun fights felt chaotic, loud and dangerous. Fantastic game I thought, one of my favorites. I must have played it through about 4 times.
A damn shame really that it only ever came out on the 360 and PS3. Well worth playing if you have one of them.
27-06-2014, 10:15 AM #10
BC2 is just a really well designed game. Class balance is great, engineer isn't the god class like in later games and there's no give-everyone-an-assault-rifle nonsense. The game is actually designed with destruction as a gameplay element and not just a gimmick, which leads to really dynamic combat around houses and stuff like blowing out roofs to serve as sniper's nests. There's enough customization to be interesting without the bloat of later BFs. Vehicles feel strong but balanced, without the stupid binary hard counter balance of the later games (stingers are terrible, tracker pistol is great). The map design is pseduo-linear but wide enough for maneuverability, so you still get lots of space to move around but avoid the whack-a-capture point gameplay of wide open maps.
I don't think they could really make a proper BC sequel without a lot of people complaining, mostly because it would involve trimming feature creep which most gamers would associate with cutting content. Probably the best they could do is make BF34WithBCDestruction, which would be nice I guess.
Also, sidenote, this is semi-heretical but the Hardline beta captured some of what I liked about BC2, at least in Heist mode. Part of that is undoubtedly the lack of bloat (well-defined classes? Crazy talk!), but I dunno, it was refreshing, at least until I got bored of the one map.
27-06-2014, 03:42 PM #11
- Join Date
- May 2012
Alright: random line breaks to avoid walls of text ho!
Clearly defined class roles, with every weapon fitting into a clear role but not being completely useless outside of it. No prone: fast-paced infantry combat with most cover being potentially removable puts the focus on movement over positioning. "Medium"ish time to kill in standard combat: the player with higher skill and more appropriate weapon usually has a good chance even when shot at first. Tying in with that: huge rewards for players who a) learn to disengage b) flank c) use every bit of kit. In rush, targets could (slowly) be destroyed by long range shelling/rocketing, forcing entrenched defenders to become more aggressive, opening up holes in their line, allowing the attackers more options which in turn keeps the game interesting.
Snipers are never untouchable: spotting, bursts of AR and generally smaller maps mean you're probably going to get some rounds fired your way if you're actually having an impact on the battle (oh, so many useless snipers). Most kit is unlocked after a week or so of play, even if you keep levelling, not that after level 5ish you're at a disadvantage to everyone else since the starting guns are all solid, if unremarkable. Pistols are genuinely worthwhile at the sort of ranges pistols should be used at.
Destruction is mechanically meaningful: again, you have to keep moving. Sneaking around and not always taking every shot is rewarded due to the excellent sound design allowing eagle-earred (?) players to go hunting for you.
And finally: highly readable classes.
/All the opinion of someone who played a huge amount of BC2, but didn't play later battlefields.
27-06-2014, 06:04 PM #12
What I loved about BFBC2 was the fact that you could use the grenade launcher at near point blank range and the explosion wouldn't hurt you much, so it was entirely feasible to escape an enemy by running into a house, blowing up the facing wall and running right through when they might expect you to be hiding upstairs and other similar tactics like that. Also the UAV was fun, I shot down an attack helicopter using the UAV machine gun once. It took bloody ages.
28-06-2014, 12:41 AM #13
Yeah, the MP was a Battlefield game, plain and simple. It was smaller scale (which I prefer) and was all built around rush, but it was still the same grind we have had since 2
As far as having a strong SP: They have been doing that with BF3 and BF4 (although, BF4's SP was shit...), so I don't see a reason for that
For me, the big thing was the mixture of a faster paced, less sniper heavy, more geomod focused MP and a FUN SP. The gameplay was a fairly decent balance between hand-holding and just blowing shit up, and the tone was just wonderful. The plot could EASILY have been a Call of Duty game but rather than try to give a super freshman-year philosophical speech we get "So... who wants to storm the cockpit?" and "For the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders!"Steam: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.
28-06-2014, 02:24 AM #14
Bad Company 2 was so received for one simple factor: it simply was a ground breaking innovation at its time.
This is the very first shooter to successfully incorporate tactical destruction of structures into a battlefield. I think the feature well-known shooter to have sure feature is Red Faction? But that is more like a gimmick to me than really a feature you can really enjoy. Bad Company 2 (or Bad Company also? But I never game on Xbox 360 / Playstation 3 so I don't really have a chance to experience it), on the other hand, really gave me many of such experiences in which I hid in covers waiting for chances, only to be taken out by grenade while opponets took you down simply by blowing up your cover. I really find it difficult to have similar moments in Battlefield 3.
Graphics of Bad Company 2 was also undeniably a major advancement for the whole Battlefield series (again, if I don't count Bad Company I cannot comment on). Besides, the projectile mechanism gave you a brand new experience from the old-school Counter-Strike kinda hit detection.
That was also a very rare moment when EA suddenly so high regarded us PC gamers. The PC version of the game was toned specifically for PC platform. Besides, EA had a very drastic switch on DRM policy by permitting you to truly own the copy you purchase, by allowing both disc-check fully functional offline and online check co-exist as options for you to choose. Of course, this is essentially an online game dictating that all connection have to be conducted through EA's own master server so you actually still don't own your game. But, at least EA showed some basic respect to our ownership right in that very brief period.
Fast game pace is also a selling point since this game was intended to take on COD hand to hand (even though EA finally backed down by pushing its release back to Spring to avoid clashing with MW2), as you mates have pointed out, prone was removed to facilitate faster momentum. I regret to say this, but on this regard we benefited so much by having console players on board. I bet DICE designed this to make it appealing to console players (Bad Company was a console game in the first place). I don't understand why but there is always a perception that console gamers are generally less patient then us, and DICE put this into the game design, result is this very fine-balanced Bad Company 2: a somewhat large battlefield (though tiny in Battlefield's standard) with fast-paced battles.
Sad is, no matter how we claimed we loved this game, most of us didn't hesitate to abondon it in favor of Battlefield 3. Player counts dropped so dramatically ever since the first week of launch of Battlefield 3. After all, large battlefield is the primary reason we are drawn to Battlefield. Officially Battlefield 3 has a maximum cap of 32 players for Rush games but I think this rule has long been ignored. I played some 64-player Rush games and they were very well-balanced: some of them were even in Metro map!
What worries me much, is that DICE's comment pretty much indicates that they intend to replicate the success. Please don't. Bad Company 2 was a huge success because it is truly a ground breaking innovation at its time. You want another success on innovation, you need to succeed by innovating, it is that simple. You cannot replicate an innovation to look for another success, because in doing so, you are no longer innovating.
BTW, for the campaign, while the gameplay totally sucked, the story was very brilliant. Again, I don't know the storyline of Bad Company, but Bad Company 2's story was very intriguing. They really should consider making a movie for that (preferably in animation, breaking the Japanese's monopoly). Even though I don't bother to come back to the campaign itself, the story by itself is very memorable.
28-06-2014, 02:52 AM #15
28-06-2014, 10:20 AM #16
28-06-2014, 01:09 PM #17
But to be fair, the SP in BC2 wasn't that bad. Sure it lacks a 4-man squad through their own fuckups but the delivery of the plot was quite solid and a few hilarious parts here and there.
It's a better game though
Last edited by Voon; 28-06-2014 at 01:15 PM.Art blog here.
Doodles poodles sheboodles