Zero Punctuation: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

I think most of the things he hated are the things I liked. Hell, I like the dust effects. It means hairy situations get hairier, with delightful chaos.

Also, I think he's exaggerating the difficulty of the mortar section. Being a reviewer, there's no way he plays on the hardest of the three difficulties (due to time constraint), and on the middle of them I may have died all of three times.

I he'd thrown out a gripe like "checkpoints are farther apart than typical", meaning "getting sniped sucks more than usual", I'd have followed him. If he'd bitched about all the vehicle sections, particularly some of the chopper sections where you must hit all the TOW launchers or get one-shotted... instead he bitches about dust.

Didn't Battlefield 2 do the satellite image thing, and come out before Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2? Hmm....

I'm pretty sure BF2 did the loading screen ala googlemaps before COD:MW or see above

I get the feeling Yahtzee is just bad at FPS. Most of the time when he reviews them he is focusing on stuff that is rather mundane or unimportant to get his dig in on it. Sidestepping multiplayer because of personal bias may seem understandable but reviewing a game as the opposition to the target demographic of the game is like asking a little boy that hates barbies which barbie he likes the best. Of course, this is how you can tell if a game he reviews is actually good or not. To me it looks like BC2 got a good review.

I am not that interested in checking it out right away personally, but this episode was one of the worst ones I have seen so far.

I have a certain thing about not wanting to read 15 pages of posts. So I'm sure this is said but well, bad luck, you'll hear it again. BFBC2 is an online game and whatever single player there is pretty much tacked on. It is, however formulaic, but reviewing it as a single player game doesn't do it justice.

PS Bought it, played it a bit... thought it was fairly "meh". I'm not really defending the game but rather the odd angle of the review. It'd be like reviewing an MMO but only playing solo content... yes that is part of it but it isn't exactly the core component of the game.

LoH_Mobius:
I'm pretty sure BF2 did the loading screen ala googlemaps before COD:MW or see above

Correct.

hes right dust was a real problem other than that i think the game was awesome

dust for the game is a hugh tattic for the online, the singleplayer I would agree, but being a long term battlefield player he has very much avoided the best thing about them is the multiplayer. Its kinda like buying a KFC family bucket and just having one or two for yourself and thrwoing the rest away.

saxton121:
lol that was damn funny

and Yahtzee's right,this whole game is almost an MW ripoff from start..who needs a loading screen with google maps?

You know that Battlefield started doing that in Battlefield 2? Which came out in 2005? The zooming in on the maps thing, that is.

yeah hes being an idiot in this one like most of the time i understand what he means when he points out flaws in a game and i laugh at it but really half of this made no sense at all like the dust is too much??? its trying to be a little bit realistic if a building collapses its going to kick some dust up

I registered just to respond to this. More often than not, I like Yahtzee's reviews and agree with most of his comments, and his review for Bad Company 2 isn't much different. But, I don't think he really gave the game a fair chance, here.

I agree realism shooters are getting a little old, and I will admit the single-player campaign is a bit contrived, and very frustrating at times. I didn't have (much) trouble with the first mortar section, though it took me a few tries to figure out exactly what to do with the second later in the game. Some of the vehicle sections were downright annoying. The fact the enemy AI focuses on the player while ignoring the AI squadmates, especially when they're standing in clear view, is downright stupid. The enemy AI does also seem to have a certain amount of prescience and shoots way too well, especially for being the poorly-trained militia the player fights through the game. Most players won't ever see some of the most entertaining parts of the game (the squad banter) because what a player must do (idle) is entirely contrary to what they've been trained to do in these kinds of games.

That said, the centerpiece of the Battlefield series has always been online multiplayer, which is where the majority of the play and the fun is. I know from his reviews Yahtzee is not a fan of online multiplayer, so I can't fault him for looking at only the campaign, but on the other hand Yahtzee as a long-time gamer ought to know the Battlefield series for what it is and its focus. When it boils down to it, I think of the campaign as an extended tutorial, teaching the player gameplay aspects such as basic tactics, vehicle role and operation, and weapon role and optimization. That may not be how these sorts of games ought to be developed, campaigns ought to be longer, more involved, and better-narrated if they are going to be added at all, but it's simply how it is.

With that said, BFBC2's online multiplayer is also its most damning feature. Bad Company 2's multiplayer is heavily team-oriented, and players can only form a single squad before joining a game, which means that outside of squad deathmatch and squad rush, there will be between eight and twelve other players on a team whose presence the player cannot control. With as large as some maps get, the player is dependent on the skill and intelligence of those other players to achieve victory; while there are no penalties for losing a match (and almost no incentive for winning) and a player's score is independent from victory or loss, even a pre-made squad of skilled, solid players rarely are the difference between winning and losing. No one likes to lose, especially when a team loses a match because the majority of a team are blithering idiots, which happens more frequently in this game than I care to admit. However, neither DICE nor EA are to blame for those issues, as the problem lies within the community itself.

EA did a major disservice to its fan base in disallowing split screen, local match, and LAN play from the console versions. Likewise, I'm not very happy with their "day-one DLC" marketing decision (by that I mean locking maps which are already part of retail content, which are unlocked with the VIP code) and DLC-release maps. But, I cannot fault their decision, as with Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 I see a larger strategy developing on EA's part to combat the game resale market, which is something I've viewed as problematic for a very long time. Though, making a deal with Gamestop at the same time to release game modes and content as exclusives is slightly hypocritical, but I digress...

I also didn't see the big deal with the game's dust effects. It rarely affects single-player gameplay unless a player gets extremely destruction-happy, but turns into a completely different monster in multi-player, where dust can mask allied and enemy movement, prevent target acquisition and spotting, and actually be a major tactical (dis)advantage. Likewise, I find it a bit odd that Yahtzee would trash the game for being a cover-based shooter given his distaste for such things, when any piece of cover (with less than a handful of exceptions) is destructible and the player must constantly shift positions to stay alive and succeed. Lastly, health regeneration at this point is tired, contrived, and detracts from a game's realism, but it also must be said health regeneration only occurs in the campaign; in multi-player, while a player may recover from the effects of shell shock, their health does not regenerate and they must be healed by a medic to recover to full.

All over, based upon his reviews and comments through ZP and EP, this really isn't Yahtzee's type of game, and it shows. I know he does these reviews for ratings and revenue, and I'm sure in some part to generate much-needed controversy over games and the state of game development, and to drop anvils where needed, and I appreciate that fact. I'm not surprised he trashed the game, and he honestly brings up a lot of good points, but I think he really dropped the ball on this one, for which I can't fault him because it's just not his type of game.

He really needs to review Serious Sam.

FireFox170:
Didn't Battlefield 2 do the satellite image thing, and come out before Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2? Hmm....

LoH_Mobius:
I'm pretty sure BF2 did the loading screen ala googlemaps before COD:MW or see above

You guys are right, but I think Battlefield 1942 did as well...

51gunner:
I think most of the things he hated are the things I liked.

Also, I think he's exaggerating the difficulty of the mortar section. Being a reviewer, there's no way he plays on the hardest of the three difficulties (due to time constraint), and on the middle of them I may have died all of three times.

I think the main reason he doesn't like Mirror's Edge and other such games is because they have a higher difficulty curve than a reviewer should need to deal with in order to get into a game.

Also I wonder if this is based off the PC version or 360 or PS3, not like there'd really be much of a difference, but maybe he has more trouble with the controls than some might.

scott91575:

blankgabriel:
BattleField 1942 was awesome. I would worship DICE if they re-made that.

They did (although not every map). It's called BF1943.

That horrid consolized piece of crap is not in anyway a full battlefield 1942 remake.

Anyone else a little confused by Yahtzee complaining about realism but bashing shooters like Halo?

yeah the enemies seem to pinpoint your exact position really fast haha
and the dust became a serious problem in the second to last level, I was literally about to stop for a break cuz my eyes were tired from the strain
but overall I didn't find it that difficult on normal with the whole 'your cover is destructible'
tho the mortar fire sequence did killed me a few times (not as many times as the last time when he complained about that one level in MW2, since I too died like 50 times defending that computer), but Yahtzee warned me of it since I watched this video right before renting it so thank you
(I tried to run ahead and died, take cover and died, followed my teammates and died...combination of running ahead and following my teammates...okay yay finally)

and people saying all FPS's suck...that's just immature and inconsiderate

edit: I'm not a huge fan of the game, so I'm not coming from that standpoint, I have the first one for keeps but I couldn't finish the campaign, and I got into BC2's multiplayer for a bit, but only because several of my friends were into it and it was amazing to work together in a way I never saw done in MW2 or Halo 3...but I've a feeling that once the freshness blows over and they stop playing the squad-based online MP would be much harder to enjoy)

I know that Yahtzee would spit acid (and not the good kind, like you want) on me for suggesting this, but in my personal opinion if you got BC2 for the single player campaign you missed out on the best part by far, perhaps even missed the point. Getting a good squad together is not only a lot of fun but if you play effectively and employ good strategies one good squad can bring a team that consists of drooling retards to victory without having to interact with them at all except perhaps occasionally using them as human shields.

I'm not big into online gaming myself but playing BC2 in a squad with a few friends is by far one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences I've ever had. I'd highly recommend it to anyone.

That bit about having to have a hand hovering over the reset button hit a bit close to home. I recall loading up Duke Nukem 3D whenever the folks were off to the grocery store, just because of that lovely piece of historic misogyny.

Good video. It seems like a nice return to form, for some reason.

I like this game but visibility really drives me mad. Heck, having a scope blocked by a leaf is bad enough, you'd just move it aside but hmm.

serialver:
I like this game but visibility really drives me mad. Heck, having a scope blocked by a leaf is bad enough, you'd just move it aside but hmm.

Oh yes I understand, particually with the mortar strike which rather likes to fall on you when you aim from pout of a bush,

I'm sure somebody said this, but I think Full Spectrum Warrior did the "zooming into the map" bit before any other console games, anyway.

Samurai Goomba:
I'm sure somebody said this, but I think Full Spectrum Warrior did the "zooming into the map" bit before any other console games, anyway.

Actually, when I think about it, Quake 2 did the satellite thing between mission hubs. In 1997.
And it was one of the first with the reality is brown and dull craze (Quake 1 had an excuse, because of it's limited palette - Quake 2 used coloured lightning and high color textures to create a brown world with red skies).

fisk0:

Samurai Goomba:
I'm sure somebody said this, but I think Full Spectrum Warrior did the "zooming into the map" bit before any other console games, anyway.

Actually, when I think about it, Quake 2 did the satellite thing between mission hubs. In 1997.
And it was one of the first with the reality is brown and dull craze (Quake 1 had an excuse, because of it's limited palette - Quake 2 used coloured lightning and high color textures to create a brown world with red skies).

Well, I did say "console games" but you're probably correct. I figured I'd put it out there and see if anybody else could remember an earlier game that did that.

Assassin Xaero:
I do completely agree that all these "realistic" shooters are getting annoying. I do miss the old days of carrying every gun and not having to choose which to drop to pick up something else...

I agree. I miss medkits and carrying one of everything.

The dumbest part of all of this is that a shooter can never be truly "realistic" unless you have a full, wrap-around 180 degree field of view with which to see everything. Even widescreen isn't enough to be accurate.

I'd settle for a health bar that constantly regenerates at a gradual rate when not being hit.

AncientYoungSon:

Assassin Xaero:
I do completely agree that all these "realistic" shooters are getting annoying. I do miss the old days of carrying every gun and not having to choose which to drop to pick up something else...

I agree. I miss medkits and carrying one of everything.

The dumbest part of all of this is that a shooter can never be truly "realistic" unless you have a full, wrap-around 180 degree field of view with which to see everything. Even widescreen isn't enough to be accurate.

I'd settle for a health bar that constantly regenerates at a gradual rate when not being hit.

Actually, you probably could do the 180 fov thing, but you would need like 3 wide screen monitors or something crazy like that... With the whole health bar thing, I still think that The Chronicles of Riddick had the best set up...

dont you remeber yahtzee hates JRPG's :P

XxcasualmanxX:
hes right dust was a real problem other than that i think the game was awesome

In single player dust was annoying because it only hampered the player's ability to shoot clearly, but in multiplayer, dust is a crucial gameplay element for making narrow escapes.

What is there to say really. Yeah single player probably is pretty much just MW2 again an it will be as long as the mass's keep buying that type of hide then pop out an shoot game without question.

The multiplayer actually differs from MW2 a lot though. MW2 is like Counterstrike with running around trying to headshot people. Actually MW2 is more dumbed down you don't need to headshot just shoot first. Where as BC2 is like other Battlefields where it has different class's that actually matter, vehicles, objectives an such.

I knew I should have listened to Yahtzee before going out and buying this game. *sigh*

I honestly prefered BFBC1 to this. I hate how they ditched the point system for health in exchange for the CoD method >:[

Yahtzee, go play Ratchet & Clank. Doesn't matter which one, really, but I suppose you might want to start with Deadlocked, given your shooter history.

Bright colors, ridiculously overdone weapons, loads of health, teammates whom it doesn't matter if they get themselves stupidly killed.

It looks like Yahtzee's fanbase will protect him no matter what shit he spews; face it, Yahtzee, you're becoming the Wii. Still like your reviews though, but do try to be more original next time! I mean... Dust... really?

I actually really enjoy this game. The SP was fairly quick sure, but I liked the story and the characters were all fun (Anyone listen to their random conversations? The most hilarious things in any game I've ever heard) and the multiplayer is fun.

All these players whining about "another realistic shooter" need to get over themselves

A) If you don't like them, don't play it, then you don't have to worry about it, and so why complain?

B) The destructible environments make it unlike any other 'realistic' game out there anyway. (Idk how a game in which you can be revived after taking a tank shell to the face is realistic but whatever I guess)

"Vodka-drinking sextants" and the respective animation was the best laugh I have gotten out of a video in weeks. Bravo, Yahtzee.

I never planned on playing it. I personally don't like multiplayer games (Outside of MMORPGs. Might be hypocritical. But meh). I don't think I should have to rely on OTHER people to make my game experience better or worse.

Good review. Wished he went into more... Other then dust. Oh well. Get onto God of War 3! C'mon Yahtzee. It's like you've purposefully avoided that and 'Final Fantasy XIII'.. :O

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here