Zero Punctuation: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 16 NEXT
 

I own the game, and agree with it all. FREAKING STUPID DUST. And the quips to MW2 were just childish.
"No! We can't just report back. They'll just send wimpy Special Forces with Heartbeat Monitors."
"If this were a snowmobile race, I'd cream you!" "It's not a snowmobile race! Snowmobiles are for pussies!"

Deranged Paranoid Power Fantasy For Right-Wing Shut-Ins
Who Would Blow Their Own Nuts Off The Moment
They Were Handed An Actual Fire Arm, Probably Already Have Done
(DPPFFRWSIWWBTONOTMTWHAAFAPAHD) -shooter

Congrats, Yahtzee, you just invented a brand new sub-genre! YAY!

(By the way... Duke Nukem Forever available by the year 2275? No way, ain't gonna happen.)

To be fair, Bad Company's regenerating health system is really conservative. Get knocked down in health 'till blood is all around the corners and it takes more than a minute to get back to a clear screen. In COD, however, that would take about 5 seconds.

And of course Yahtzee only played the singleplayer, which isn't very good anyway. I stopped playing after the second mission because the AI teammates are a bunch of idiots. On more than two occasions they stood all the way in the back standing around doing absolutely nothing while waiting for me to either kill the last guy or walk 20 ft forward and trigger a set piece. And that's when they weren't walking around glitching into stuff.

He does make a great point about the dust. I really don't understand why the view distance is so poor. Or why everything is so bright.

Abedeus:

VGFreak1225:
Slight side note, why is it that everyone thinks that you shouldn't take Yahtzee seriously? There is a slight difference between a reviewer, and what Yahtzee is trying to be, a critic. The objective of a reviewer is to tell you whether or not it is worth buying or at the very least looking into a game. A critic is supposed to point out all of the flaws and high points in that game. That's why he never says "Buy it" or "Skip it" at the end of his reviews. His objective is to look into a game, and find the flaws, rather than look at the things worth mentioning that are good. Take him seriously, just don't let him be the only factor when you decide on getting a game.

Because when critic chooses only one thing to mock, and ignores everything that makes the thing great, then the critic is pretty damn bad.

Also, if a 3rd person looked at his video, he wouldn't even know that the game even HAS a multiplayer mode.

Again, you don't understand the definition of 'critic'. A reviewer is someone who tries to come up with an assessment of whether the game is worth buying: and judging by the way Gamespot now operates that basically consists of listing all the different features, including your precious multiplayer mode. There's no real effort made to judge them in terms of effectiveness.

Yahtzee by comparison is probably the only surviving 'critic' in the gaming world because he has a view to the bigger picture. He ignores things which are easy to brag about like next gen graphics and assesses each game in terms of what it contributes to the genre, or to gaming as a whole. A part of that means embracing his opinions rather than trying to continue with the pretense of objectivity, because in a medium where the primary aim is almost always to entertain, individual taste is going to be responsible for a number of different reactions. That's why every week when he trashes a game, the fanboys come out and fill these pages with their virtual tears because they, for some inexplicable reason, are unable to be happy with just having fun themselves and demand that every treatment of a game give it some objective assessment that proclaims it to be 'good'.

In the case of his ignoring the multiplayer, that's again him embracing his opinions. I've never understood why people so continually whine that he should review multiplayer, because my suspicion is that if he did he'd hate it purely for the other players - not giving the kind of objective assessment people demand. And really, if you come here needing to be told that Bad Company 2 is a decent multiplayer experience, you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past eight years would know that EA has basically just released Battlefield 1942 over and over again with graphical updates and different settings. The core gameplay remains unchanged, and either you like it or you don't. As I've said before on this site, it's pretty much impossible to expect people to give objective assessments of multiplayer when multiplayer is really defined by what the players make of it, and often who you play against.

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

The dust is pretty anoying.
BTW, was yahtzee quoting Iron Maiden?

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?

Ya, because you know, Battlefield Modern Combat didn't do that years before modern warfare or anything.... no couldn't be as everybody seems to think that MW invented everything and didn't borrow all its elements from other shooters....

PENGUINKK:
To be fair, Bad Company's regenerating health system is really conservative. Get knocked down in health 'till blood is all around the corners and it takes more than a minute to get back to a clear screen. In COD, however, that would take about 5 seconds.

And of course Yahtzee only played the singleplayer, which isn't very good anyway. I stopped playing after the second mission because the AI teammates are a bunch of idiots. On more than two occasions they stood all the way in the back standing around doing absolutely nothing while waiting for me to either kill the last guy or walk 20 ft forward and trigger a set piece. And that's when they weren't walking around glitching into stuff.

He does make a great point about the dust. I really don't understand why the view distance is so poor. Or why everything is so bright.

I don't see your problem with this game. sure the A.I. isn't Crysis. but everything else you say is rubbish i have every BF game and the dust is there in those games as well the draw distance is whats supposed to make this game seeing how unlike most games this game has INFINITE DRAW DISTANCE.

but besides this nuance i enjoy this games SP but have to put up MP for awhile so i can play a much more addicting FF XIII

Sorry Yahtzee, but this one bored me.

Hunter.Wolf:
lols, of course they are .. what do you expect in a SHOOTER .. every kit MUST enable you to kill enemies ... it would be stupid of a kit forces you to hide or do tasks while being unable to defend yourself or even attack if you need to.

Ever hear of Team Fortress 2? In that game Engineers and Medics have very weak guns and so they must rely on their team to do the killing for them while they do their job. This necessitates teamwork. If everyone had a good gun, like they do in BF:BC2, teamwork disappears because people are more focused on getting kills.

Hunter.Wolf:
NO .. they are nothing alike ... you can't fix vehicles with a medic Kit and can't heal fallen allies or revive with an engineer Kit .. etc etc .. every freaking Kit has a distinct and very clear role that no other Kit can replace .. how does taht boil down to selecting your primary weapon !!!?

Playing assault feels no different than playing medic. Sure there are slight differences, but when it boils down to it the core gameplay remains the same.

Hunter.Wolf:
Oh god .. you completely understood it the other way around .. it adds tons of tactical depth and adaptability that allows you to react to any situation on the fly .. in one situation for example .. i was with a squad-mate who had a Medic kit .. we got in a firefight ... i was an enigneer ... he got killed .. i survived and killed the last of the attackers .... ran over to my squad-mate medic kit .. picked it up .. revived him and switched back to my engineer kit to fact the tank that was approaching our position.

Ah... "you're doing it wrong." The number one fallback argument for any fanboy.

I ask you, isn't the point of having different kits that one person CANNOT react to anything on the fly? That reduces teamwork, and leads back to my first argument, which you also rejected. Looks like you're contradicting yourself a bit...

Hunter.Wolf:
Health takes lots of time to regenerate in BC2 .. it doesn't regenerate instantly .. it does very slowly (play as a medic and watch you squad-mates health bars and you will see that .. i played as a medic a lot and this is a FACT.

As for ammo .. i ran out of ammo numerous times ... the longer you survive and the better you play you will notice that you will run out of ammo faster ... that's why ammo-packs are essential ... but someone who gets killed every five seconds won't notice that (not to mention won't be doing much good to his squad or team)

First we see fanboy argument number two, stating a subjective opinion as if it's an objective fact. How can you possibly say that it is a FACT that your health regenerates slowly? That's an opinion.

And then onto the third fanboy argument: "You just suck at the game." Yes, it must be because I suck that I rarely run out of ammo, as you so subtly hinted at in that post. I could counter saying that at least I don't spray ammo around like a n00b if I felt like arguing using fanboy logic.

Hunter.Wolf:
The core gameplay is NOTHING alike ... it isn't about racking kills at all in BC2 ... killing is only a means to achieve your objectives .. and you get rewarded with ranking points for every freaking action you do that supports your team (spotting enemies, completing objectives, healing, reviving, supplying ammo, fixing tanks with squad-mates in them, .... etc etc etc) and tons of other things that has nothing to do with racking up kills.

If there is a leveling system, and experience is based around kills, then yes, the goal is to get kills. Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that what you said there had absolutely nothing to do with core gameplay, but with the leveling system...

Hunter.Wolf:
You simply have been playing BC the WRONG way .. go watch this excellent tips video and you will understand why BC2 is way better than MW2 will ever hope to be ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p4fkH9qC4M

And this for an extra laugh ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZvqcZ1f0k&feature=related

"You're doing it wrong" AND link dumping? Are you even trying to hide it at this point?

I'm honestly surprised Yahtzee even reviewed a game that had a multiplayer focus without it being one that he was peer pressured into, like Borderlands.

I didn't agree with yahtzee's comments. I felt personally that the game was a great triumph.

Plus, the whole banging on about dust was a bit of a nitpick. He didn't even mention the World War 2 mission which i thought was a great set piece for the games plot.

But i will say that yes Russia is used wayyyyyyyyyyy too much as the evil doer on most "realistic Modern Shooter"

- Mosaic, XD honestly Yahtzee you handsome bastard-

We do need more badass shooters. not realistic ones. Like say if you crossed Saints Row with the first Modern Warfare and then throw in some other stuff, the bi-product of this may be something pretty decent.

Hey yahtz, fancy making another game on top of the space one?

Silk_Sk:
Yahtzee should really stop reviewing games that everyone buys for the multiplayer.

Agreed. I have watched every one of his reviews on this site, and the ones I enjoyed the absolute least were the games that are either successful thanks to their multiplayer components (Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Bad Company, etc.), or have a terrible one that would be amusing to rip to shreds.

The sad thing is Croshaw thinks that multiplayer is useless. My bad, let me use an exact quote rather than speculate: "Unfortunately I don't give a flying sh*t about multiplayer, and neither do a lot of people." (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8-Halo-3)

That mentality really carries over to every single game he reviews. I hate to burst your bubble Croshaw, but millions of people care about multiplayer. Hence why the games built around it absolutely demolish the games that lack it in terms of sales and popularity. So by you not actually giving an accurate (or any) account of a games multiplayer, you're successfully excluding an enormous portion of the market.

I just don't get how a reviewer in this day and age could not touch on multiplayer in a game. You wouldn't go to a movie blindfolded and complain about the lack of visiuals, just like you shouldn't play a game without touching on the multiplayer and whining about the lack of complexity, depth, replayability, quality, or whatever redeeming quality that multiplayer typically serves as in this day and age.

You know, I still dont actually know what Yahtzee thought of BFBC2 specifically beyond "dust sucks", as this seemed rather more of a general rant against FPS evolution over the last 10 years. What was the sound design like, were the levels and story any good, are there any things it did well, what was the actual experience like, etc.

To the people saying that it has bad multiplayer, all I can say is OMFGYHNI (oh my fucking god you have no idea). Best multi there is out there, if you hate it, you are doing it wrong.

Yahtzee should play the MP part of the game and re-review it.

Edit: Also watch this: Tips & Tricks: How Not to be a Noob at Battlefield Bad Company 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p4fkH9qC4M

I honestly don't see where all this praise is coming from for BFBC2.

If Yahtzee actually reviewed BFBC2 for it's multiplayer I would be seeing a lot more butthurt fanboism than I am now.

The multiplayer is definitly the centre peace of any Battlefield game. I will even go as far as to say, yes, BFBC2 has a sick multiplayer that is a whole bundle of fun. The singleplayer, not so much.

But why all the praise? Is it the fanboism? The MULTIPLAYER is broken for a larger majority of people playing without a stable/playable connection. And yet EA/DICE go on promoting there half assed attempt of a launch.

Stats don't update reguarly or as they should, When some people get into a game it is full of lag, the server browser is an afterthought. I actually like this game, and yet I seem to be finding that the BETA Was more stable than it's full release.

When DICE/EA deliver on a stable/workable multiplayer only then would I ever defend or "praise" them as a Game Developer/Publisher. The constant "This is really actually the best game of all time" Absolute Bull Shite. It isn't. Its a another generic FPS that is no better than MW2.

How about a realistic game where you spend 2 percent in battle and 98 percent walking between combat zones.

He thought it was supposed to be a "realistic shooter". What? Almost as unrealistic as moon jumping halo.

Another great and funny review Mr.Croshaw!

Although I haven't played Bad Company 2 yet and not planning on buying it since I already have MW2.My premise is <why bother to get a mw2 "copy" with vehicles> I'm quite reluctant when it comes to that.

My 2 cents :)

Actually I wonder, which these days are more frequently used as an enemy, The Russians or PMCs?

Not that I don't think the singleplayer should have been better, but NOBODY bought it for the singleplayer.
I myself have played through the first three levels between my enormous playtime on the multiplayer.

Stalked by Google Maps...That line fucking killed me...with laughter!!! *sigh* i miss the good old days where you could be an anthropomorphic fox killing his enemies by doing extreme pirouettes. I miss having to use my brain to remember to bring the right items with me as i leave the save/safe room to journey into the deep dark unknown, but mostly i miss not being called gay just because i killed some guy over Xbox Live (Yeah i have been watching too much game overthinker lately!!).

I really don't see how this is copying Modern Warfare 2. The Battlefield series was the first highly-popular mainstream series to enter the modern war theatre with Battlefield 2, released in June 2005. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released in November 2007. A full two years after Battlefield 2. If anything, Call of Duty copied Battlefield in its move to modern warfare.

Putting aside the fact that he did not review the core component of the game, multiplayer, his points aren't that... good. I know, the point of the "review" was humour (which was lacking... too many dick jokes.). I actually did like the single player of this game. It had great humour as well. The personalities may have been a bit one-dimensional, but they are definitely better than everyone being uber-serious hardcases, at least in an unrealistic shooter such as this.

Perhaps when choosing games to review you should consider not picking games that have a history of being online only, and have a single player thrown in as an added bonus. I don't mind that you don't play multi, just don't review games that are 90% multi/10% SP. Just saying.

Oh, and if you thought the dust was bad in single player, try mutli, if only to see the dust for 1 match. You'll want to personally fly to Sweden, drive to DICE headquarters, and punch everyone involved in the creation of the game in the face. Twice.

Anticitizen_Two:

Ever hear of Team Fortress 2? In that game Engineers and Medics have very weak guns and so they must rely on their team to do the killing for them while they do their job. This necessitates teamwork. If everyone had a good gun, like they do in BF:BC2, teamwork disappears because people are more focused on getting kills.

It is a very gimmicky and silly way to enforce team-work ... and like i said ... GETTING KILLS in BC2 ISN'T the damn purpose of the game .. how many times do i have to say it .. even if you rack up 100,000,000 kills if you don't play with your team and squad right you freaking LOSE.

Anticitizen_Two:

Playing assault feels no different than playing medic. Sure there are slight differences, but when it boils down to it the core gameplay remains the same.

It does feel very different if you know the strengths and weaknesses of each class/kit ... that if you know how to play the game correctly first ... the main weapon is different and the tools you get (up to 3 tools) are totally different for each kit/class ... how the heck is it the same !!!!

Anticitizen_Two:
Ah... "you're doing it wrong." The number one fallback argument for any fanboy.

"you're doing it wrong." is a fact ... according to your own statements .. a very simple FACT you refuse to accept.

Anticitizen_Two:
I ask you, isn't the point of having different kits that one person CANNOT react to anything on the fly?

How is taking tactical choices out of your hand and pigeon holing you into a pre-cast role is a good thing ... XD

Anticitizen_Two:
That reduces teamwork, and leads back to my first argument

Reduces gimmicky team work maybe .. team work in BC2 is more than shoving in one of each class together into the same team and praying for victory cause you have all sorts of classes in your team.

Anticitizen_Two:
stating a subjective opinion as if it's an objective fact. How can you possibly say that it is a FACT that your health regenerates slowly? That's an opinion.

It is a fact .. how hard is it to understand a simple fact that the HP in BC2 regenerates slowly .. not so hard i guess .. there is HP in some games that regenerates instantly if you avoid enemy fire and there is HP in some other games that takes a set period of time to Regen even if you avoid enemy fire .. DAMN SIMPLE FACT.

Anticitizen_Two:
And then onto the third fanboy argument: "You just suck at the game." Yes, it must be because I suck that I rarely run out of ammo, as you so subtly hinted at in that post. I could counter saying that at least I don't spray ammo around like a n00b if I felt like arguing using fanboy logic.

FACT is .. if you die often you re-spawn with fully reloaded ammo and grenades .. die too often and you won't even notice the ammo pack or what purpose they serve ... if you survive longer you will eventually and inevitably run out of ammo and you will NEED ammo ... those are simple facts .. and i don't give a damn if you believe or not .. but i rank 3nd or 4th on my team and usually in the BEST squad in most games i played .. spraying bullets like noobs is what you do in MW2 cause the game-style encourages that.

Which also takes us back to your silly argument .. what if non of your team mates is an Assault .. what if you are away from them at the moment trying to flank the enemy .. if you can't change kits you are screwed big time .. being able to change kits allows you to take out an enemy with a knife and if they are Assault use their ammo kits to replenish your own kit ammo .. and keep going to where your teammates are ... that's offering the player tactical choices .. you can't expect to depend 100% on your teammates all the time that's just unrealistic and gimmicky .. using the kits that way you can be way more useful to your team mates (like the medic example i mentioned earlier)

Anticitizen_Two:
If there is a leveling system, and experience is based around kills, then yes, the goal is to get kills. Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that what you said there had absolutely nothing to do with core gameplay, but with the leveling system...

What i said there IS in fact the very core gameplay of BC2 .. if you don't do these things you most certainly will LOSE .... and people are encouraged to do them not only because they make you WIN the freaking game ... but because you are rewarded for them too .. that's the CORE gameplay .. for the 100th time it isn't about racking freaking kills .. when will you understand that !!!!?

And again .. kills aren't the main focus in BC2 ... and if you still think so .. you are playing it WRONG and that's a fact you can't argue.

Anticitizen_Two:
"You're doing it wrong" AND link dumping? Are you even trying to hide it at this point?

Hide what and what link dumping !!!? .. it's a freaking Youtube video .. watch it if you really want to play the game correctly .. not so hard to get really.

And yeah .. for the 100th time .. YES .. you are playing BC2 the WRONG way (and that can very easily be seen from your replies) .. instead of wasting your time replying to me and embarrassing yourself .. watch the video and hopefully learn something.

While I think Yahtzee's great, I really had to make an account to respond to this one. This review was a big waste for me. I don't have a problem with the fact that Yahtzee refuses to review a game's multiplayer aspect, but then why even bother to review games where the singleplayer is an afterthought and 90% of the playerbase bought it for the multiplayer. Frankly I was surprised this game had any single player at all as the last BF game I played (2142) had no single player campaign at all. The only reason I even played the campaign at all was to get acquainted with the game before throwing myself into multiplayer (not to mention the servers were a mess on opening day). I was so disinterested in a BF singleplayer component that I skipped through every cutscene and I NEVER do that.

Another thing that's annoying me is the "this is just a MW2 ripoff, although I haven't played the multiplayer or even the game itself, so really I have no clue" mentality. If you played the multiplayer at all you'd see how vastly different the game is. If you want to criticize certain aspects of the game, be my guest, but at least be informed about it.

where the hell is FF13!!! (fanboy screaming)

XxScottocsxX:
I honestly don't see where all this praise is coming from for BFBC2.

If Yahtzee actually reviewed BFBC2 for it's multiplayer I would be seeing a lot more butthurt fanboism than I am now.

The multiplayer is definitly the centre peace of any Battlefield game. I will even go as far as to say, yes, BFBC2 has a sick multiplayer that is a whole bundle of fun. The singleplayer, not so much.

But why all the praise? Is it the fanboism? The MULTIPLAYER is broken for a larger majority of people playing without a stable/playable connection. And yet EA/DICE go on promoting there half assed attempt of a launch.

Stats don't update reguarly or as they should, When some people get into a game it is full of lag, the server browser is an afterthought. I actually like this game, and yet I seem to be finding that the BETA Was more stable than it's full release.

When DICE/EA deliver on a stable/workable multiplayer only then would I ever defend or "praise" them as a Game Developer/Publisher. The constant "This is really actually the best game of all time" Absolute Bull Shite. It isn't. Its a another generic FPS that is no better than MW2.

Is the multiplayer still broken for you? For the first week it was absolutely SHOCKING, but I've been enjoying great, fast connections as of late. Most fun I've had in an online FPS for a VERY long time :D

One note about the 'high pings' - the in-game ping display is actually server-side latency that helps to absorb lag effects. The ping you see in the server browser is your connection speed.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Can I just say *cock* the penis *dick* refen *tallywhacker*-ces are getting *shlong* a little *todger* more use than the *wang* breasts *slobber* ones in the Tomb *boner* Raider ones?

Oh yes, *IRON ROD OF DOOM*

Puhhhhlease.

*Nods in agreement*

Too many dick jokes.

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

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

Sturmdolch:
I really don't see how this is copying Modern Warfare 2. The Battlefield series was the first highly-popular mainstream series to enter the modern war theatre with Battlefield 2, released in June 2005. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released in November 2007. A full two years after Battlefield 2. If anything, Call of Duty copied Battlefield in its move to modern warfare.

It's because there are people who only own consoles and have no idea BF2 or the BF games existed.

Hunter.Wolf:
fanboy snip

Hold on... you claimed that even more of your opinions were facts... you said "you're doing it wrong" about 500 times... you completely ignored every single one of my arguments and just said STFU IM RIGHT... you're actually becoming MORE of a fanboy! This is fascinating.

I hope you realize that there is no absolutely substance to your arguments.

Oh, and say whatever you like in response to this, but I'm done here. I have much better things to do than listen to people who cannot separate their opinions from fact whine about how their generic modern class-based multiplayer FPS is just soooooooooooooooo much better than all the other generic modern class-based multiplayer FPSes.

Good day.

addeB:
I'm not really into war games and modern war games are even worse. When did game developers stop making WW2 games with English speaking nazis with fake accent?

When Infinity Ward said it wasn't cool anymore, I guess, since there is nothing new or innovative in any of these "refeshing" games.

I've had a problem with the idea of realistic shooters for quite some time, but my best reason only came up a month or two ago. My brother was playing Modern Warfare 2 and explained to me that it was the most realistic shooter ever made. Then he shot someone in the face with dual sawed-off shotguns.

Derp

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 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