BF:BC 2 [Archive]

View Full Version : BF:BC 2

Vuk

03-03-2010, 18:18

So, has anyone played it? If so, give us a review! ~;)

pevergreen

03-04-2010, 02:47

Will do later today, picking my copy up soon.

Played for a bit.

Choice of weapons for MP is great, plently of stuff. Think Battlefield 2 but with a bunch more and better graphics.

If you wanted pure DM type stuff, go with MW2 though, only benefit this game has is the Conquest mode.

Vuk

03-04-2010, 19:04

pevergreen

03-05-2010, 03:15

Vuk

03-05-2010, 03:26

I didnt know that >_>

Single Player so far: Bad story, unlikeable characters. Apparently only gets worse.

If you want Single Player, definately go for MW2...unless you already have that, in which case, save your money.

Is the singleplayer anything like the original BF: BC? I really liked what they did in the first one, so I hope that they did not change that.

pevergreen

03-05-2010, 04:49

Never seen/touched/played the first BC, so no idea.

Kekvit Irae

03-05-2010, 06:38

Is the singleplayer anything like the original BF: BC? I really liked what they did in the first one, so I hope that they did not change that.

Health injectors are completely done away with. Instead, it reverts to the lame Call of Duty style of health regeneration.

Fragony

03-05-2010, 07:07

Kekvit Irae

03-05-2010, 09:30

Demo is great fun, but for some reason I am having a real hard time with it, in World at War I end up being DA MASTER most of the time but these guys slap me around like it's nothing, just mob me up and throw me in a bucket, thx. But the look and feel of the game is great, especially the graphics are spectacular, really sharp and clean even on my ancient tv. Who is -playing/thinking of getting it- on the PS3

I'm currently playing it, and here are my thoughts:

I didn't know anything could be worse than MW2... but BF:BC2 is. CoD Health regeneration, the same BS building destruction from BC1 returns (EA, take a hint from Red Faction: Guerilla and make FOUNDATIONS and CORNERS destructable), checkpoints are so sparse that if you die, you lose a good five minutes of gameplay, loading times each time you die take about ten to fifteen seconds (and you will die, A LOT), less humor than BC1, the gunfire and explosion echos drown out everything, etc, etc, etc...
The only thing that saves this game are the vehicles... and only barely.

edyzmedieval

03-05-2010, 09:55

And I wanted to get it for PC...

I hope that there's some good reviews before the Deluxe Version goes out of sale - a.k.a. 16th of march because I'm getting it on Steam.

Fragony

03-05-2010, 10:59

I'm currently playing it, and here are my thoughts:

I didn't know anything could be worse than MW2... but BF:BC2 is. CoD Health regeneration, the same BS building destruction from BC1 returns (EA, take a hint from Red Faction: Guerilla and make FOUNDATIONS and CORNERS destructable), checkpoints are so sparse that if you die, you lose a good five minutes of gameplay, loading times each time you die take about ten to fifteen seconds (and you will die, A LOT), less humor than BC1, the gunfire and explosion echos drown out everything, etc, etc, etc...
The only thing that saves this game are the vehicles... and only barely.

I don't care about the story-mode mind you, I doubt I will even try the campaign. The demo is loads of fun and I want a new shooter. World at War is starting to get old and it's annoying how they force upon you their map-pack, and I am not so sure MW2 is my thing, everybody loves Modern Warfare but me it seems, I miss the 'war is hell and you are in it' approach in the campaign and the WW2 weapons are just more fun. Love the bayonette *schwob* so gruesome hehe.

Husar

03-05-2010, 11:43

I got it for PC, only played some MP so far, can be hard to get a connection but so far I like it.
It has the auto-regeneration but it takes longer than in MW2 and reviwers actually mentioned that as a good point, like getting up to shooter standards of today, so it's obvious why they made that. May post more after exploring more of it.

Kekvit Irae

03-05-2010, 12:34

I don't care about the story-mode mind you, I doubt I will even try the campaign.

Let me guess... you're one of those people who only buy games for the multiplayer. Am I right?

pevergreen

03-05-2010, 14:11

Let me guess... you're one of those people who only buy games for the multiplayer. Am I right?

In the battlefield series, I don't see how that is a bad thing.

You wouldn't buy BF2 or BF2142 for the single player.

Fragony

03-05-2010, 14:15

Let me guess... you're one of those people who only buy games for the multiplayer. Am I right?

Some, Call of Duty being one of them, I never even bothered with the single-player of Rogue Spear, and I have played it for years. Who is playing battlefield for the campaign anyway (but you). I got the console for single play, I just prefer it. PC gaming is so hectic, everybody's jumping.

Husar

03-05-2010, 14:56

In the battlefield series, I don't see how that is a bad thing.

You wouldn't buy BF2 or BF2142 for the single player.

Bad company introduced a Campaign though and it's about 50-50 now, as most games should be IMO, offer something for everybody.
Played a bit more in the last few hours and I'm starting to like it more.

Vuk

03-05-2010, 17:31

In the battlefield series, I don't see how that is a bad thing.

You wouldn't buy BF2 or BF2142 for the single player.

Actually I bought both for just SP and they are still among my favorite games.
I am not too impressed with the reviews for BC 2.

Kekvit Irae

03-05-2010, 19:05

All I can say about multiplayer is HOLY CRAP!
After getting my butt handed to me as Assault, I switched to Medic, and in 90% of the games I have played (and I've been playing since yesterday), I have gotten the Ace Pin (top scoring player in the round) nearly every single time. By a HUGE margin. I'm not kidding either. I usually average around 1500 points a round. My playtime is only 2h 36m and my squad score is 2130 (as opposed to the average 200-700 around me).
My theory is people just don't know how to play medics. You see someone wounded? You drop a medikit. You see someone dead? You defib them. It's not that freaking hard, and yet I'm the only one (in full servers, no less) to get top scores by at least a 500 to 750 margin.

And I suck at PS3 shooter multiplayer. Go figure.

Husar

03-05-2010, 19:07

Actually I bought both for just SP and they are still among my favorite games.
I am not too impressed with the reviews for BC 2.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/battlefieldbadcompany2?q=bad%20company

I don't really see any really bad reviews there.

And Kekvit, isn't it nice to know that this game rewards teamplay?

Kekvit Irae

03-05-2010, 19:12

And Kekvit, isn't it nice to know that this game rewards teamplay?

As a BF1942 and BF2 veteran, I have to say that it wouldn't be a Battlefield game without teamwork.

Vuk

03-06-2010, 16:06

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/battlefieldbadcompany2?q=bad%20company

I don't really see any really bad reviews there.

And Kekvit, isn't it nice to know that this game rewards teamplay?

I meant the reviews that people on this forum have been giving it. Regenerating health? WTF? The instaheal needle thing from the first one was a bad enough console over simplification, but regenerating health? Is this a Battlefield game or Kingdom Hearts? Why the #$%^ do they have to %^*(#$ over#@*$#simplify good PC games for %*&(#$*#$# consoles!! Consoles are ideal for games like Mario and PoP, and I would much rather play either on a console than a PC. But serious shooter games is where PCs excel, so why the heck do they try to make a serious shooter on a console?!
They gameplay in BC was a blooming chore! It was hard to do and unsatisfying. The only thing that made me enjoy it was the good characters and destruction. The gameplay in BC2 sounds even worse!

*breathes deeply*

Sorry 'bout the rant, but there goes another one of my favorite franchises.

Secura

03-06-2010, 18:14

Health injectors are completely done away with. Instead, it reverts to the lame Call of Duty style of health regeneration.

It's ironic because more and more games are leaning towards the CoD style of health.

Recently, Peter Molyneux stated that the health bars (among other things) of Fable III had been dropped in favour of the damage being more noticeable to the player. He said the screen would increase in red hues as you drew closer to death, and would return to normal over time; it's hoped that this immerses the player further in the game.

Since when did this become the de facto means of health management? :<

Azathoth

03-07-2010, 05:26

I don't see why regeneration is getting so much flak for being overly simplistic. It's no worse than health packs, anyway. In 5 or 10 years a new system willl replace it, just in time for the first serious immersive virtual reality consoles.

Husar

03-07-2010, 07:02

Uhm, someone is missing the point here, and a bit more.
First off I don't have any problems with "serious" shooters on a console, really serious ones like ARMA probably have too many controls anyway.

Secondly, you seem to have missed out Battlefield: bad Company, which was console exclusive, the Bad Company Battlefields are not a serious shooter continuation of battlefield 2 and I thought that was pretty clear, instead it's a more humorous take on shooters(although not as humorous as Battlefield Heroes, try that if you want to complain about BF becoming unrealistic ~;) ) and it also introduced a single player campaign, if you expect Bad company 2 to be a "serious" save-the-world-from-the-evil-bad-people-with-bad-weapons/nukes-MW2-like-shooter then you will get disappointed. enemies are bullet sponges but I actually appreciate that after playing MW2 where you don't have vehicles but the G18 akimbo(which isn't very realistic in the first place) turns anyone into a walking Wirbelwind(that's the WW2 tank, try CoH for reference). Well, I'm not claiming it's for the realism freak but then neither are DICE afaik.

And there are still medics, and once the critical blood splatter goes away your screen corners stay red for quite a while before you are fully regenerated, a lot of time for a medic to help you for example, or an enemy to shoot you. It's not the instant regeneration after 5 secs that MW2 has.

So yeah, if you're looking for a realistic shooter, try Arma 2 or something, but Bad Company isn't that kinda game, never was and never wanted to be. IIRC there is a Battlefield 3 in the works, sort of indicating that Bad Company is a bit of an offshoot of the original BF series.

Hooahguy

03-08-2010, 01:18

i plan on getting this game. my old clan, L13, is getting back together, so i thought id pick up a copy and join in

Husar

03-08-2010, 02:01

If anybody wants to add me on the PC, my nick is the same as here.

Hooahguy

03-10-2010, 02:22

im on the 4th mission, and it plays pretty well. i get some lag, mainly on the jungle levels, but thats really it.
which is surprising because people told me it would be laggy all the time.

on to gameplay:
its very much like cod4, but i will say this:
the sound immersion is EPIC.
nothing compares to it.
i also love the destructable enviroments.

Husar

03-10-2010, 10:45

on to gameplay:
its very much like cod4,

:beadyeyes2: :whip:

Not that I don't like CoD, but I never found the gameplay all that similar apart from both being shooters.
Especially in multiplayer (Rush, that is, not Conquest) you get a lot more teamwork, people take cover behind things, you get firefights etc., not rambos running frantically all around the place killing people left and right.
Of course you also get attacking teams consisting to 50% of snipers that will hardly even take the first base or medics that revive you in front of 4 enemies, but it certainly has some really great moments IMO and there is a lot more teamwork to be seen simply because you get points for it.
And the singleplayer of the first was a lot more humorous, still haven't started this one's yet as I am busy with the MP and wanted to finish the MW2 SP first which I still haven't done. :juggle2:

edyzmedieval

03-10-2010, 11:08

So the question that is on my mind...

Is it worth it the 50 euros?

Pease reply fast, I want to get the Limited Edition by March 16.

Hooahguy

03-10-2010, 15:59

depends: do you like multiplayer?
without MP, the game is way overpriced.

anyhow, i do love how the game rips on MW2, like making references how heartbeat sensors and snowmobles are wimpy.
good times, good times.

by the way Husar, i when i compared BC2 to cod4 i meant in the single player.
the MP is of course way different, which is why i racked up over 160 hours in BF2142 and only 39 hours of cod4 MP.

Husar

03-10-2010, 17:18

As he says, for the MP, definitely worth the money, for the SP alone, dunno.

Hooahguy

03-10-2010, 18:46

the SP alone only took me 5 hours, not including looking for the entra stuff.

Kekvit Irae

03-10-2010, 20:54

I just tried my first Hardcore game yesterday, and all I can say is... if you don't have a microphone, you should NOT play Hardcore. In normal multiplayer, you have a minimap and you can press Select (PS3) when your crosshairs are on an enemy to mark them for your entire team. In Hardcore, you have no minimap, calling out enemies does nothing, you have no crosshairs (you have to rely on iron sights, red dot, 4x, or 12x scopes), bullet damage is higher, friendly fire is always a problem, enemies are NEVER on your hud... so yeah, you NEED a microphone.

Hooahguy

03-10-2010, 21:50

edyzmedieval

03-11-2010, 11:04

As he says, for the MP, definitely worth the money, for the SP alone, dunno.

I play both, but almost exclusively multiplayer.
I bought CoD4 only for the multi, I never even bothered to open the single campaign...

Madoushi

03-11-2010, 12:01

Finally got my full membership. :)
I loved Bad Company 1, and have been playing BC2 on PS3 (my PSN ID is AWanderingFlame add me, invite me, love me)

I really am torn. In some ways, it's so much better than BC1. Keep in mind I missed out on all the Battlefield games between 1942 and 1943 as my comp couldn't handle them, so I have no idea what the PC Battlefield games of the past few years have been like.

BC1 had wide, sprawling maps which gave precedence to armored combat. BC2 feels pratically claustrophobic by comparison. Not really a bad thing, though I desperately miss the farm and golf course maps from 1.

The single-player in BC2 drove me up the wall. I didn't like it at all. It felt far more linear, and I got really annoyed at having to defend helicoptors from 2947593859 guys with RPGs when three hits brings you down. Not fun at all. Nor is trying to shoot down two Hinds with a TOW launcher while Sweetwater fails to cover you from infantry charging up the hill. The SP in BC1 was no prize, but I felt it was at worse just a glorified MP tutorial. "Here's how you drive a tank. Here's how you defend against being flanked. Here's how you take on AA in a chopper."

The SP in BC2 is more cinematic, more thematic, but I found it almost like torture. I didn't enjoy a second of it, and kept asking myself why I was bothering with it instead of jumping into the MP.

I find on the consoles, Rushes generally favor the attacker. If you can take out the building around a crate and arm the charge on it, your team can just pour fire onto it, meaning the defenders can't disarm it untill they kill enough of you to get near it. Usually, by then it's too late.

I'm enjoying the game, don't get me wrong, but I'm finding it not nearly as addictive as BC1, which is somewhat surprising.

Also, I dislike the new unlock system. It seems a lot more slanted than BC1. New players are those without as many logged hours are often cannon fodder to players with one-hit sniper rifles, Neostead 2000 shotguns (aka the noobsticks from BC1) medics with MG3s and body armor, etc.

I mostly play as Medic or Engineer. I almost never get the top score, and when I do, I'm top scorer with like 1500 points. I try to always drop medkits and defib fallen allies, just usually as soon as I defib someone I get sniped. I usually score better as an Engineer, but when there's no enemy vehicles to take on, being an Engineer is kind of a waste, similarily, when the enemy has a tank in your base and your squad is all Assault guys, I'd almost always wish I'd taken C4 instead of paddles.

As a compromise, I almost always take a tracer instead of a pistol. I'd rather light up a Blackhawk than be able to kill an Assult guy who sneaks up on me as I reload.

Husar

03-11-2010, 12:54

Hmm, I tried body armor yesterday and didn't notice a difference at all, then went for the Magnum bullets which don't seem to make that much of a difference either. The AEK-971 is really a rather bad weapon(though it works as well, just a bit harder than others, got killed by it often) but even the advanced players use the XM-8 sometimes which is the first weapon you unlock in the assault class. Tactics, teamplay etc. play a big role, too, yesterday I killed around 6 to 8 people or so with the 870MCS or so(first shotgun) without dying, simply because they didn't see me or behaved stupid, I'm in no way a shooter pro and often go down in MW2 etc. due to my somewhat slow reactions but in this game I can do quite good at times, simply because it's not as much run and gun and you have to be a bit creative at times or get behind enemy lines, shoot them in the back etc.(I don't complain when others do it to me either btw, just means our team is not covering the area very well) At least in rush that is, conquest is more hectic and that's why I hardly play it anymore, Rush is where it's at.
Only complaint is that the auto balance still allows all the pro players to gather on one side and play with 13 high-ranking guys against 9 newbies, matches where both sides are about equal are the most fun(yes, even on the winning side, no fun waiting with 9 people for three guys to attack).

Madoushi

03-11-2010, 13:15

Lots of players use the XM-8, but unlocking the scope or red dot for almost any weapon can make a huge difference. I've found body armor makes a noticable difference, allowing them to soak up as many as 8-10 more rounds from my T88 MG at medium range, which is usually the difference between me gunning someone down from behind to me shooting someone from behind and having them turn, empyty a burst into me, kill me and survive.

The 870 MCS is surprisingly powerful, but the Neostead 2000 is a one-hit kill from medium range, though, like the M24 and the N2000 in BC1, if they miss you have all day to finish them off.

I personally prefer conquest to rush because again, I find Rush is slanted toward the attacker. Unless the attackers aren't coordinating at all, it's just too easy to pour fire on an armed charge, and conversely, it's the chaos and unpredictability of conquest that makes it fun. You can't just park somewhere and stare at a ridge and blow up anything that approaches, you have to stay moving and keep your head on a swivel.

I guess it's all a matter of preference, though.

Hooahguy

03-11-2010, 16:09

Kekvit Irae

03-11-2010, 17:08

99% of the time I'm killed by an Assault class, it's with the XM-8 P. There must be something special about that weapon, but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

Personally, as a Medic, I nearly always use either the M60 (high damage, and great accuracy if combined with the red dot or 4x scope) or the MG36 (not very damaging, but has a built-in red dot scope so you can focus on another specialization). I've already got two gold stars for the M60, and I find it funny that the Five Gold Stars badge is easier to obtain than the Eleven Silver Stars badge.

Madoushi

03-12-2010, 12:30

after playing about 9 hours, i can confidently say im a sniper whore.
maybe its because the maps are so large i feel like i need to hang back and pick off the unlucky chaps, but i also find that the recon class is a bit.. overpowered?
also, how do you unlock the XM-8? i still have the default AK rifle, and i hate it.
finding a server is a bit hard, but once you get in its a blast. i find it much more tactical and even hard, playing on the urban maps than it was in COD4.
but playing cat-and-mouse with another sniper has to be one of the most tense gaming experiences ive had to date.

You unlock the XM8 like you unlock all guns, by scoring points as assault and gaining a level. Much easier once you get the ammo box. The AUG is pretty powerful, as well.

I have the same problem levelling Recon. For me, the M24 is totally useless, so all my points have to come from pistols and C4. Getting the T88 took forver. Even with that, though, Recon isn't my thing. Kudos on people who are good at sniping, I'm terrible at it. Nobody ever stands still (except me, I guess).

I will definately say that even if way too many people play Recon, I too find it a lot more dynamic than CoD4, where camping felt brutally and ridiculously overpowered, and 3/4s of the game seemed to be simply memorizing the maps.

also, Madoushi- i dont know what you are talking about when you say there are no sprawling maps. ive played on a ton of them.
also, rush is dependent on the teams. ive played many rush games when defending when we have won, and many games as attacker when we lost. its all in the team. in fact id say its more slanted towards the defender, because they can just lie in wait for the enemy to come.

Most of the maps in BC1 were places like golf courses and farms with large patches of flat land dotted with patches of trees and small clusters of buildings. Most of the mps in BC2 are comparable in size, but almost always have a lot more terrain contour, foliage and buildings, they 'feel' a lot more cramped. In the conquest mode, the flags are placed much closer together in BC1. Some players may find it more exciting, to me it feels cramped and limiting. YMMV.

As for Rush, it varies map by map. The coastline map with the lighthouse and the winter map seem more slanted to the defenders, the jungle map and desert map are more slanted to the attackers. I think out of 50 matches on the jungle map, the attackers have won 48 times, even when we had a good team. I wouldn't be surprised if my results are atypical, but the results have repeated enough times to take some of the mystique out of Rush for me. I still feel it's just too easy to set a charge and have a tank and a Blackhawk pour fire on it while the eight or nine Recons on your team call in simultaneous mortar strikes. Again, Your Mileage ay Vary.

in fact, id like to take the time to relate a rush match i played recently. it was on the Isla Inocentes map. the enemy was pinning my team, the attackers, down before the 1st set of boxes for at least 20 minutes. then finally a teammate and i snuck around and flanked them, diverting enough enemies from the front so that the rest of the team could successfully assault. after that the enemy defenses crumbled, but not completely. we took the next set easily, but at the last set it was a meatgrinder and we only took it with multiple call-ins of mortars.

That last set of crates is really the only hard one to attack, but in my experience, the defenders get pushed back to that point very quickly, then 8 times out of 10 (22 out of 27, actually, which I guess is 7 out of 9) they hold there and eke out a victory. Again, it's possible my results are atypical, but they do seem to be reproduced fairly consistently.

It hasn't harmed my enjoyment of the game much, it just means I stick mostly to conquest these days. :)

Hooahguy

03-22-2010, 02:39

after many annoying days of waiting for my m1 (BF veteran reward) to show up in game, i finally got it, and its awesome. pity it only has 8 shots per clip, but that makes sense. with a close range damage of 39 and a long range damage of 25, it out does most guns in everything but clip size.

Husar

03-22-2010, 17:06

I also got the M1 yesterday, but then I switched to another server and it was gone again, does it need a new server version or can server admins block it?
And please don't post any hard damage numbers here, I consider that sort of thing spoilers until I have thoroughly tried all the weapons and found out how they "feel". No, really.

Hooahguy

03-22-2010, 17:13

yea i had the same problem. i had it for like two hours than it was gone. i dont think its a server thing. i just think EA messed up somewhere down the line.

Veho Nex

03-28-2010, 23:07

Just got it for 20$, total steal considering how much im hating the MP lag for a server my friend is hosting down the street.

Madoushi

03-29-2010, 07:38

Yeah, they're selling the PC version for $20 on the EA Store

Veho Nex

03-29-2010, 22:16

Does anyone know why you get 200-350 ping on a server hosted less than 20 miles away?

Husar

03-29-2010, 23:23

It shows me really high pings all the time, best are around 150, in the server browser it usually shows 15 or 30, the way it feels it's usually more around 30-90, I look more at the relative than the absolute numbers and whether I "feel" lag or not. I can have a full green bar thingie in MW 2 and still experience more lag than at a 240 ping in BFBC2, no idea why that is, maybe the calculations are wrong/flawed.

Hooahguy

04-01-2010, 18:18

i had average ping of 170-200 in BC2, and runs fine. of course, everyone had around the same ping.

pity i cant play anymore. dad took away my laptop.

Veho Nex

04-01-2010, 19:23

still?

Hooahguy

04-01-2010, 22:03

yup. didnt i tell you? according to him i didnt help enough to clean for passover, so its gone until furthur notice.
my clan buddies are pretty miffed that the guy they needed for TWL is gone.

Veho Nex

04-02-2010, 04:09

Ouch... Your pops is like mine, even though its a gift its still his since he paid for it :/

Vuk

04-03-2010, 18:25

Final verdict: The game sucks something that I am not allowed to say in this forum.
- The graphics are ridiculous. They seem to be obsessed with ridiculous particle and lighting effects that do not look at all ridiculous, but that hinder gameplay incredibly. (not to mention making your computer run like something else that I cannot say on this forum)
- The singleplayer campaign is an insult to intelligence. It is choppy, short, not well explained, and they ruined the characters from the first one. (Bad Company was supposed to be a squad of rejects, but nice people. They have Haggard sticking a firecracker up a cat's backside in this one for example. It just does not fit with the characters that they developed in the first one) The storyline is mentally retarded, and very poorly executed. My advice to anyone wanting to buy the game for its singleplayer experience: Don't. Replay BC 1, don't waste your time with this garbage. (did I mention that every map is completely linear and not at all what you have come to expect from Battlefield?)
- The gameplay is OK. It is not good, it is not great, but it also is not horrible. People can take 90000000 rounds before they die, post-processing effects are so overdone as to make you scream, particle effects are nuts, but you still get guns and they look and work well enough to do the job.

Final Comments: Don't waste your time, the game really (really, really, really) stinks. Stick to BF2 and BC 1, because this game is not worth your time.

Veho Nex

04-03-2010, 21:21

I agree with Vuk to the fullest sense of his argument. I launch one nade and it kicks up more smoke and dust than my smoke nade does. I stopped playing the campaign after i found out that the 4 characters are back in the military (some how). The MP ive faced so much lag though i've gotten used to it, its still insane.

Husar

04-03-2010, 22:28

Vuk

04-03-2010, 22:43

I don't mind the smoke all that much and it doesn't make my computer lag either.
I actually like the graphics, there are games with way more post processing etc.
Still haven't tried the SP yet but I consider it a bonus of sorts. :shrug:

I cannot stand the particle effects. How ridiculous is it when you shoot an armoured vehicle with small arms and there is this huge cloud of dust about 5 feet wide coming off of where you are hitting? When you are driving a vehicle, dust is literally coming up in front of the wheels on the vehicle, making it impossible to see. Sure a vehicle (ATV in this case) kicks up dust, but it does so behind it, not 4 feet to the front so that you cannot see where you are going. There is a random haze everywhere that looks like dust blowing by, even when you are in a city or building. And, not everyone has a super computer :P. It causes all kinds of lag on my machine. If they cut down the darned lighting and particle effects, I bet you it would run a lot better.

Madoushi

04-03-2010, 23:43

I play the PS3 version, and the particle effects don't bother me one bit.
The weapons were balanced for MP so that Medic can't just gun down absolutely anyone in a shootout with their large caliber, belt-fed MG. Bullets do a lot more damage in HC mode.

I don't remember Haggard talking about sticking a firecracker up a cat's butt, but I wouldn't put it past him. These guys weren't saints. In the first game, they'd always send 'the new guy' to go first anywhere dangerous. My main problem with the humor in BC2 is that in BC1 the guys would kick up unprompted dialogue while you were driving around the vast landscapes.
Basically, during downtime. Well, there's very little 'downtime' in BC2, so most of the humorous side-dialogue happens while you can't pay attention because you're trying to advance and complete the mission, while they're hanging back 30 feet away, chatting about 'Fitty Cent'.

The SP was way lacking compared to BC1, but all in all, it's pretty good.

Hooahguy

04-04-2010, 20:35

I cannot stand the particle effects. How ridiculous is it when you shoot an armoured vehicle with small arms and there is this huge cloud of dust about 5 feet wide coming off of where you are hitting? When you are driving a vehicle, dust is literally coming up in front of the wheels on the vehicle, making it impossible to see. Sure a vehicle (ATV in this case) kicks up dust, but it does so behind it, not 4 feet to the front so that you cannot see where you are going. There is a random haze everywhere that looks like dust blowing by, even when you are in a city or building. And, not everyone has a super computer :P. It causes all kinds of lag on my machine. If they cut down the darned lighting and particle effects, I bet you it would run a lot better.
what? only on some maps there is too much dust- on the desert maps. but the lack of visibility makes it more more immersion. like the snow.
and btw depending on the winds, an atv can kick up dust in front of it. :wink:

btw the SP was never supposed to be non-linear. in fact, until BC1, there was no SP.
and i think you are blowing it out of proportion. plus you focus on the SP, which is weak from the start.
how can you judge a primarily MP game on its SP?
and with the amount of bullets it takes to kill a man, if you have ever played BF2, BF2142, it was roughly the same, though i do admit its a bit harder in BC2.
but if i wanted easy fast kills and no strategy at all id just do hardcore. or play cod4.
/rant.

Veho Nex

04-04-2010, 22:00

Well, the SP story from the first one was a lot of fun. I'm just sad that they failed at the story in this one and then failed at optimizing the game for multi-player.

Madoushi

04-04-2010, 22:15

I think BC1 SP was more enjoyable to me because on most missions, if you died you just respawned.
It was much preferable to BC2, where they give you long combat sequences, and if you die during one, you get sent all the way back to the last checkpoint.
Also BC1 made helicopter missions fun: BC2 made them a nightmare.

I like the BC1 SP better as well, but they're both fairly terrible.

Husar

04-04-2010, 22:34

I cannot stand the particle effects. How ridiculous is it when you shoot an armoured vehicle with small arms and there is this huge cloud of dust about 5 feet wide coming off of where you are hitting? When you are driving a vehicle, dust is literally coming up in front of the wheels on the vehicle, making it impossible to see. Sure a vehicle (ATV in this case) kicks up dust, but it does so behind it, not 4 feet to the front so that you cannot see where you are going. There is a random haze everywhere that looks like dust blowing by, even when you are in a city or building. And, not everyone has a super computer :P. It causes all kinds of lag on my machine. If they cut down the darned lighting and particle effects, I bet you it would run a lot better.

Haven't had a problem with dust in front of my vehicle while driving, how often did that happen to you?
The haze that is there, well, it's there, deal with it, it's what a soldier has to do, they could have included sandstorms as well. ~;)
It's somewhat annpying when you aim at someone and he disappears into a cloud of dust and explosions, but it happens and it's a lot less annoying than that same guy JUMPING around the corner with TWO SHOTGUNS in his hands, OBLITERATING you from 30 feet away, more or less before you can even react. :furious3:
that goes for people being "bullet sponges" as well, it may decrease realism (just like akimbo does :furious3: ) but in contrast it actually increases my fun ( unlike what akimbo does :furious3: ).

Ferret

04-09-2010, 01:32

The only effect on the 360 version that annoys me is the flash the main gun on the light tank causes, makes it impossible to see anything to the front as a gunner...

Hooahguy

04-12-2010, 02:01

i think the damage rate in the game is done very well. it takes a while to kill a man through heavy body armor, such as is on the chest. im currently writing a paper on american fighting tactics in afghnaistan and there are many instances of US soldiers getting hit in the chest with mutiple AK-47 rounds and getting right back up. but then again, that was at somewhat close range.
and those have 7.62 ammo, pretty heavy stuff.

plus that ceramic armor is a :daisy: