Battlefield Bad Company 2

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I got it as a gift. Is it any good MP wise?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes.

You know, you could just try it out.

Be sure to watch this video though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p4fkH9qC4M&feature=related

CR

[pevergreen]

BF2 is better.

Hit recognition is bad. Gameplay is meh.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I love it. With the new Vietnam expansion and the new maps it has become a major time eater of mine. Everything Battlefield does is amazing.

I recommend Legion At War (http://www.legionatwar.com/) if you want a relaxed and funny group of down to earth guys, aged 25-55 who play all the time. Most of them are married with kids, so they don't take it seriously at all.

I recommend Tactical Gamer (http://www.tacticalgamer.com/content/) if you want the most fun tactical experience with an active community. The most fun I've had in any games I've played (BF2, ARMA2) I've had with these guys. Play with them when you have time to burn and can focus, because these guys take gaming really seriously.

These clubs span tons of games, mostly FPS, so if you get to know them, you will know them for years. You must have the Teamspeak (http://www.teamspeak.com/) client to fully enjoy the game.

The only thing the game is missing is the commander. They used to only have small maps, but they've fixed that recently making it feel more like BF2.5. Vietnam is awesome. My name in game is TuffStuffMcGruff by the way.

[Vuk]

BF 2 is still the best BF game ever. BC2 was amusing and fun, but nothing gameplay wise compared to BF 2, and BC2 8!0\/\/$ 50@7$.

[Veho Nex]

I loved the PR mod for BF2, cant wait until its released for Arma 2.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I love it. With the new Vietnam expansion and the new maps it has become a major time eater of mine. Everything Battlefield does is amazing.

I recommend Legion At War (http://www.legionatwar.com/) if you want a relaxed and funny group of down to earth guys, aged 25-55 who play all the time. Most of them are married with kids, so they don't take it seriously at all.

I recommend Tactical Gamer (http://www.tacticalgamer.com/content/) if you want the most fun tactical experience with an active community. The most fun I've had in any games I've played (BF2, ARMA2) I've had with these guys. Play with them when you have time to burn and can focus, because these guys take gaming really seriously.

These clubs span tons of games, mostly FPS, so if you get to know them, you will know them for years. You must have the Teamspeak (http://www.teamspeak.com/) client to fully enjoy the game.

The only thing the game is missing is the commander. They used to only have small maps, but they've fixed that recently making it feel more like BF2.5. Vietnam is awesome. My name in game is TuffStuffMcGruff by the way.


When I get signed up we can team up and play then! :balloon2::balloon2:


I do need someone to play it with! :laugh4:

[edyzmedieval]

I'm playing but going to quit soon because my ping is huge on any servers (300+) and I have lag :(

But I have to agree, a really good multiplayer experience.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I have a great comp and internet, so why is my MP experience so laggy...... :(?

[ShadesWolf]

Vietnam :)

[naut]

Bump. Is this a game worth getting. I have mates who play, but Yatzee was less than complementary about it. So.....

[Drunk Clown]

Bump. Is this a game worth getting. I have mates who play, but Yatzee was less than complementary about it. So.....

Yes!

Especially if it's 20 euro's (about 27 aud) like here.

In no time you'll hit the 50 hours, especially with mates.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

My game is laggy as hell for me. Think I need to tone down my settings?

[Drunk Clown]

My game is laggy as hell for me. Think I need to tone down my settings?

All the time?

[Monk]

Bump. Is this a game worth getting. I have mates who play, but Yatzee was less than complementary about it. So.....

Yatzee's reviews are more of a novelty than anything. Trusting any "angry" reviewer for a total picture of the final product is dubious at best.

Find a decent server that has an active admin team and you'll have some fun. The game's got a hacker problem, but what battlefield game doesn't?

[naut]

Yatzee's reviews are more of a novelty than anything. Trusting any "angry" reviewer for a total picture of the final product is dubious at best.

Find a decent server that has an active admin team and you'll have some fun. The game's got a hacker problem, but what battlefield game doesn't?
Having met Yatzee, I know that his reviews are largely hyperbole. But, if he doesn't like a game, he means it. His main view is that there is no such thing as the perfect game, he basically acts out the opposite of a "fanboi".

I don't want to sink 20 bucks into a game I will barely play. For example, I bought L4D2 on the back of L4D1, haven't played it once, it's that rubbish (Aussie version) and it cost me, while not much in the scheme of things, $20. But, I bought Killing Floor + DLC for $5, I've played 50 hours with mates in no time. Basically, on principle, I don't want a repeat of that. Or should I wait for BF3?

[Monk]

Oh without a doubt he is 100% sincere, but his standards are so incredibly high sometimes it's almost a self-parody. A game doesn't need to be an art-house shooter to be good for instance, and BC2 is definitely not that.

Though I'll gladly admit the initial release state of the game was terrible. Bugged up and nearly hopeless in online play. These days its become a very respectable title and a worthy online shooter. You say you've got friends who play it, well you're in luck since BC2 is played best with 2-3 friends. The game is practically designed around squad based combat, so if you were to play with people and work together I'm sure you'd have at least a little bit of fun.

[naut]

Though I'll gladly admit the initial release state of the game was terrible. Bugged up and nearly hopeless in online play. These days its become a very respectable title and a worthy online shooter. You say you've got friends who play it, well you're in luck since BC2 is played best with 2-3 friends. The game is practically designed around squad based combat, so if you were to play with people and work together I'm sure you'd have at least a little bit of fun.
Cheers. What's the bet I get it and a month later it's 75% off on a random Steam sale. :beam:

[Veho Nex]

I'll put 50 gold coins down on the fact that you will buy it and a week later EA will announce that BC2 is now F2P

[Prussian to the Iron]

Bump. Is this a game worth getting. I have mates who play, but Yatzee was less than complementary about it. So.....

I love it personally. I don't know how good it is on PC though.

But my advice? wait a few months. Battlefield 3 is out October 25th, and it looks AMAZING. i'm pre-ordering soon.

[Jolt]

I love it personally. I don't know how good it is on PC though.

But my advice? wait a few months. Battlefield 3 is out October 25th, and it looks AMAZING. i'm pre-ordering soon.

Bleh. Looks exactly like every other CoD that has appeared in the last 5 years.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Bleh. Looks exactly like every other CoD that has appeared in the last 5 years.
Looks. It also looks like BF2 with a lot of shine applied. I trust them with the MP.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Bleh. Looks exactly like every other CoD that has appeared in the last 5 years.

I definitely do not agree with this. Battlefield is nothing like CoD, except maybe the fact that you shoot people. The entire gameplay is different, and the fact that CoD hasn't changed since CoD 4 means that it's easy to contrast. The differences are glaring, not only gameplay wise, but graphically as well. MW3 looks nowhere close to the visual quality of BF3.

[Hooahguy]

I definitely do not agree with this. Battlefield is nothing like CoD, except maybe the fact that you shoot people. The entire gameplay is different, and the fact that CoD hasn't changed since CoD 4 means that it's easy to contrast. The differences are glaring, not only gameplay wise, but graphically as well. MW3 looks nowhere close to the visual quality of BF3.Agreed 100%.

Im just missing the whole commander aspect that other BF games had.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Agreed 100%.

Im just missing the whole commander aspect that other BF games had.

I wish I could really understand why everybody wants the commander so badly

[Hooahguy]

I wish I could really understand why everybody wants the commander so badly

Because it gives a grand strategical aspect to the game. I remember in BF2142, when we had a good commander that is, we would divide into squads and the commander would devise a strategy on how to win the match. He would be able to talk to squad commanders and give them orders. You really felt like you were part of a larger thing. In BC2 it was a bunch of squads running around trying to get to the objective.
In short, a commander makes things more organized.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I think the squad leaders are going to be able to talk to eachother, but i'm not sure. it would be nice though, it would kind of eliminate the need for an official commander.

[Hooahguy]

I think the squad leaders are going to be able to talk to eachother, but i'm not sure. it would be nice though, it would kind of eliminate the need for an official commander.

No, you need someone who is removed from fighting the battle so they can concentrate on the strategy. Cant really concentrate on strategy very well if you are under fire...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Strategy: cap points, die less

:shrug:

[Prussian to the Iron]

No, you need someone who is removed from fighting the battle so they can concentrate on the strategy. Cant really concentrate on strategy very well if you are under fire...

realistically you cant. but, at least in my experience with teams of max 12, i find it fairly easy to recognize a threat, get people to neutralize it, and then develop a strategy to counter it should it come up again. now that I think about it this method is more than a bit reactive rather than proactive, but it's the best I can work with most of the time. but I do sometimes devise plans before we start losing men.

I can only hope that the squad leader inter-communication automatically places the people with mics as squad leaders; it would be pretty difficult to communicate orders to another squad when their leader cant tell them anything.

[Hooahguy]

Strategy: cap points, die less

:shrug:
Easier said than done. More often than not, an assault without a commander failed miserable. Unless we had overwhelming odds. A commander had use of a UAV, which would reveal locations of enemy troops for a bit, in which a commander could inform his squad leaders where the enemy was, and even call down orbital strikes.


realistically you cant. but, at least in my experience with teams of max 12, i find it fairly easy to recognize a threat, get people to neutralize it, and then develop a strategy to counter it should it come up again. now that I think about it this method is more than a bit reactive rather than proactive, but it's the best I can work with most of the time. but I do sometimes devise plans before we start losing men.

I can only hope that the squad leader inter-communication automatically places the people with mics as squad leaders; it would be pretty difficult to communicate orders to another squad when their leader cant tell them anything.

Thats another thing: size. In BF2142, there were games of 64 people. They were epic. In that case a commander position was vital. We would have squadrons of tanks and walkers move on an objective as others used transports to get to other objectives while the commander directed us to the positions he felt needed our attention. It felt, as I said before, as if I was in a massive battle, not a small skirmish. Though there were the small skirmish maps as well.
But of course BC2 had the large battles, and they were fun, but no maps, at least not that I can remember, with like 5 tanks on each side and another assortment of vehicles for each side to play with.

[Drunk Clown]

But of course BC2 had the large battles, and they were fun, but no maps, at least not that I can remember, with like 5 tanks on each side and another assortment of vehicles for each side to play with.

Harvest coming closest to that.

Remember a hardcore game in which we held a tank barrage on the first villages. Due to experience with the map we knew how high we had to aim. As a result, total destruction. Best game I ever had.

Unfortunately, I never played any battlefield before BC2. But I know one thing they shouldn't have given the recon the ability to call mortar strikes. SO ANNOYING!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Easier said than done. More often than not, an assault without a commander failed miserable. Unless we had overwhelming odds. A commander had use of a UAV, which would reveal locations of enemy troops for a bit, in which a commander could inform his squad leaders where the enemy was, and even call down orbital strikes.

:Shrug:

Points still get capped in BC2, whether it's 4v4 for 16v16. I think we'll be fine.

[Hooahguy]

:Shrug:

Points still get capped in BC2, whether it's 4v4 for 16v16. I think we'll be fine.

Yeah, but how often do you see organized assaults?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, but how often do you see organized assaults?
Fairly frequently (referring to the PC version, console versions may all be lone wolf recons). The squad system leads to lots of "order out of chaos" situations.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I agree Alex. When I play with my friends, we tend to become the best squad in the game because we work together and take the objectives, while the wookies shoot at eachother around us.

And then, yes, you have those annoying recons that don't contribute to the team. I sometimes play recon, and when I do I always make sure I'm either keeping them off the objective, or taking out defenders who are covering it. Not randomly sniping for points.

[Drunk Clown]

I sometimes play recon, and when I do I always make sure I'm either keeping them off the objective, or taking out defenders who are covering it. Not randomly sniping for points.

No No No, you gotta spot and mark them as a recon (main priority). That's why it's recon and not sniper.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Even better is to follow your squad like regular infantry (bring one of the non-class rifles, maybe the G3) and throw the motion mine around. Incredibly helpful.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Even better is to follow your squad like regular infantry (bring one of the non-class rifles, maybe the G3) and throw the motion mine around. Incredibly helpful.

This does help ALOT I have to say. but tbh I hope motion mines are left outta BF3; they're kinda unrealistic and sorta cheap, though i love em.


No No No, you gotta spot and mark them as a recon (main priority). That's why it's recon and not sniper.

I spot constantly regardless of class, so I don't really need a class specialized for it.

[Drunk Clown]

I spot constantly regardless of class, so I don't really need a class specialized for it.

Over great distances you can only spot with a scope

[Prussian to the Iron]

Rush typically isn't at great distances, or at least they're not so great that I can't spot em well enough with my XM8LMG or AN94.

[Hooahguy]

Aw man, the AN94 is the best weapon in the game. Is it not? I racked up god knows how many kills with that weapon. Until my wifi died, that is. :angry:

[Prussian to the Iron]

The first time I read that I could have sworn you said that your wife died. not really funny but somehow is funny.

[Drunk Clown]

Rush typically isn't at great distances, or at least they're not so great that I can't spot em well enough with my XM8LMG or AN94.

Oh, were we talking about rush only?

[Prussian to the Iron]

Oh, were we talking about rush only?

Well no, but I was speaking specifically about my experiences. I don't really play conquest so I don't need to keep a tab on people across the map; I have 1 large area to worry about, and while it can be long range, it isn't so far that it absolutely requires a sniper rifle.