As he says, for the MP, definitely worth the money, for the SP alone, dunno.
Printable View
As he says, for the MP, definitely worth the money, for the SP alone, dunno.
the SP alone only took me 5 hours, not including looking for the entra stuff.
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.
yea, being a stutterer sucks in this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
I play both, but almost exclusively multiplayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I bought CoD4 only for the multi, I never even bothered to open the single campaign...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
It hasn't harmed my enjoyment of the game much, it just means I stick mostly to conquest these days. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, they're selling the PC version for $20 on the EA Store
Does anyone know why you get 200-350 ping on a server hosted less than 20 miles away?
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.
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.
still?
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.
Ouch... Your pops is like mine, even though its a gift its still his since he paid for it :/
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.
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.
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.