2008-03-27 00:30:02

Snoops (Manager) loves it, even if in his video clips he keeps getting pwoned! :)

http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_6698_en.html

---
Mass Effect - March 10th - Continue the Fight!!!

Bitches!!

2008-03-27 01:32:18 In reply to dcdelgado (2008-03-27 00:30:02)

2008-03-27 02:13:37 In reply to Tomarru (2008-03-26 23:27:49)

2008-03-27 10:15:06 In reply to Manager (2008-03-27 01:32:18)

---
Mass Effect - March 10th - Continue the Fight!!!

Bitches!!

2008-03-27 14:20:28

Been playin a bit more this morning and finally got long enough in the chopper to master the controls, left stick is just up and down, right is turn and pitch so left gets little to no use...

Weapon accuracy is completely random, iron sights are useless still but if you use the assault rifle you have a much better chance against anyone in close combat.
Thats what im getting at though, in close combat 1 v 1 it's pure luck as to who comes out best, having the jump on someone and getting the first shot of means nothing unless youre the assault class in which case why bother playing anything else?

I guess im just annoyed more by the inflexible classes, COD4 was so open that you could chop and choose weapons and abilities for your preferred playing style while this just feels far too rigid.

The demolitions class for example, rocket launcer + shotgun...fair enough, but when the recon class has a tank buster unlock you feel sort of inadequite for the classes role, support also calls in mortar fire which is more damaging to tanks.
So it leaves me having to be a sniper or MG if i wanna combat tanks properly. Also as was said, rockets are very weak against infantry, dont kill in one hit and take an age to reload.

I was hoping that this at last would give the consoles a version of battlefield that at least matched whats available on the PC, it's closer just not close enough. I can't figure out why either, the consoles have the horsepower, there are a ton of unused buttons on the pad aswell such as the d-pad and im sure the average console user would appreciate wide open battlefields.

2008-03-31 16:30:55

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/03/bat...

Battlefield Boycott video (satire) site.

2008-03-31 17:29:25

I finally had the opportunity to sit down with this one over the weekend. The experience certainly reminded me of Modern Combat (I'm still not sure where all this BF2 talk came from) enhanced and upgraded in ways you might expect from a sequel. Infantry handle well enough, although the gun play could certainly be more refined--in the end it's not what stands out in Bad Company anyway.

The lack of free-form squads really hurts this one. I've always thought that ditching commanders all together was a big step backwards for the franchise, and I wish I could say that's the only manner in which this game seems downgraded from BF2 or even 2142 (or even 1942). Every portion of the game's design seems like it was stripped down to its more basic components, from the top down (literally--from commanders to the ability to lay prone ;)). This approach stands to enhance the pick-up-and-play experience that one might come away with in Bad Company, but it's detrimental to the games depth and variety.

The new game mode, Gold Mine, is a bit of a letdown. It will be a shame if this game doesn't feature conquest in its final form. Conquest creates a battlefield that is truly dynamic, with back and forth struggles wagging across the map--Gold Mine seems so static by comparison. I wish there were more to it. They should take a page out of 2142's playbook and make this an additional game mode. Doing away with Conquest all together is a mistake.

Enemy Territory managed to make these objective style skirmishes more interesting by creating a good deal of variety in the actions that you were tasked with, and even mixed in some of conquests back-and-forth gameplay by giving players on both sides the ability to push back forward spawns in either direction. In Bad Company we have an objective mode that feels quite a bit more basic. It's almost like a Counter Strike or Call of Duty (S&D) approach to attack and defend, only with respawns, vehicles, and gigantic (by comparison) maps.. this works in CS and COD quite well, but in a more class dependent setting, it just doesn't seem to fit.

My final critique for the time being, is the games RPGisms. Some might argue that DICE invented this unlock craze, and yet they've gone off on a unique and frustrating path that does little to enhance the game experience and works by punishing new players in ways that Call of Duty 4 could only dream of. You have to unlock critical equipment, that should be available to the player from the first moment he spawns into the action. You should not have to unlock things like, resupply bags and medic equipment--it just works against the nature of a balanced class experience. Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of RPGisms in FPS, but DICE takes the cake when it comes to doing it all wrong.

I'm afraid that this represents the future for DICE FPS, since 2142 took a very simular approach to Bad Company. If I have to unlock defibrillator's and frag grenades in BF3, I'll be a little disappointed. Luckily, most of these things are unlocked within the games infancy, and players will spend most of their time with all their equipment available to them. Supposedly unlocks add to the games longevity, but that is simply not true--most of the games fans would continue to play without being egged on by gimmicks--and indeed most of the games playtime will come from players who continue to play long after they've unlocked all of their gadgets.

On the bright side: The environmental destruction seems like an interesting addition to the game, and the game produces some wonderful (framerate aside) eye candy. Vehicles also handle typically well. Chances are, if players enjoyed Modern Combat, they'll enjoy this experience as well. Fans of previous Battlefield games may find something to like here, but it would be wise to go into the experience expecting BF-Lite.

When all is said and done, I would find it hard to recommend Bad Company based on these impressions. There are too many other fine experiences to be had in the genre right now. If classes are your thing, Team Fortress 2 and ETQW (yes really) are better games. I might even find myself recommending FFOW over BC despite itself, at least it tries to be unique.

If you're not dying for a highly class dependent experience, just go play Halo or Call of Duty (class-lite) instead. These games don't offer the same variety that your typical Battlefield game does, but variety isn't the only game in town, and they do everything else better.

2008-04-10 03:02:02

http://kotaku.com/378052/bad-company-drops-weapon-...

Well would you look at that! Bravo internet. There's an interesting quote in there which, if correct, means that it was DICE who were the ones behind the initial idea.

---
Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Has it been five years? Six? It seems like a lifetime.

2008-04-10 11:11:46

^^ iup, just read it now as well. i think this teaches (us and ) everybody a lesson, protest and pressure do work!

2008-04-10 12:20:07

That's impossible as EA is hopelessly evil. This is obviously a lie.

On a more serious note.. shame it's still just Bad Company ;)

2008-04-10 13:20:45 In reply to GriftGFX (2008-04-10 12:20:07)

---
Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Has it been five years? Six? It seems like a lifetime.

2008-04-10 15:10:51

Seems most people are of the same opinion then that the game is seriously disappointing especially with all the recent competition in the FPS market, Grift managed to put across the same points in a much more comprehensive and readable post :)

I really don't see how DICE thought that a BF:MC mk2 would be welcomed with open arms when there have been so many strides taken in the FPS genre especially the addition of freeform RPG classes which is in direct competition with the rigid model of BF.

I can see the game getting solid sevens which is such a huge disappointment when we know DICE could easily churn out something that moves the franchise ahead of the competition.

The removal of weapons purchases is just a minor victory, i dont even see why they had it in the first place when the game is obviously aimed at the pick up and play market rather than the more competitive gamer, surely that market wouldn't really care for downloadable weapons...

2008-05-11 10:33:31

Checkout this trailer, graphics in cutscenes are insane:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/33767.html
Not as funny as previous trailers, but still pretty good.

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

2008-05-13 13:27:36 In reply to szaromir (2008-05-11 10:33:31)