Battlefield: Bad Company 2

The Heavy Metal mission, despite the tanks lacking FCS (Fire Control System), is a great example of using combined arms, including reconnaissance, artillery, and tanks, to secure the outskirts of a city.

Additionally, the Sangre Del Toro mission illustrates effective triangulation in communications and minefield breach opening procedure (with the game's limitation of turning back in 10 seconds or being shot due to map restrictions). This is achieved by navigating through an existing clearing that your forces are unaware of, but is restricted prior gaining the intel.

The lack of the prone stance, however, is a significant flaw in a game where we need more cover, especially considering that nearly everything is destructible.

It's worth noting that the game is more of an arcade experience than a simulation. Your companions are invulnerable, and in reality, a competent military operation would not involve inserting four individuals for these high-risk (or dare I say, crazy) missions. However, that's precisely what makes people enjoy the game and is part of its charm.

I've played the original Bad Company. Even though I am a Halo-fan, I find myself enjoying a lot of other stuff, like for example BF:BC. Now, when I first bought this game, I was a little disappointed about the graphics. I mean, the graphics aren't bad, it's just that I honestly think they were better and more realistic in the first game. Still, Bad Company was totally awesome, and it would be really hard to beat that. I'm not sure, but I think I heard somewhere that they worked pretty hard on that game. Still, the quality of Bad Company 2 are just fine. In fact, they're better than most games. Now, even if you at times could have expected more on that front, there's a lot of great stuff about this game that can't be ignored. The campaign is good. It's exciting, well thought out, and maybe a little more variety here than in the first game. Some of the missions are kinda short, which isn't great, but it doesn't make the campaign bad. It's still great. I enjoy re-playing the campaign. I find the weapons and vehicles to be fun, but it seems like they could have had a little more weapons. Still, in the multiplayer, there are tons of guns and vehicles, a lot of it can't be used in the campaign. Now that sucks, that you can't use all weapons in the campaign, but it's not that big a deal. The multiplayer however, is amazing. It's tons of fun, and the maps are huge, just as in the first game. One thing that they've changed in this game is that you now get 50 points for killing a dude, while in the first game you only got 10. Now, it's the same value, of course, but when you get more points, it just feels funnier to play. Anyway the campaign is great, you can blow stuff up everywhere and killin' people is just so much fun. There's a lot of variety here too, you know in weapons, vehicles, tactics, and environment. Something I almost forgot was, the destruction. Lovin' it. You can blow up virtually anything. Houses, trees, towers, vehicles (ofcourse), bridges and other structures, they can all be destroyed. If you jump in a tank, you can probably just drive through most things, too. It's easy creating big craters in the ground as well.

Below are a list of pros and cons.

GOOD

Campaign: Funny characters, good story, exciting options etc.

Weapons and Vehicles. Nice variety, mostly in multiplayer, Realistic sounds.

Multiplayer: Very fun and life-like. Lots of weapons. It's easy to get some nice teamwork going.

Destruction: Stuff just blows up everywhere you go! (Not in an annoying way, just fun)

BAD

Graphics: They could be better at times., but it's nothing to bitch about.

Missions: Some of them are a little short.

To sum up: Awesome games. A few flaws, but really nothing to bitch about. You should definitely buy it. As long as you like fun.

Firstly I would definitely say this game is better than Modern Warfare 2, simply because of almost everything, the excellent sound affects, the incredible graphics, the scale of the online maps and the satisfaction of destruction. Maybe it's true that it's story line is not quite as good as MW2's and as well as the fact that there's not a fantastic amount of variety in the missions, but it is still a lot of fun to blow a hole in a wall or bring a house down to eye level which never seems to get old! You will experience a few funny moments in the game which you wouldn't really have in MW2 which I like, but some aren't so keen on this. Now the multi-player, this is probably the best part of this game, as this game has been built on a foundation of pure online shooters. The fact that it feels like you're in an actual battlefield at times and not on you're sofa really is impressive, the settings of the maps and the sound of distant gunfire really is extraordinary. You have slightly more limited customisation options than you get on MW2 but I don't really see that as a problem, the ability to drive tanks or fly a helicopter really makes up for it. There are some issues with lag at times but this happens no more often than on COD and can normally be settled by switching your console off and on. This really is a fantastic game especially if you regularly play online, if your bored of MW2 and fancy a change then this is a very good alternative to settle your virtual warzone itch. So If you can't play this game online maybe wait until the price drops a bit, but otherwise, what are you waiting for!

What was all the hype about? I was anticipating this games release for awhile. I heard it was going to be way better than CoD:MW2, which I was a fan of. I saw a goofy GameStop commercial and was thinking, the graphics look way better than that on the other commercials. When this game was released I picked up my reserved copy from GameStop. I went home and put it in my PS3. Right away I was kind of let down by the graphics. The reviews all said it was going to blow CoD:MW2 out of the water. What happened? Were all the game critics just hyping this game up for the sake of sales? Anyways, in single player the game is okay. I would say it's top 5 fps, but the online mode that everyone is going on about isn't much different than the old Battlefield 2. Back when Battlefield 2 came out, it was either Counter Strike: Source or Battlefield 2. Just like the whole CoD:MW2 vs. Battlefield: BC2 thing. I sided with Battlefield 2, because the online fighting was new. They haven't changed it much, and I have to say that some of the maps on the older Battlefields are better than the new Battlefield maps. Also, the graphics haven't changed much either. The lag kills on BC2, and sometimes accomplishments don't even load for about five to ten minutes into the game. I would also get disconnected a lot, which is frustrating when you are doing really well. I was always the medic, because that's my occupation in real life, so that was kind of neat, but when your accomplishments don't load for awhile, it gets kind of annoying trying to re earn everything. Also, sniper city. If the online play was tighter and the graphics more detailed, this would be able to compete with the arena style fighting CoD:MW2 brings to the table. You can't just rent this game because accomplishments take awhile to unlock, but the price is still a bit high. I'd wait to buy this when the price comes down.

DICE's game Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is an intense modern warfare FPS shooter game that is mainly based on online play. Bad company 2 relies on vehicular game-play, massive sandbox multi-player and single-player maps and destruction.

Bad company 2 (and the first one) is powered by DICE's frostbite engine which allows for tactical destruction. In the first bad company a man could blow a hole in a wall, crumbling cover or making new paths. Bad company 2 makes its destruction even better, by making its destruction even smaller and larger. Multiple shots at a wall will make small chunks of the wall chip off, this is probably the most impressive new destruction system in the new bad company 2. You can also have the ability to take down whole buildings, unfortunately, each building collapses are not dynamic, and therefore the animation of the building collapsing is the exact same for every building for the same type.

The campaign of bad company 2 could use some improvement, instead of the sandbox style campaign in the first bad company DICE has chosen to make the campaign to be a one way campaign. Although this is good for a first time play it is severely lacking in replay novelty. The storyline also could use some improvement, the storyline is not original, so it may be a good storyline you may find it to be quite familiar. There is also a whole between bad company 1 and bad company 2 campaigns, this leaves some unanswered questions.

Multiplayer is quite balanced and is very entertaining. There are 4 kits which are quite customizable. the game-play is very entertaining, and you don't necessarily have to kill anyone else to get points, for example if your a medic, you can heal people, which will give you quite a lot o points, this really rewards teamwork. Bad company 2 relies on team work, which can be very frustrating if your team isn't playing the game seriously. also the range and realistic ballistics of this game assures for no "spraying" (shooting from the hip without aiming) as bullets do drop down due to gravity and people who "spray" will find themselves losing.

In conclusion bad company 2 is a refreshing, balanced and competitive game, it could use some improvement in the campaign and there are some small frustrations that can lead you to become very frustrated. Frustration aside this game is an amazing game that is a must buy for war FPS lovers,