Battlefield: Bad Company 2

This is a review of the single player because the multiplayer is amazing.

I know it I have played it way too much as a kid but now I'm playing the single player because it's a kind of the only thing that's still alive. So you remember that like Cast of characters for the first game that has agency going out to do their own thing finding goals lay making plans just all around just a kind of funny goofball group.

They are back with no agency this time. They feel like they're mostly here because hey they're likeable and we have to put them in the sequel even if the stories were done in the first game and now it fills like most of their charismat has been **** out of their face I saw that they had a new writte for this game.

So maybe he didn't know how to write them correct. But the gameplay is better than the original and what I mean.

Is that it feels like the most okay shooter for this time when you shoot the enemies and that is about it.

No more big Maps you can go about and finish the objective for many angles now you play like a generic Call of Duty game and not one of the good ones.

The multiplayer is amazing and fun, but sadly I have inviting this review at a time.

Where it no longer exists on the console, so that's just about it.

Hope you have good memories about it because now we're just lived with a bad single player.

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.

The first game is a childhood classic, but I've never played this one before so I decided to give it a playthrough. Before I played the campaign, I played a little multiplayer before it's servers were closed down, and truthfully had a horrible time playing against people who knew every corner, crack, blind spot, and exploit to basically spawn kill me. I was able to learn some of the ropes, but it just wasn't fun enough to continue.

The campaign on the other hand was awesome. The stakes are way higher than the first game, with a mission to find, locate, and destroy a terrorist weapon that uses scalar technology to cause mass destruction. Playing on the hardest mode, I had a blast, with me only taking a couple days to fully finish the campaign, as it really isn't that long. The level designs were everything you'd want from a game like this, the story was serviceable, and the ending was a blast. Definitely recommend for 1st person shooter fans.

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.