Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 71 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 239 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Built from the ground-up for next-generation consoles using Digital Illusions' Frostbite game engine, Battlefield: Bad Company drops gamers behind enemy lines with a squad of renegade soldiers who risk it all on a personal quest for gold and revenge. Featuring a deep, cinematic single-playerBuilt from the ground-up for next-generation consoles using Digital Illusions' Frostbite game engine, Battlefield: Bad Company drops gamers behind enemy lines with a squad of renegade soldiers who risk it all on a personal quest for gold and revenge. Featuring a deep, cinematic single-player experience loaded with adventure and dark humor, the game delivers the series' trademark sandbox gameplay in a universe where nearly everything is destructible. Battlefield: Bad Company also features a full suite of the franchise's trademark multiplayer options with deep gameplay modes designed to take full advantage of the game's massively destructible environments. [Electronic Arts] Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 61 out of 71
  2. Negative: 0 out of 71
  1. It looks great, has fun characters, a load of interesting weaponry, and works nicely whether you’re playing alone or with a squad. The campaign lasts long enough to feel fulfilling, and the multiplayer kept me coming back once that was complete.
  2. 90
    One could easily say that Bad Company expands the genre itself with its combination of great story, destructible environment and surprisingly deep single-mode multiplayer. Throw in DICE's promises of future (free) content and this is one game that just might meet your wildest desires for both blowing things up and online competition.
  3. Huge, immersive and always intense, Battlefield: Bad Company proves that you may not need the prettiest graphics in the world or design the most original game in order to provide one of the most essential purchases on 360 this year so far.
  4. 85
    Bold and bright in tone, it’s blockbuster fare that combines DICE’s first-person expertise with a small sprinkling of innovation that’s enough to ensure it’s a perfect way to shoot the summer breeze.
  5. The single player portion, while never less than hugely entertaining, stops short of true greatness thanks to a few fundamental design shortcuts which offer easy health restoring concepts seemingly at the expense of balanced AI. Some of this is irrelevant in the online mode, and the profound implications of a massively destructible environment make it a unique proposition in online gaming right now - albeit a riotous chaotic one.
  6. It’s the perfect military shooter for Halo and Unreal Tournament players who find the Clancy titles too real to be fun.
  7. It’s got some fresh, entertaining details, and though the game experience is shallow and a little frustrating, you can hop into a mortar cannon and knock down an enemy entrenchment to make you feel better.

See all 71 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 71 out of 98
  2. Negative: 20 out of 98
  1. BrianS.
    Jun 27, 2008
    10
    I've played Call of Duty , Everything Call of Duty is missing battlefield makes up for. I just can't stop blowing things up!! Buy I've played Call of Duty , Everything Call of Duty is missing battlefield makes up for. I just can't stop blowing things up!! Buy this and you will throw out your COD and GTA. Expand
  2. PabloR
    Mar 12, 2009
    10
    "More Criticism than it Actually Deserves" Everysingle bad reviewer looked at the game, and then looked at the most realistic game on the "More Criticism than it Actually Deserves" Everysingle bad reviewer looked at the game, and then looked at the most realistic game on the market, and compared it to that other game, they're comparing it as if it were supposed to be super realistic but the game was designed to be more fun than realistic, but maintain a bit of reality into it. Weapons are fun as hell to use, the campaign could be made into a movie, and the graphics are awesome. The grainy textures were meant to be put into the game. When you look around and stuff it's too quick though, even though this can be changed, most games keep it at a more realistic level, but then again, as a soldier fighting this is how quick you might move your gun most of the times, but other than this it deserves a 9.5. Controls weren't too good, realism was average but the game wasn't designed or made to be perfect 10/10 realistic. Graphics were superb, and the campaign was also superb. But, one thing that probably confused a lot of people that it seemed more of a multiplayer match, you kill 30 people, die, then respawn and still those 30 people are gone. But, the game was designed to be difficult and plus in a map you probably face more enemies than you would in a simlilar game. Every aspect of this game was meant to be made in a certain way, the controls were the only problem. There are too many reviews where people are complaining as if they are reviewing a game and expecting it to be 100 percent realistic. Play the game, think, than rate. Since I can't give it a 9.5, I'm gonna give it a 10/10. Expand
  3. Apr 12, 2011
    10
    I've owned this game for a long, long time now, but never wrote a review. Anyway, I use this game as a measuring stick for all other onlineI've owned this game for a long, long time now, but never wrote a review. Anyway, I use this game as a measuring stick for all other online FPSs. I'll compare COD and Crysis 2 to this game. Obviously, both fall WAY short of the mark. It confounds me. I've been playing online FPSs since Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. When that game came out (like 11 years ago), I thought the multiplayer was really cool. It's not so great, however, when COD releases a contemporary multiplayer FPS that mirrors those from over a decade ago. Anyway, tl;dr - Bad Company (and its successor, Bad Company 2) are far superior to all other online FPSs. Expand
  4. ReyM.
    Jun 25, 2008
    9
    The game is very immersive and feels very organic as far as environment. One of the things that bothered me about COD4 is that in the The game is very immersive and feels very organic as far as environment. One of the things that bothered me about COD4 is that in the background you hear mock bombs going off in the BAD COMPANY when it is quiet it is because no one is blasting now when there are explosions it is because some is blowing something up, not just a recording that plays in the background that tries to immerse you. Now COD4 is my favorite game it is like my CounterStrike for the 360, while the the Bad Company is my BF2 for th e360. I think Bad Company has a lot more to offer in the long run. COD4 just gets too repetitive Expand
  5. AdamW
    Jul 11, 2008
    8
    I believe this game deserves an 8. Single player is great fun. Usually I find most other games single player boring. Campaign deserves a 9. I believe this game deserves an 8. Single player is great fun. Usually I find most other games single player boring. Campaign deserves a 9. Multiplayer however is different. It is amazing! I find it so much fun I played it so much I got to 25 in a week and still playing! The downside though is big. EA servers are constantly failing and is no fun at all. Ive lost all my guns several times including my Gold Edition weapons. However it usually doesn't that last long so I miss out on about 1 hours playing. Multiplayer deserves a 7. Without the problems it would be a 10. I hope they fix this soon, for mine and everybody elses sakes. Expand
  6. DustinR
    Apr 7, 2009
    6
    The single player campaign was great. Multi-player is full of glitches/bugs that have yet to be addressed. These bugs can be of great The single player campaign was great. Multi-player is full of glitches/bugs that have yet to be addressed. These bugs can be of great annoyance to the honest gamer. The players that use these glitches to downright murder the opposing team ruin the multiplayer aspect. Expand
  7. ChaseMurata
    Jun 24, 2008
    0
    Okay, after a few days and a lot of hours with the demo, here is my seasoned critique. A critique, as my first-impressions (of primarily theOkay, after a few days and a lot of hours with the demo, here is my seasoned critique. A critique, as my first-impressions (of primarily the single-player) were far too generous.

    I do not like how there are only two spawn points (team or base). Opponents can simply camp with tanks and kill you in succession. I was killed five times in a row switching off both spawn points. Every time I respawned at our base some asshole would immediately - before I could take a step - fire tank bursts into the spawn area. Between the tank and the machine-that-acts-like-your-own-personal-Airstrike, my entire team was decimated every time we spawned at the base spawn point during that game.

    The imbalance between classes is infuriating. Snipers have the advantage in most games as the scope covers a great deal of the map, and considering Battlefield is a large-scale game, snipers can, literally, see you coming from miles away. I will say, though, that the aiming system is so imprecise that it will take a few shots for them to kill you - but they will kill you before you can fire back.

    Damage is a bit ridiculous, and the Medic class, or what-ever-name-they-gave-it, is not useful at all. Why did they include this class into the game? No one uses it. No one. I have only seen a handful of people use this class in my hours upon hours of gameplay. When I do see them, only few of them handed out health crates. Those who did hand out health crates amidst warfare were killed alongside those who tried to get health crates.

    This brings me to my next point: the damage is ridiculously high. It takes only three shots to kill someone with a pistol, and I
    Expand

See all 98 User Reviews