Battlefield: Bad Company

1. sprinkill

   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

   • 7 of 7 users found this helpful
2. ConnorB.

   Jun 23, 2008

   10

   It seems lacking at first, but as you play you slowly realize the huge amounts of strategic depth this game offers. The multiplayer, while It seems lacking at first, but as you play you slowly realize the huge amounts of strategic depth this game offers. The multiplayer, while I've only played the demo, is incredibly deep. The level(s) is MASSIVE, and play more like a series of levels than single levels, since they're broken into objectives. I'm a battlefield vet, one of the few out there that is focused on the fun and the teamplay instead of the "realism." although this may not match the realism offered by other battlefield titles, it completely trumps previous titles in terms of fun.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
4. AaronB

   Aug 13, 2008

   10

   10 for an EA game, from me. I've blasted them in the past but quite frankly they hit the sweet spot with this title. DICE should be 10 for an EA game, from me. I've blasted them in the past but quite frankly they hit the sweet spot with this title. DICE should be applauded for what they have achieved with this game. It looks incredible, plays beautifully, the single player is great, giving you a good grounding in all the classes and special weapon uses. Online is definately were its at though....and wait for it....wait for it...theres NO lag. Congrats EA - it would appear that after all these years of milking franchises till there is nothing left, ripping off the gaming community and generally producing shit quality games you have come to your senses. I'm sold again on EA after this. Army of Two still sucked though. Oh and to Kevin F. below, that was the EA of past- and 2 months ago I would have agreed with your comments. Conquest is available to download free, and its superb. They have even updated the maps and lighting/weather effects on 4 of them specifically for conquest mode..yes there is no prone but the game is well balanced without it- don't let that put you off thats for sure. EA has regained some respect from me and that really is a bloody surprise to me I can tell you. Pick this one up for sure.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
5. MilenkoM

   Jun 30, 2008

   8

   Single player gets a 7, multi-player (where longevity matters) gets a 9. It's a refreshing take on the battlefield series however Battle Single player gets a 7, multi-player (where longevity matters) gets a 9. It's a refreshing take on the battlefield series however Battle Field die hard's may take issue with the drastic changes. The game is great though, destructible environments are excellent graphics are great and maps are vast and diverse. Highly recommended will provide great gameplay for MANY months.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
6. mrogers0130

   Apr 1, 2012

   8

   A good game. Full gameplay and an OK campaign,. The multiplayer is very exciting with a wider area and vehicle use. The weapon strength is aA good game. Full gameplay and an OK campaign,. The multiplayer is very exciting with a wider area and vehicle use. The weapon strength is a bit to low, and the health bar is a bit primitive. But all around a very good fps. Nothing really special about it though.… Expand

   • 1 of 1 users found this helpful
7. sinadoom

   Sep 28, 2011

   6

   The single player does feel like a battlefield unlike CoD, but this is a bad thing if you want lots of action. The only reason for the map toThe single player does feel like a battlefield unlike CoD, but this is a bad thing if you want lots of action. The only reason for the map to be big is just for them to put gold bars (collectibles) in stupid places. Overall, the campaign isn't attrocious but it is quite boring. Even on a harder difficulty it's still not intense or exciting. Multiplayer is what battlefield has always been about. But coming from a CoD player, I wasn't sold on the multiplayer concept. There's only 1 game mode (2 if you include conquest- a copy of domination and war from CoD) and there's not much action. You have to wait to spawn, and you can choose to spawn on your team mate who is either camping nowhere near the action or getting shot to pieces, or you can spawn at base- miles away from the action. I don't like the gun bobbing or the slow movement. No matter what you do, it never feels satisying- the objective nor the kills. In every way, this game is boring.… Expand

   • 0 of 1 users found this helpful
8. 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

   • 0 of 2 users found this helpful

See all 122 User Reviews