Bad Computer 2

Recommended Videos

Unborn023

New member
Aug 17, 2009
160
0
0
Okay so I bought this game yesterday not in the hype as a Modern Warfare 2 killer (I love modern warfare and will compare it multiple times)but hopefully as another battlefield 2.
I must say I'm pretty dissapointed....for one the single player is trying desperately to be the game it vowed to slay and fell flat on its face.

I was promised humor and destructible environments above all else. The humor was hardly there with the exception of a few Ha-has. Instead I got a badly told version of a Sean Connery movie it had everything from dying main characters to betraying Russians as well as betraying Americans and a doomsday weapon..... I feel like I've played this before... except it was better.
The destructible environments were kind of fun but ultimately felt like it fell short of its hype. Turns out not every structure can be blown to high fuckery and for some reason you can knife through fences and doors with a simple swipe. Though I must admit chipping away cover and mowing down trees was a very nice touch.

Now onto one of my biggest complaints because I would not have coughed up all that money on a game primarily for its single player (FUCK NO not after I learned my lesson with F.E.A.R. 2). The graphics (on the PC anyway). .......WTF. I have it running with PS2 style graphics on a ridiculously low resolution that would computer would smack me for ever disrespecting it by using it and it still manages to have a shitty frame rate.

This is inexcusable. Modern Warfare 2 runs amazingly on my laptop with a very decent resolution and various other visual effects. I feel like this is the second consecutive insult to the Battlefield franchises PC fan base. The first being that the first Bad Company wasn't on PC. The second being releasing this game with visuals of the last generation.

The main point of my post was the single player and its visuals so fan boys don't piss yourselves as you furiously type flames. I have yet to play multiplayer and I'll complain about that if I see anything wrong with it but I'm already trying to sell it over Craigslist in large part due to the visuals and choppy frame rate.

And one final nitpick
The grenade throwing and knifing visuals are incredibly awkward looking
 

jhf2112

New member
Jan 12, 2010
10
0
0
As far as I can tell this game was developed with the only goal of musseling in on MW2, that plan pretty much always produces a poor product, but maybe the graphics really were "another Battlefield 2".
 

Unborn023

New member
Aug 17, 2009
160
0
0
jhf2112 said:
As far as I can tell this game was developed with the only goal of musseling in on MW2, that plan pretty much always produces a poor product, but maybe the graphics really were "another Battlefield 2".
LMAO touche indeed.
 

Unborn023

New member
Aug 17, 2009
160
0
0
TheTygerfire said:
Unborn023 said:
dying main characters
Jesus Christ, THANK YOU FOR THE SPOILERS
I'm going to address that as if you were serious for the sake of the following asshole statenet
"You aren't missing anything anyway"
 

TheTygerfire

New member
Jun 26, 2008
2,403
0
0
Unborn023 said:
TheTygerfire said:
Unborn023 said:
dying main characters
Jesus Christ, THANK YOU FOR THE SPOILERS
I'm going to address that as if you were serious for the sake of the following asshole statenet
"You aren't missing anything anyway"
Still, it's a spoiler none the less. I have the game on console and I don't care about the graphics (they look perfectly fine, BTW) and I don't have the dislike of this game you do. So excuse me for not having a story spoiled for me, regardless of if "I'm missing anything"
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,508
0
0
Very decent?

...

I haven't played the game and therefore don't know how it faired out, but perhaps if you turned the settings up, got a patch, bought it for a console or got a new computer you would have a better time.

From the title of the thread, it would seem as though the reason you disliked it was because of your graphics and maybe some of the funny things couldn't overcome your graphic annoyance, but I wouldn't know - I haven't played it.

I don't know if there is a patch for it but I hope there is and maybe that will fix up some gameplay issues for you.
 

Unborn023

New member
Aug 17, 2009
160
0
0
SextusMaximus said:
Very decent?

...

I haven't played the game and therefore don't know how it faired out, but perhaps if you turned the settings up, got a patch, bought it for a console or got a new computer you would have a better time.

From the title of the thread, it would seem as though the reason you disliked it was because of your graphics and maybe some of the funny things couldn't overcome your graphic annoyance, but I wouldn't know - I haven't played it.

I don't know if there is a patch for it but I hope there is and maybe that will fix up some gameplay issues for you.
My computer was quite powerful 2 years ago and can still run games coming out out today on slightly above average settings. I think this is a case of poor use of engine.
With setting all the way down I still have frame rate hickups. And no the jokes are very weak. I'm not one of those graphic freaks (I played Red Faction until 2007 and only stopped when the community collapsed)

But don't get me wrong people, as far as pointing and shooting it works... just doesn't seem to be the beast it wanted to

Hopefully a patch will address these issues
 

Jenkins

New member
Dec 4, 2007
1,091
0
0
just beat the game, multiplayer is AMAZING, and as long as you took single player slow, you would hear the humor between the squad as they talk to each other.

what "betraying russians?" are you talking about?


and are you crapping me? the visuals of this game outplays MW2 10 fold not to mention that most of the maps are WAY bigger and more diverse.

but to each his own I guess.
 

Unborn023

New member
Aug 17, 2009
160
0
0
Jenkins said:
just beat the game, multiplayer is AMAZING, and as long as you took single player slow, you would hear the humor between the squad as they talk to each other.

what "betraying russians?" are you talking about?


and are you crapping me? the visuals of this game outplays MW2 10 fold not to mention that most of the maps are WAY bigger and more diverse.

but to each his own I guess.
2 things,
When the Russian guy shoots the betraying American
And are you playing on PC because if not I don't believe it applies to you
Gametrailers said it in their review as well that the PS3 and Xbox versions look amazing while the PC falls behind
 

Phoenixlight

New member
Aug 24, 2008
1,169
0
0
Well I'm glad that you agree that the graphics are worse than modern warfare 2's, I commented on another forum about them being worse than call of duty's and had many people flaming.
 

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
Um.

Surprise? PC gaming is an after thought anymore. PC sales in themselves are only a small portion of the over all sales in the gaming industry, and what's more most companies wont even bother with a proper PC release for a multi-platform game.

A symptom of this is having the games be poorly optimized.

And forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't BC2 a much larger scale game than MW2? Plus destructible environments? Sounds like they were doing something other than making sure everything looked pretty.
 

Reep

New member
Jul 23, 2008
677
0
0
I disagree with most of this, the singleplayer (havent played it) is likely not the focus of battlefield games, what have they mostly been praised for? Multiplayer, and in that respect, i fucking love it so much ill gladly break my MW2 disk if that allows me to play another second of BFBC2 multiplayer.

With the singleplayer, what ive heard is that it takes a more serious tone, there is still a tiny bit of humour but it is a far cry from the insanity of the first game.

I dont know how you can complain about the graphics, i played the Beta and they still far surpassed what i was expecting, my computer isnt even amazing and i could still run it on mid level graphics settings.

In my opinion
BFBC2 > MW2 by far.
 

auronvi

New member
Jul 10, 2009
447
0
0
First off, both game's graphics are terribad. And it sounds to me like it was a shitty PC port. That is why it is running bad. All I can say here is

Update drivers (usually follows after a big game release like this)
Download updates (none yet probably but be on the look out)
Check other forums for fixes. Usually someone figures out a temporary fix until they patch it.

Played the MP demo... wasn't impressed. The BF games always felt like there was too much of a delay between shooting someone and them actually falling dead. 1942 was awesome back in the day and 1943 was really good and I wish they would release more maps for it but I am sure the ship has sailed for that.

I am going to stick to MW2 for my FPS goodness! Tighter controls, faster battles and if I play hardcore search and destroy, I can pretend I am playing a new version of Counter-Strike.

A new Counter-Strike needs to be made. Nothing beat CS1.4 and then CS:Source. Probably not coming until Half-Life 3.

EDIT: My above shitty graphics comment was directed towards the XBOX version. I just looked at some PC shots and they look much better than some of the stuff I have seen recently. Also I looked for you and only found people complaining about the Beta frame rates. Just wait a little bit. A fix will come. Isn't PC gaming grand!
 

Horticulture

New member
Feb 27, 2009
1,050
0
0
Unborn023 said:
This is inexcusable. Modern Warfare 2 runs amazingly on my laptop with a very decent resolution and various other visual effects. I feel like this is the second consecutive insult to the Battlefield franchises PC fan base. The first being that the first Bad Company wasn't on PC. The second being releasing this game with visuals of the last generation.
I can't speak for the release version, but even during beta the game looked damn good and ran fluidly for me. The system requirements are pretty absurd (recommended: Core 2 Quad+GTX260 o_O), but it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about dated visuals while the game runs at minimum settings. Hell, Crysis looked like an N64 game on my old 7600GT.
 

Volafortis

New member
Oct 7, 2009
920
0
0
Damn, Core 2 Quad and GTX 260? Those are my specs, and I can (could) run pretty much anything on max (Yes, including Crysis). I guess it's getting close to rebuild time. Because now both this and Metro are only recommended on my PC. Probably will be upgrading my RAM to 8GB soon, and my gfx card when the 400 series releases.

OT: The beta wasn't so bad, but I still wouldn't say it was great.
 

Raikov

New member
Mar 1, 2010
422
0
0
Umm... It's a battlefield game, so there's really no use comparing it to MW2. Different gameplay, focus is on tactics and terrain destruction (at least building destruction...), not graphics. And it will, as all Battlefield games has, very different players.

In MW2 you just shoot your way to victory, and the player are encouraged to be a 1-man army. You can win a map fairly easily with just one or two good players on your team. BFBC2 encourages you to cooperate with the rest of your team to win, and the guys that really try to support their team will have an advantage compared to those that only goes for the kills.

I played the beta on max resolution, and it's not ugly at all. But you really need at least a decent dual-core machine to get good fps, because of the various reality mimicking features. The terrain destruction is a very large part of it, and so is the sound.
In older games, the sound of an enemy firing at you from a distance or behind a house was decided by specific sound files. In BFBC2 all sounds are computed directly by your computer. This makes it a lot more realistic, but also drains on your CPU.

BFBC2 is more about how the game feels, not how it looks. That alone makes it a lot better then MW2 imo.
And ofc, us older guys know that you don't play a Battlefield game for the single-player campaign! =P
 

Unborn023

New member
Aug 17, 2009
160
0
0
auronvi said:
A new Counter-Strike needs to be made. Nothing beat CS1.4 and then CS:Source. Probably not coming until Half-Life 3.
Funny enough I was talking about a new counter strike with my friend a few hours back and even looked up any news there might be on one
bodare said:
BFBC2 is more about how the game feels, not how it looks. That alone makes it a lot better then MW2 imo.
And ofc, us older guys know that you don't play a Battlefield game for the single-player campaign! =P
I avoided discussing multiplayer for that specific reason. I simply wanted to get my point across how the developers hyped up this humorous and differently toned fps (with the first one living up to that title) and when you pop it in to get a taste of their main attraction it taste alot more like the musky underside of modern warfares unwashed nutsack
 

Jenkins

New member
Dec 4, 2007
1,091
0
0
Unborn023 said:
Jenkins said:
just beat the game, multiplayer is AMAZING, and as long as you took single player slow, you would hear the humor between the squad as they talk to each other.

what "betraying russians?" are you talking about?


and are you crapping me? the visuals of this game outplays MW2 10 fold not to mention that most of the maps are WAY bigger and more diverse.

but to each his own I guess.
2 things,
When the Russian guy shoots the betraying American
And are you playing on PC because if not I don't believe it applies to you
Gametrailers said it in their review as well that the PS3 and Xbox versions look amazing while the PC falls behind
yeah I am playing it on the pc :p