Zero Punctuation: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

[Katana314]

I own the game, and agree with it all. FREAKING STUPID DUST. And the quips to MW2 were just childish.
"No! We can't just report back. They'll just send wimpy Special Forces with Heartbeat Monitors."
"If this were a snowmobile race, I'd cream you!" "It's not a snowmobile race! Snowmobiles are for pussies!"

 

[Mydnyght]

Deranged Paranoid Power Fantasy For Right-Wing Shut-Ins
Who Would Blow Their Own Nuts Off The Moment
They Were Handed An Actual Fire Arm, Probably Already Have Done
(DPPFFRWSIWWBTONOTMTWHAAFAPAHD) -shooter

Congrats, Yahtzee, you just invented a brand new sub-genre! YAY!

(By the way... Duke Nukem Forever available by the year 2275? No way, ain't gonna happen.)

 

[PENGUINKK]

To be fair, Bad Company's regenerating health system is really conservative. Get knocked down in health 'till blood is all around the corners and it takes more than a minute to get back to a clear screen. In COD, however, that would take about 5 seconds.

And of course Yahtzee only played the singleplayer, which isn't very good anyway. I stopped playing after the second mission because the AI teammates are a bunch of idiots. On more than two occasions they stood all the way in the back standing around doing absolutely nothing while waiting for me to either kill the last guy or walk 20 ft forward and trigger a set piece. And that's when they weren't walking around glitching into stuff.

He does make a great point about the dust. I really don't understand why the view distance is so poor. Or why everything is so bright.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Slight side note, why is it that everyone thinks that you shouldn't take Yahtzee seriously? There is a slight difference between a reviewer, and what Yahtzee is trying to be, a critic. The objective of a reviewer is to tell you whether or not it is worth buying or at the very least looking into a game. A critic is supposed to point out all of the flaws and high points in that game. That's why he never says "Buy it" or "Skip it" at the end of his reviews. His objective is to look into a game, and find the flaws, rather than look at the things worth mentioning that are good. Take him seriously, just don't let him be the only factor when you decide on getting a game.

Because when critic chooses only one thing to mock, and ignores everything that makes the thing great, then the critic is pretty damn bad.

Also, if a 3rd person looked at his video, he wouldn't even know that the game even HAS a multiplayer mode.

Again, you don't understand the definition of 'critic'. A reviewer is someone who tries to come up with an assessment of whether the game is worth buying: and judging by the way Gamespot now operates that basically consists of listing all the different features, including your precious multiplayer mode. There's no real effort made to judge them in terms of effectiveness.

Yahtzee by comparison is probably the only surviving 'critic' in the gaming world because he has a view to the bigger picture. He ignores things which are easy to brag about like next gen graphics and assesses each game in terms of what it contributes to the genre, or to gaming as a whole. A part of that means embracing his opinions rather than trying to continue with the pretense of objectivity, because in a medium where the primary aim is almost always to entertain, individual taste is going to be responsible for a number of different reactions. That's why every week when he trashes a game, the fanboys come out and fill these pages with their virtual tears because they, for some inexplicable reason, are unable to be happy with just having fun themselves and demand that every treatment of a game give it some objective assessment that proclaims it to be 'good'.

In the case of his ignoring the multiplayer, that's again him embracing his opinions. I've never understood why people so continually whine that he should review multiplayer, because my suspicion is that if he did he'd hate it purely for the other players - not giving the kind of objective assessment people demand. And really, if you come here needing to be told that Bad Company 2 is a decent multiplayer experience, you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past eight years would know that EA has basically just released Battlefield 1942 over and over again with graphical updates and different settings. The core gameplay remains unchanged, and either you like it or you don't. As I've said before on this site, it's pretty much impossible to expect people to give objective assessments of multiplayer when multiplayer is really defined by what the players make of it, and often who you play against.

 

[blankgabriel]

BattleField 1942 was awesome. I would worship DICE if they re-made that.

 

[grenadejuggler]

The dust is pretty anoying.
BTW, was yahtzee quoting Iron Maiden?

 

[MagicMouse]

lol that was damn funny

and Yahtzee's right,this whole game is almost an MW ripoff from start..who needs a loading screen with google maps?

Ya, because you know, Battlefield Modern Combat didn't do that years before modern warfare or anything.... no couldn't be as everybody seems to think that MW invented everything and didn't borrow all its elements from other shooters....

 

[daltob]

To be fair, Bad Company's regenerating health system is really conservative. Get knocked down in health 'till blood is all around the corners and it takes more than a minute to get back to a clear screen. In COD, however, that would take about 5 seconds.

And of course Yahtzee only played the singleplayer, which isn't very good anyway. I stopped playing after the second mission because the AI teammates are a bunch of idiots. On more than two occasions they stood all the way in the back standing around doing absolutely nothing while waiting for me to either kill the last guy or walk 20 ft forward and trigger a set piece. And that's when they weren't walking around glitching into stuff.

He does make a great point about the dust. I really don't understand why the view distance is so poor. Or why everything is so bright.

I don't see your problem with this game. sure the A.I. isn't Crysis. but everything else you say is rubbish i have every BF game and the dust is there in those games as well the draw distance is whats supposed to make this game seeing how unlike most games this game has INFINITE DRAW DISTANCE.

but besides this nuance i enjoy this games SP but have to put up MP for awhile so i can play a much more addicting FF XIII

 

[Fatal-X]

Sorry Yahtzee, but this one bored me.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

lols, of course they are .. what do you expect in a SHOOTER .. every kit MUST enable you to kill enemies ... it would be stupid of a kit forces you to hide or do tasks while being unable to defend yourself or even attack if you need to.

Ever hear of Team Fortress 2? In that game Engineers and Medics have very weak guns and so they must rely on their team to do the killing for them while they do their job. This necessitates teamwork. If everyone had a good gun, like they do in BF:BC2, teamwork disappears because people are more focused on getting kills.

NO .. they are nothing alike ... you can't fix vehicles with a medic Kit and can't heal fallen allies or revive with an engineer Kit .. etc etc .. every freaking Kit has a distinct and very clear role that no other Kit can replace .. how does taht boil down to selecting your primary weapon !!!?

Playing assault feels no different than playing medic. Sure there are slight differences, but when it boils down to it the core gameplay remains the same.

Oh god .. you completely understood it the other way around .. it adds tons of tactical depth and adaptability that allows you to react to any situation on the fly .. in one situation for example .. i was with a squad-mate who had a Medic kit .. we got in a firefight ... i was an enigneer ... he got killed .. i survived and killed the last of the attackers .... ran over to my squad-mate medic kit .. picked it up .. revived him and switched back to my engineer kit to fact the tank that was approaching our position.

Ah... "you're doing it wrong." The number one fallback argument for any fanboy.

I ask you, isn't the point of having different kits that one person CANNOT react to anything on the fly? That reduces teamwork, and leads back to my first argument, which you also rejected. Looks like you're contradicting yourself a bit...

Health takes lots of time to regenerate in BC2 .. it doesn't regenerate instantly .. it does very slowly (play as a medic and watch you squad-mates health bars and you will see that .. i played as a medic a lot and this is a FACT.

As for ammo .. i ran out of ammo numerous times ... the longer you survive and the better you play you will notice that you will run out of ammo faster ... that's why ammo-packs are essential ... but someone who gets killed every five seconds won't notice that (not to mention won't be doing much good to his squad or team)

First we see fanboy argument number two, stating a subjective opinion as if it's an objective fact. How can you possibly say that it is a FACT that your health regenerates slowly? That's an opinion.

And then onto the third fanboy argument: "You just suck at the game." Yes, it must be because I suck that I rarely run out of ammo, as you so subtly hinted at in that post. I could counter saying that at least I don't spray ammo around like a n00b if I felt like arguing using fanboy logic.

The core gameplay is NOTHING alike ... it isn't about racking kills at all in BC2 ... killing is only a means to achieve your objectives .. and you get rewarded with ranking points for every freaking action you do that supports your team (spotting enemies, completing objectives, healing, reviving, supplying ammo, fixing tanks with squad-mates in them, .... etc etc etc) and tons of other things that has nothing to do with racking up kills.

If there is a leveling system, and experience is based around kills, then yes, the goal is to get kills. Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that what you said there had absolutely nothing to do with core gameplay, but with the leveling system...

You simply have been playing BC the WRONG way .. go watch this excellent tips video and you will understand why BC2 is way better than MW2 will ever hope to be ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p4fkH9qC4M

And this for an extra laugh ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZvqcZ1f0k&feature=related

"You're doing it wrong" AND link dumping? Are you even trying to hide it at this point?

 

[Buccura]

I'm honestly surprised Yahtzee even reviewed a game that had a multiplayer focus without it being one that he was peer pressured into, like Borderlands.

 

[Warchiefwill]

I didn't agree with yahtzee's comments. I felt personally that the game was a great triumph.

Plus, the whole banging on about dust was a bit of a nitpick. He didn't even mention the World War 2 mission which i thought was a great set piece for the games plot.

But i will say that yes Russia is used wayyyyyyyyyyy too much as the evil doer on most "realistic Modern Shooter"

- Mosaic, XD honestly Yahtzee you handsome bastard-

 

[Zepren]

We do need more badass shooters. not realistic ones. Like say if you crossed Saints Row with the first Modern Warfare and then throw in some other stuff, the bi-product of this may be something pretty decent.

Hey yahtz, fancy making another game on top of the space one?

 

[F8L Fool]

Yahtzee should really stop reviewing games that everyone buys for the multiplayer.

Agreed. I have watched every one of his reviews on this site, and the ones I enjoyed the absolute least were the games that are either successful thanks to their multiplayer components (Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Bad Company, etc.), or have a terrible one that would be amusing to rip to shreds.

The sad thing is Croshaw thinks that multiplayer is useless. My bad, let me use an exact quote rather than speculate: "Unfortunately I don't give a flying sh*t about multiplayer, and neither do a lot of people." (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8-Halo-3)

That mentality really carries over to every single game he reviews. I hate to burst your bubble Croshaw, but millions of people care about multiplayer. Hence why the games built around it absolutely demolish the games that lack it in terms of sales and popularity. So by you not actually giving an accurate (or any) account of a games multiplayer, you're successfully excluding an enormous portion of the market.

I just don't get how a reviewer in this day and age could not touch on multiplayer in a game. You wouldn't go to a movie blindfolded and complain about the lack of visiuals, just like you shouldn't play a game without touching on the multiplayer and whining about the lack of complexity, depth, replayability, quality, or whatever redeeming quality that multiplayer typically serves as in this day and age.

 

[WarpGhost]

You know, I still dont actually know what Yahtzee thought of BFBC2 specifically beyond "dust sucks", as this seemed rather more of a general rant against FPS evolution over the last 10 years. What was the sound design like, were the levels and story any good, are there any things it did well, what was the actual experience like, etc.

 

[Game_Demon]

To the people saying that it has bad multiplayer, all I can say is OMFGYHNI (oh my fucking god you have no idea). Best multi there is out there, if you hate it, you are doing it wrong.

Yahtzee should play the MP part of the game and re-review it.

Edit: Also watch this: Tips & Tricks: How Not to be a Noob at Battlefield Bad Company 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p4fkH9qC4M

 

[ScottocS]

I honestly don't see where all this praise is coming from for BFBC2.

If Yahtzee actually reviewed BFBC2 for it's multiplayer I would be seeing a lot more butthurt fanboism than I am now.

The multiplayer is definitly the centre peace of any Battlefield game. I will even go as far as to say, yes, BFBC2 has a sick multiplayer that is a whole bundle of fun. The singleplayer, not so much.

But why all the praise? Is it the fanboism? The MULTIPLAYER is broken for a larger majority of people playing without a stable/playable connection. And yet EA/DICE go on promoting there half assed attempt of a launch.

Stats don't update reguarly or as they should, When some people get into a game it is full of lag, the server browser is an afterthought. I actually like this game, and yet I seem to be finding that the BETA Was more stable than it's full release.

When DICE/EA deliver on a stable/workable multiplayer only then would I ever defend or "praise" them as a Game Developer/Publisher. The constant "This is really actually the best game of all time" Absolute Bull Shite. It isn't. Its a another generic FPS that is no better than MW2.

 

[almost cool]

How about a realistic game where you spend 2 percent in battle and 98 percent walking between combat zones.

 

[Natdaprat]

He thought it was supposed to be a "realistic shooter". What? Almost as unrealistic as moon jumping halo.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Another great and funny review Mr.Croshaw!

Although I haven't played Bad Company 2 yet and not planning on buying it since I already have MW2.My premise is <why bother to get a mw2 "copy" with vehicles> I'm quite reluctant when it comes to that.

My 2 cents