[ « Previous Page | 1 | 2 ]
Bad Company's single-player campaign is action packed from start to finish, but a few things prevent it from being up there with Call of Duty 4. The biggest problem is the twitchy controls. Even on the lowest sensitivity both versions of the game simply don't feel right. It's too easy to lose control of your aim, and the zoomed in view doesn't help too much, although it is easier. After a few hours you get used to it, but compared to the near perfect console controls found in CoD4, Bad Company is a disappointment.
The other major disappointment stems from the amount of explosive barrels and crates scattered around every choke point in the game. The explosions look great, but it's rare for them to be of any real use. Enemies are more often than not nowhere near them, making them nothing more than eye candy. Almost the same is true of the building destruction. Yes, you can blow a hole in a wall, and yes it does look great, but it's not as damaging to enemies as you might think. If these two most exciting aspects of the game had tied more closely to the gameplay Bad Company would have been a far more exhilarating experience.
Still, the levels are massive - although there are only seven of them - and the sense of being in a conflict can only currently be matched by CoD4. Given the free-roaming nature of the environments the game looks great too, sporting some stunning lighting and highly detailed gun and character models. For the most part both versions of the game run very well too, although the PS3 game seems ever so slightly more solid and suffers from less screen tearing. Audio work is truly exceptional, with a surround sound set-up being essential if you want to get the most out of the game. The sound of gun-fire echoes in your ears (and in the in-game buildings) and there's a great soundtrack to boot.
Single-player is only one half of the Bad Company package, with online multiplayer also on offer on both consoles. Sadly there's no co-op play (which would have worked brilliantly) but there is large-scale competitive online play. Oddly, you only have the game mode Gold Rush (the variant on traditional base attack and defence, as seen in the online beta). You get eight maps to play in, each being pretty large compared to those in your average FPS. Vehicles most certainly play a part and the action is constantly moved as territory is captured and objectives are completed.
As in any good online shooter these days, Bad Company includes a number of different classes (Assault, Demolition, Specialist, Recon and Support) and a promotion system, which should give the game the kind of life-span and addictive quality seen in Call of Duty 4. As you score points you edge ever nearer to another rank, which when reached allows you to buy an item from the in-game store. These items really can change the way your chosen class can play the game, with such items as the mortar attack for the Support class opening up new offensive opportunities.
Our early online matches proved to be quite the learning experience as the destructible environments make Bad Company a very different game to the majority of other shooters. To begin with we struggled to overcome sneakily placed snipers, but soon enough we realised what game we were playing and launched a grenade into the hiding spot, blowing the building and said sniper into oblivion. Of course, being behind a wall is often still better than standing out in the open, but finding other cover that won't see the roof collapse on you (perhaps just behind a crest of a small hill) is a pretty good alternative. The only real concern is the lag we experienced during a number of online matches. For the most part this was minimal, but occasionally it made for completely unplayable games.
There was a worry that Battlefield's multiplayer would take the back seat in Bad Company, but that isn't the case at all. In fact it's the multiplayer (even with only one game mode at the moment) that wins out over the single-player campaign. The use of the destructible environment is more exciting in the multiplayer arena, making up for its cursory use in the campaign. With one new game mode guaranteed to arrive for free at some point after the game's release, CoD4 may have some competition on its hands.
Battlefield Bad Company might look like just another FPS but it feels very different. The open-world levels make for some unique gameplay opportunities and the multiplayer mode looks like it should gain a very large online community. The lack of any stand-out set-pieces and the initially twitchy controls prevent Bad Company from earning top marks, but it's a solid effort from DICE that any FPS fan is advised to pick up.
[ « Previous Page | 1 | 2 ]






[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
True War wrote at 09:59 on 23 June 2008
Twitchy Controls - try the options COD4 i admit has good guns apart from the noob p90 but its just about to get owned!!!
doobi wrote at 11:08 on 23 June 2008
Yeah, I don't know what you mean by twitchy. It doesn't have that "snap to" that Cod4 does in SP, but I find the controls excellent, the unique take on the button layout took a few seconds to get my head around but it really makes sense.
dave wrote at 15:13 on 23 June 2008
im looking forward to getting this game im not sure if its as good as call of duty 4 or halo 3 but it looks good
activeseven wrote at 17:36 on 23 June 2008
umm....you gave it an 8, 9 and a 10.
8+9+10 = 27
27 / 3 = 9
How exactly did you arrive at the final score of 8?
egonpax wrote at 17:52 on 23 June 2008
"Scores are out of 10. Overall score is not an average of the sub-scores."
Dinks98 wrote at 17:52 on 23 June 2008
Yeah I think they mean the auto-aim isn't as generous as COD4 when they say twitchy. At least the game feels more next-gen and has moved away from the over abundance of scripted sequences that COD4 relied upon, MOre games should be sand-box style with radical AI protocols like Halo 3 and battlefield BC...apart from the film-grain effect I love it, oh and lack of co-op..that sucks
KennyWu1005 wrote at 19:12 on 23 June 2008
they say it lacks co op but so does COD4 so I dont see what the problem
lucas38 wrote at 20:29 on 23 June 2008
although I can do without all the cheesy dialogue, this may be a good game. I still play BF2MC on the 360, and it plays well without the cutesy comments from the characters/\.
warrior wrote at 21:11 on 23 June 2008
ok ok i understand that its a military shooter but genrally i think that when reviewing a game you should try to be less biased. reffering to Call Of Duty 4 so much in this review made me totally discredit it as a review and i found it a rather sketchy and useless review
Pathetic wrote at 02:10 on 24 June 2008
These are just a bunch of idiots, they can't get a few simple controls down so they give it a bad review. Also they have made a lot of comparisons to COD4, and you wonder if they were bribed.
Pbun wrote at 05:58 on 24 June 2008
I thought the introduction of classes in FPS was originally a Battlefield staple...COD4 is a great single player experience but not as engaging in multiplayer as BF2 or the other battlefield series.
Dirty Harry wrote at 13:04 on 25 June 2008
I can't understand why some would criticize this game for it's tounge in check humor. I absolutly love it! What a nice change of pace from the overly serious attitude of story telling most shooters employ, especially in the politically charged world we live in today.
battlefield bc wrote at 14:48 on 25 June 2008
I love the multiplayer, but hate the singleplayer. Like anyone will buy this because of the singleplayer game. Multiplayer is cool, because you are with a real big team, and the maps are awesome. Singleplayer sucks, because you are with just three guys and must do some boring things. One of the dumb things in this game in singleplayer is that you can destruct walls with your knive. DUMB!!! Also you don't see blood. With multiplayer that ain't is so annoying, but in singleplayer it does. Online owns, singleplayer sucks. And I don't think you should give a shit about that there is no co-op because you don't need it. COD 4 don't has it too. I like this game better than COD 4.
Dee wrote at 14:11 on 27 June 2008
8-10 whatever! with all the detail and polish, awesome vehicles, sound, weapons, unlocks, and more. at least a 9, or even a 10!
very bad scoring review!
Chris wrote at 13:24 on 28 June 2008
Battlefield online stinks due to the lag its beyond, im running virgin media 20meg broadband and im gettin terrible lag, on the otherhand if i play the demo i do not get any lag at all:| EA need to address these lag issues also the sound bug asap!
Very dissapointed so far as for single player aint into it I only wanted it for the multiplayer. Every other game i use online runs sweet on the 20meg set up.
Jonas wrote at 17:48 on 30 June 2008
All of everyones reviews are mixed, you say tht you love the game, but then you comeback with quick "well cod4 is better." Whats the story.? Is this game good to buy? Or a totla waste of money flatout. Please write back.
bestoliciogame wrote at 00:03 on 01 July 2008
bfbc is definetly a must have game, if you like exploding things try out this game and mercanaries 2, but thus game is defenatly a top fps, multiplayer good to play with with your mates, single player is sweet and going oline is addactive.
BUY THIS GAME IF YOU LIKE SQAUD BASED TACTICAL FPS.
bilbo172 wrote at 16:57 on 03 July 2008
this game gives a great look at fps gameing at its finest is it cod4 no but it still powns
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]