-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You need to be LTTP: Battlefield Bad Company
- Thread starter LevityNYC
- Start date
TeardropConnors said:
Totally. The only annoying thing is too much shit packed on the controls and hold to run. (Well, that and the interious walls/floors can't be blown to shit, so you have mysterious standing buildings despite the outer walls being blown to shit. :lol
I still like it, though. Got my 50 dogtag achievement last night. So awesome to run at dudes with a knife, knife them and then auto-inject myself to heal to knife some more. :lol
I never really enjoyed the multiplayer, to be quite honest. In pretty much every map I played in, the maps were simply too massive. Players were spread out to the point most firefights simply became one-on-one or two-on-one battles. And it was as if the DICE didnÂ’t even try to concentrate the battles a bit. Large portions of some of the maps had wide open fields that appeared to be there just for the sake of making the map larger. This in turn spread out an already minuscule team of 12 players and mad it near damn impossible to get to a specific point on the map on time to act as support for my allies.
All in all, I simply did not enjoy this game as much as BF2:MC.
All in all, I simply did not enjoy this game as much as BF2:MC.
Nizz
Member
This is something I'm really happy about too. I picked up Bad Company back in March of this year, $20.00 off of Amazon. I love the damn game. I liked the back and forth with Preston, Haggard, Sweetwater, and Johnson.Loxley said:
Some funny lines between them. And Gold Rush is an awesome mode. So much fun. I'm even more excited for Bad Company 2.
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
Bad Company has the best sound design ever in a videogame.
I remember one time, I had the sound cranked up and was standing inside a house. One of my squad mates was standing right behind me without me knowing when he fired his gun. It literally scared the shit outta me. :lol
I remember one time, I had the sound cranked up and was standing inside a house. One of my squad mates was standing right behind me without me knowing when he fired his gun. It literally scared the shit outta me. :lol
LevityNYC said:
Battlefield Bad Company was released in June 2008. Summer, not fall.
And it sold over 2 million copies across the PS3 and 360. It didn't stay on the Top Ten most played titles for long, but it was quite a success and most likely very profitable for DICE and EA.
That said, BF1943 seems to be an order of magnitude more popular than BFBC ever was, since its already reached the Top 5 most played XBL titles, something BFBC never achieved.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
XBL or XBLA?
You know, I kind of miss the Gold Rush mode and the bigger maps. I'd pop it back in, but I imagine anyone still playing BC would have moved on to 1943 at this point.
You know, I kind of miss the Gold Rush mode and the bigger maps. I'd pop it back in, but I imagine anyone still playing BC would have moved on to 1943 at this point.
permutated
Banned
Felt it was over hyped when I purchased it upon release.
Multiplayer was decently fun but the Single Player was absolutely terrible.
Multiplayer was decently fun but the Single Player was absolutely terrible.
permutated
Banned
Shoogoo said:
You can't. And it's really unacceptable if you ask me.
Every FPS/Action game should support it. Bioshock didn't, Mass Effect didn't
permutated
Banned
permutated said:
Hey! Thanks really. I won't have to bugger GAF on that matter anymore :lol
Asmodai said:
Amen, another thing that totally ruined bad company for me were the snipers, I cant believe they are given a laser designator that kills tanks within 10 seconds. Tanks are basically walking death traps in bad company. Not to mention Gold rush is crap, and the conquest patch is useless since the maps were built for gold rush.
The Faceless Master
Member
not quite there on PS3, but i have 17k kills on 360.dose said:
The Faceless Master
Member
actually, it seems as if there are more people playing BC now than a few months ago. quite a few newbies too, lots more low rank people running around.firehawk12 said:
this is the game that made me learn how to play default, after being a southpaw player since Turok N64...Shoogoo said:
but yeah, it really sucks that it didn't have other control schemes. it seems that they started learning their lesson with 1943. hopefully BC2 will be evven more customizable.
The thing that really broke BC for me, being a COD4 whore, was
--the player "movement" being very stiff
--the fact that it seemingly required half of a 50-bullet clip to take down an enemy
I'm not attacking the game at all (haven't been playing COD4 ever since BF1943 came out) but I really think all devs need to include a "Hardcore" playlist option to the MP side of their games to make transitioning from games like COD4 easier.
(Sorry, was that a batshit insane thing to ask?)
--the player "movement" being very stiff
--the fact that it seemingly required half of a 50-bullet clip to take down an enemy
I'm not attacking the game at all (haven't been playing COD4 ever since BF1943 came out) but I really think all devs need to include a "Hardcore" playlist option to the MP side of their games to make transitioning from games like COD4 easier.
(Sorry, was that a batshit insane thing to ask?)
Stoney Mason
Banned
soultron said:
No it's not a crazy thing to ask for although it doesn't necessarily need to be done to ease in COD 4 players (of which I am one.)
The proper reason to do it is that some options are always better than no options so as a general rule its a good thing.
It is a pretty reasonable thing to say that Battlefield on consoles needs more gameplay options or server lists, or playlists, or private match options. It all depends on where and how you want to attack the situation.
Easily one of my favourite shooters of this gen, but I also hate it for getting rid of the small things that would have made it near on perfect. The pisstake is they were things already in the xbox BF2: good gun balance, proper voice chat, prone, parachutes - you know, all the little things.
Oh, and as a helicopter junkie the maps were crying out for more helis/planes.
My friends have been on about getting it again after 1943, I just might have to.
Oh, and as a helicopter junkie the maps were crying out for more helis/planes.
My friends have been on about getting it again after 1943, I just might have to.
I think the more bullets per kill thing is balanced out by the lack of regenerating health. Lack of prone is pretty inexcusable though.
Im sure its something that not just I have noticed, but the people camping on the carriers waiting for the planes to spawn just drives me batty in 1943. I know its not the games fault, but its so frustrating to attack a control point 3 on 12 and have 9 guys sitting back waiting for the planes to spawn.
The lack of friendly fire in 1943 is pretty disappointing though. A proper hardcore mode is missing from Bad Company. Imagine no radar and less health....now that would be awesome.
I dont know if it would break the game or not, but having collapsable buildings would be absolutely awesome in BC 2.
Im sure its something that not just I have noticed, but the people camping on the carriers waiting for the planes to spawn just drives me batty in 1943. I know its not the games fault, but its so frustrating to attack a control point 3 on 12 and have 9 guys sitting back waiting for the planes to spawn.
The lack of friendly fire in 1943 is pretty disappointing though. A proper hardcore mode is missing from Bad Company. Imagine no radar and less health....now that would be awesome.
I dont know if it would break the game or not, but having collapsable buildings would be absolutely awesome in BC 2.
The Librarian
Banned
The fact that there is no friendly fire is one of the best improvements over Bad Company.LevityNYC said:
Future PhaZe
Member
For the price it is worth it for the great feel of the weapons, graphics, and destruction alone.
I find Gold Rush to be pretty meh. I'm really not big on attacking super well defended objectives. I really like for teams to have to make decisions on how many people to send on attack runs and how many people to defend an objective ala Conquest or Capture the Flag. I find Conquest in this game to be awesome, but other than Ascension, Oasis, and a third map I find the mode to be pretty limited in terms of quality maps.
It's a shame that some design decisions are holding the game back. Dedicated servers, awesome mechanics, unique gameplay, great feel for the weapons, great graphics...these are all things that developers would kill for. I really feel like if Dice were smarter about their decisions that they could create a game that could be close to Gears/CoD. Drop the cheesy feel about the game and throw in some map variety (A city in america, a tropical battleground, snowy mountain type, and etc) and if you're going to create a campaign then at least set some high standards for yourself.
I find Gold Rush to be pretty meh. I'm really not big on attacking super well defended objectives. I really like for teams to have to make decisions on how many people to send on attack runs and how many people to defend an objective ala Conquest or Capture the Flag. I find Conquest in this game to be awesome, but other than Ascension, Oasis, and a third map I find the mode to be pretty limited in terms of quality maps.
It's a shame that some design decisions are holding the game back. Dedicated servers, awesome mechanics, unique gameplay, great feel for the weapons, great graphics...these are all things that developers would kill for. I really feel like if Dice were smarter about their decisions that they could create a game that could be close to Gears/CoD. Drop the cheesy feel about the game and throw in some map variety (A city in america, a tropical battleground, snowy mountain type, and etc) and if you're going to create a campaign then at least set some high standards for yourself.
The Librarian
Banned
I don't.LevityNYC said:
Yes it is. When you all first spawn, you accidentally run over a teammate when you hop in a tank. And in the heat of battle, you're frantically trying to stay alive and achieving your objective. You shouldn't have to worry about accidentally killing a teammate.
hate to be a broken record, but until DICE/EA put Alt Control thumbsticks in their games, I am boycotting them, Battlefield 1943 is almost impossible for me with default sticks. I played Left 4 Dead for a nearly a year with Default Sticks, they add Legacy Sticks and it's like a whole new game for me.
also fix the lag and hit detection pwz
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
MDSLKTR said:
Still kicking quite well. It's gotten a bit more people since 1943 came out.
My main gripe the with BFBC was that there were not enough vehicle based maps in the game. The big (Oasis, End of the Line, Harvest Day) were so awesome because of the all out war feeling of seeing tanks, APCs and choppers battling everywhere. That and the gunplay (health system) wasn't as strong and the vehicle combat.
Secondary was a complete lack of community features which IMO killed the longevity of the MP. No clans, no private matches, no squad creation control (you could make a party and have that squad broken up the round). This game would've been perfect for movies but they had extremely little community features.
Still the best sound design in a FPS, every distant crackle and pop was from a player and not generated filler sounds.
The Librarian
Banned
But then again, it's a videogame. I don't like it when I'm killed by my own teammate or when I accidentally kill someone else.RobertM said:
BattleMonkey
Member
Waiting on the 2nd one, the first was a very uneven experience to me. The multiplayer improved with patches and content but I always hated the feel of the shooting for some reason... it's floaty or something, but still a fun game.
The single player was dreadful, the sequel sounds like it should improve on it though.
The single player was dreadful, the sequel sounds like it should improve on it though.
The Faceless Master
Member
about friendly fire:
it's just two different playstyles. 1943 is made to be more arcadey.
in BC i have to be careful when i'm driving around, or else i could run over my teammates, i have to be careful when i'm shooting, etc...
in 1943 i don't have too worry about any of that, it just makes the game different, i don't really want to say one is better or worse, but i prefer friendly fire on.
it's just two different playstyles. 1943 is made to be more arcadey.
in BC i have to be careful when i'm driving around, or else i could run over my teammates, i have to be careful when i'm shooting, etc...
in 1943 i don't have too worry about any of that, it just makes the game different, i don't really want to say one is better or worse, but i prefer friendly fire on.
all it takes is a well timed reverse or turn to get a miss, unless they are anticipating the reverse/turn. i know i've been on both sides of the situation many times, it is by no means a guaranteed kill.gibonez said: