Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Invades Sales Charts

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
No planes, EA Multiplayer support is fucking terrible and buggy, leveling up takes FOREVER, and the beginning weapons are just awful(Especially Assault). Yet I'm still enjoying it.

I'm sad they didn't add achievements or titles or anything, guess they didn't want to be too much like MW2.

Also it's badly in need of more maps, lots more maps.

SERIOUSLY WHY ARE THERE NO PLANES WTF!

edit: and how could I forget, how can you make an FPS, especially one with massive open world battles like this and NOT implement a prone key? It's retarded, is this some alternate reality War where humans aren't allowed to lay on their stomachs? Words cannot explain how stupid that is.

(I am still playing it)
 

gungravesan7

New member
Mar 11, 2008
21
0
0
figures. IW screwed up with IWnet, for all the PC gamers. They just gave us a console port. It's only natural that all the disappointed gamers would shift to something with a little more sense
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Hubilub said:
I see... I'm dumbfounded by this.

MW2 was a complete disappointment, so everyone decides to buy a game with basically the exact same premise? I just... What? Modern Warfare 2 earns in a crap ton of money, everyone hates it, and now BBC2 earns a crap ton of money. Guess what's going to happen in a few weeks?
Everyone appears to like this one though.

I would get it, but I'm running a bit short (on money) and JC2 is out in a few weeks, and Conviction (ZOMG FINALLY) not long after that.
 

cocoadog

New member
Oct 9, 2008
539
0
0
GamingAwesome1 said:
Ugh....why does the derivative crap always sell so well? MW2 and now BBC2. Why do people continue to buy this generic, shoddily controlling crap?

Are people really that thick?
OH hardy har har aren't you all high and mighty. People buy these games because the multiplayer is fucking fun.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Zing said:
No planes, EA Multiplayer support is fucking terrible and buggy, leveling up takes FOREVER, and the beginning weapons are just awful(Especially Assault). Yet I'm still enjoying it.

I'm sad they didn't add achievements or titles or anything, guess they didn't want to be too much like MW2.

Also it's badly in need of more maps, lots more maps.

SERIOUSLY WHY ARE THERE NO PLANES WTF!

edit: and how could I forget, how can you make an FPS, especially one with massive open world battles like this and NOT implement a prone key? It's retarded, is this some alternate reality War where humans aren't allowed to lay on their stomachs? Words cannot explain how stupid that is.

(I am still playing it)
I can't imagine planes being viable in modern war. On maps of BFBC2 size? No way. Either overpowered or underpowered. I liked them in Battlefield Heroes, but... not here.
 

DrEmo

New member
May 4, 2009
458
0
0
I'm very happy to hear Bad Company 2 is doing so well. I played the demo and I was instantly hooked; it's a tremendous game that, IMO, deserves the sales numbers. It's that damn good.
 

Namewithheld

New member
Apr 30, 2008
326
0
0
Okay, I need to step up and say it: Bad Company 2's singleplayer kicks the ass of Modern Warfare 2's singleplayer.

Why?

Characters. Bad Company 2 actually has character. I mean people I actually kind of LIKE, and are...ya know, funny.

Multiplayer is a BLAST and the game is a righteous send up to Modern Warfare 2, which I hated.

I've been a BF fan since 1942, and I'm glad to see they've continued to improve their games.
 

Darchrow

New member
Nov 18, 2009
111
0
0
Glad to hear they are doing well I personally got a bit pissed off with IW multiplayer but then again I've always been a fan of FPS and achievement whoring (a.k.a. my MMORPG gamer side) which sort of got me into MW2 nowadays that space is filled in by Global Agenda and I've never been happier there ^^
 

Bretty

New member
Jul 15, 2008
864
0
0
Baby Tea said:
And before you say 'well you have to get the right people', then let me say right now that you can do the same thing in MW2. Teamwork gets you far in any points-based, team game (FPS or not). Yeah, MW2 is faster paced, with tighter maps, no vehicles, and no set class system,. but I have a group of guys that I play with in MW2 who work as a team, and we slaughter a team of randoms. Why? Teamwork.

There is nothing about Battlefield that makes it to more prone to teamwork then MW2, or any other FPS for that matter. Nothing. Working together? You'll do better. Not working together? Then you're only as good as your best player. There is only one FPS I've ever played that forces team-work on people, and that's Left 4 Dead. Otherwise, this idea that Battlefield is the pinnacle of team-based FPS games is a farce.
You stated the reasons your self for team work being greater in BBC2 in your own post. The difference with this game and MW2 is the number of times you die. In BBC2 I die a lot less and need ammunition. Therefore any good team needs a Support guy there. We need a medic to heal up and be rezzed and then a good squad leader to act as a spawn site. This doesnt sound like ANYTHING in MW2....

I can see you are a fan of MW2 and aren't happy about people saying BBC2 has more teamwork in it. But I hugely disagree. Any good random squad I have joined since release has stuck together and split the classes well.

This is not the case with my experience in MW2.... Grenade, Zerg, Shoot, die and rinse and repeat.

BBC2 is easily a better shoot on the PC than MW2 and minus the server load issues they are having now, I am sure it will continue to be the best shooter of the year.

I just dont see how you can think MW2 has an equal amount of teamwork requirements then BBC2, outside of all having the same objective?
 

DrEmo

New member
May 4, 2009
458
0
0
cocoadog said:
GamingAwesome1 said:
Ugh....why does the derivative crap always sell so well? MW2 and now BBC2. Why do people continue to buy this generic, shoddily controlling crap?

Are people really that thick?
OH hardy har har aren't you all high and mighty. People buy these games because the multiplayer is fucking fun.
People that high and mighty usually prefer RPG's which feature heart-pounding menu-based combat. I'm getting excited just thinking about it.

and, I disagree with your statement on the multiplayer. What you said was an understatement. It's engaging, universe-exploding, hour eating fun.
 

stabnex

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,039
0
0
Umm.. I seem to have lost my pants somewhere between the retailer and starting the game...
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Bretty said:
You stated the reasons your self for team work being greater in BBC2 in your own post. The difference with this game and MW2 is the number of times you die. In BBC2 I die a lot less and need ammunition. Therefore any good team needs a Support guy there. We need a medic to heal up and be rezzed and then a good squad leader to act as a spawn site. This doesnt sound like ANYTHING in MW2....

I can see you are a fan of MW2 and aren't happy about people saying BBC2 has more teamwork in it. But I hugely disagree. Any good random squad I have joined since release has stuck together and split the classes well.

This is not the case with my experience in MW2.... Grenade, Zerg, Shoot, die and rinse and repeat.

BBC2 is easily a better shoot on the PC than MW2 and minus the server load issues they are having now, I am sure it will continue to be the best shooter of the year.

I just dont see how you can think MW2 has an equal amount of teamwork requirements then BBC2, outside of all having the same objective?
Bwahaha! Sure, I enjoy MW2, but please don't mistake me for some fanboy. I've been playing Battlefield since 1942, and Call of Duty since the first installment. I'm partial to both series, as they both having something different to offer. But in no way does Bad Company 2 encourage more team-play then MW2.

Having classes certainly narrows it down, but playing as a team in MW2 nets you the same results: Winning with ease. With Battlefield, you've got medics 'rezzing' people and soldiers loading people up. Great! In MW2 you've got flag-runners, defenders, and attackers. Everyone, on a good team, has a role to play no matter what game you're playing. This was true in every online team FPS I've ever played, from Quake to now. Just because a game hand delivers you those roles, doesn't mean it's more of a team game.

I'm sure people are having a blast playing this game, and that's fine! I'm not saying the game sucks (Though I'm not interested in it), but I am saying that it's not 'more of a team game' then any other FPS I've ever played. It seems the only people who are saying that it is are those who feel they have to snub MW2 like some ex-girlfriend who didn't treat you the way you expected.
 

I am Jack's profile

New member
Aug 13, 2009
153
0
0
After Playing around with both these games i can express my opionion that follows.

How could you find modren warefare a superior game. it just does not make sence. MW2 just seems bland to me... It's nice to see a game that goes the red faction route of Destruction physics, But actually doing it well
 

WestMountain

New member
Dec 8, 2009
809
0
0
I'm still waiting for Battlefield 3, I dont like the knifing, 32 cap, squad system and small maps in Bad Company 2, its still a decent game but I think its a bit meh compared to Battlefield 2
 

Mrsoupcup

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,487
0
0
I always told people at my school the first game was better than COD 4, but nobody ever listened. Now with the second game perfecting the first games near flawless realist/addictive/jizz in my pants gameplay it seems everyone I know sold thier Mewtwo copies to get BFB:2.
 

DrEmo

New member
May 4, 2009
458
0
0
I am Jack said:
After Playing around with both these games i can express my opionion that follows.

How could you find modren warefare a superior game. it just does not make sence. MW2 just seems bland to me... It's nice to see a game that goes the red faction route of Destruction physics, But actually doing it well
BC2 feels more like you're fighting in a war, and not just in a training exercise.
 

Oh That Dude

New member
Nov 22, 2009
461
0
0
Baby Tea said:
Well, pardon me if I completely disagree.
See when I played BF:BC2, I played as a soldier at first, because I figured it would be good for medium range combat (Assault rifle, after all). And I got my ass handed to me again and again by every other class. So I switched to an engineer, since they seemed to have much better luck at killing me then everyone else. And guess what? I slaughtered everything. I was taking out tanks, helicopters, people, and blowing up crates left right and center.

You would think that, in a class based game, the guy who is made for anti-vehicle combat, and vehicle repair, would be less effective in straight up infantry combat then the guy who is only good for infantry combat. But no, the soldier class is useless.
Interesting, almost every time I've faced Engie as Assault I've owned them. I think you were on the wrong end of a good player and bad luck.

But let's say that I just didn't use the soldier class effectively. Let's just say that my play-style isn't suited to the soldier class, and someone else can use the soldier class to great and proper effect.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that since BF:BC2 has set classes, that teamwork will automatically play more of a role then in MW2. Well after months of playing the first Bad Company online, and months of playing CoD:4 and MW2 online (And years of playing FPS games online since Quake), allow me to respectfully disagree.
That's not why I would say it has more teamwork.

I'll disagree because nobody in my time playing either Bad Company 1 or the demo for Bad Company 2 played as a team. I don't really know how you could anyways, since you can only talk to up to 3 people because of the 'wonderful' squad system, but nobody played as a team.
Just half an hour ago, I wasn't even communicating with my squad, but the four of us stuck it out in a house, helped each other out with the tools specifically designed for squad play (ammo boxes, medkits, defibs, etc.), and owned all comers. BC2 allows for and rewards squad play far more effectively than CoD.

Sure, everyone was going for the crates, but that's hardly playing as a team. Everyone in every other FPS is going to kill the other team, but that doesn't mean you're 'playing as a team'. It means you share goals. Even IF you share goals, since on multiple occasions I saw guys just driving vehicles in circles, or hovering around the spawn-point for a vehicle in order to get the 'good' tank or helicopter first.
People will be people.

Yeah, fantastic team work.

And before you say 'well you have to get the right people', then let me say right now that you can do the same thing in MW2. Teamwork gets you far in any points-based, team game (FPS or not). Yeah, MW2 is faster paced, with tighter maps, no vehicles, and no set class system,. but I have a group of guys that I play with in MW2 who work as a team, and we slaughter a team of randoms. Why? Teamwork.
You don't have to get the right people so much as not get the wrong people. I'd say from my experience that most people are willing to play at least loosely as a squad.

There is nothing about Battlefield that makes it to more prone to teamwork then MW2, or any other FPS for that matter.
1. Equipment specifically for squad play; repair tools etc.
2. Rewards for good squad play. In CoD, an assist is almost a negative. In BC2, it's got it's own scoring system based on how much damage you did and whether the final killer was in your squad or not. rewards for repairing a teammates' vehicle, healing a teammate/squadmate, resupplying a teammate/squadmate.


Nothing. Working together? You'll do better. Not working together? Then you're only as good as your best player. There is only one FPS I've ever played that forces team-work on people, and that's Left 4 Dead. Otherwise, this idea that Battlefield is the pinnacle of team-based FPS games is a farce.
I wouldn't call it the pinnacle yet. I'd say it's much better than CoD. I'd say I love it. I'd hazard a guess that you came into this game with preconceptions and didn't stick with it long. Your loss, in my humble opinion.
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Oh That Dude said:
I wouldn't call it the pinnacle yet. I'd say it's much better than CoD. I'd say I love it. I'd hazard a guess that you came into this game with preconceptions and didn't stick with it long. Your loss, in my humble opinion.
Which preconceptions would those be? The ones I got from playing BF:1942 and it's expansions? BF: Vietnam?
BF2?
Battlefield: Bad Company 1?

I didn't have any preconceptions about what the game would be like. I was hoping they'd fix the lag problems, the terrible squad system, awful matchmaking, and balancing issues from Bad Company, but that didn't happen.

Look, if you like the game: Great. I'm not a fan of this branch of the BF series, but that certainly doesn't mean the game won't appeal to others. But I stand by that this game isn't more 'team based' then any other FPS I've played. Maybe your experience has been different then mine, but there it is.