Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - Vietnam

[Korolev]

And about this whole "CoD" Vs BF thing - both games are good at what they do. Both games are fun to play. They play differently, yes, but it IS possible to like MORE than ONE thing. I know, I know, it might be hard to believe, but trust me on this - you can like TWO or even MORE franchises! Amazing!

BF isn't ripping off Black Ops any more than Black Ops was ripping off anything else. Black Ops is also NOT a Vietnam game - it's a Cold War game. This expansion pack is purely set in Vietnam.

There were Vietnam-themed games BEFORE black ops and they'll be Vietnam-themed games AFTER black ops. CoD doesn't have a patent on Vietnam-war games.

 

[Vampire cat]

-snipped-

Really? See, the reason I love BC2 is because it's so different from COD. The controls feel heavier, the guns feel as if they have weight, the action is chaotic but focused as well, the team work is vital and very fun. It almost sounds like you're playing a completely different game. I'm not trying to undermine your opinion or anything cuz that's the way you feel. It's just that how you feel about BC2 is totally opposite about how I feel about it, and it intrigues me.

Oh, I see your point, don't worry. BC2 has a very well executed shroud about itself, it pulls of the "heavy" and "warlike" very well, and I know what your saying. But to go on like this, I'll have to ask how far back does your experience with the Battlefield and CoD series go? Could be interesting for us to explore our opinions further to see just what makes us view these games so differently.

 

[Calico93]

Hmmf I heard theyd been planning this for a while, not just as soon as black ops came out they said oh look 1 or 2 levels where theyre in Vietnam - we should do that !
I think its a sort of reminiscent of Battlefield: Vietnam the game.
And just because they make one DLC similiar to the locations found in black ops or any other Vietnam set game does not mean theyre becoming like COD, I play both Black Ops and Bad Company 2 and theyre very different games, the DLC will still be Bad Company 2 at the roots, just in a different setting.

 

[Calico93]

Crap double post, sorry !

 

[fozzy360]

-snipped-

Really? See, the reason I love BC2 is because it's so different from COD. The controls feel heavier, the guns feel as if they have weight, the action is chaotic but focused as well, the team work is vital and very fun. It almost sounds like you're playing a completely different game. I'm not trying to undermine your opinion or anything cuz that's the way you feel. It's just that how you feel about BC2 is totally opposite about how I feel about it, and it intrigues me.

Oh, I see your point, don't worry. BC2 has a very well executed shroud about itself, it pulls of the "heavy" and "warlike" very well, and I know what your saying. But to go on like this, I'll have to ask how far back does your experience with the Battlefield and CoD series go? Could be interesting for us to explore our opinions further to see just what makes us view these games so differently.

I played some of the first COD, played through most of COD 2, started COD 3 but quickly got bored of it, and played through MW, MW2 and Blops. As far as Battlefield goes, I played 1942 (none of the expansions, though), 2142, Battlefield 2, Modern Combat on the 360, BC and BC2. So, yeah, I played a lot of each, and I feel the differences between each franchise as more games are put it out. Through all the games I played, I don't feel that Battlefield resembles COD's style of gameplay very much.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

But it IS too much like CoD. Like I said, it's not a bad game, but it's not what a Battlefield game of the future should have looked like, because of its heavy adaption to the console-FPS that it is.

I thought the Battlefield after 2142 would be grander, more realistic, more team-work-y and with more guns, but we only got the guns, none of the other. I mean, by then we knew there would be destructible terrain, and we were all psyched about it, but in our heads it would still be at least a 64-player capability, and the maps would be no smaller than the small side of the BF2 and 2142 maps, but we got some scaled-down version, first in the series was a console exclusive, and the second one was just like the first one (actually, even smaller).

It is a different game, but it takes many a page from the console book, a book that has recently had several of its chapters added by CoD. I can't wait for BF3... Battlefield is coming home to the PC again, and I do hope they did it properly this time, the way a Battlefield game SHOULD be. And don't they dare forget us again...

Oh, and the team-work in BC2 is VERY meager, to say the least. Better than CoD, granted, but that isn't saying much... it's unfortunate that you don't see much along the lines of team-work in online play outside of a bunch for friends/clannies playing.

Bad Company is a console focused spin off of the Battlefield series, they've always said that. The series hasn't abandoned PC, DICE hasn't forgotten you, that's what Battlefield 3 is for. Bad Company was never intended to be a 'true' Battlefield game, as you put it. It was just supposed to bring the series on to the console in a way that works best for that platform, DICE never said it would be anything but that.

There's no need to get all upset and feel like they abandoned you, they didn't. They only did something a little different for a completely different platform.

 

[Vampire cat]

I played some of the first COD, played through most of COD 2, started COD 3 but quickly got bored of it, and played through MW, MW2 and Blops. As far as Battlefield goes, I played 1942 (none of the expansions, though), 2142, Battlefield 2, Modern Combat on the 360, BC and BC2. So, yeah, I played a lot of each, and I feel the differences between each franchise as more games are put it out. Through all the games I played, I don't feel that Battlefield resembles COD's style of gameplay very much.

But then you must see that Battlefield takes quite a sharp turn towards a more console-ish game than it was in 2142 and 2? CoD always had a little bit of that going on, especially on the multi-player side, and that was firmly anchored with the release of MW.

I've played every Battlefield and CoD game there has been so-far, and I'm a huge fan of the Battlefield series, and a fan of the older CoD games (having lost the spark with their latest games, MW2 being a massive disappointment in every way). In launching MW, CoD pretty much rewrites the template for console FPSs, which is what both BC games were built from scratch to be. Dice, like everyone else at the time, went with what had sold so well and took parts of CoD's newly written book in the making of their games.

Things like the quick-knifing, the pushing one button to throw a grenade, the much faster pace, less controllable surroundings and strangely low-power weapons are all things that CoD put into the great book of console-FPS-making. Things that BC2 took, and adapted to their game in a slightly different way, but it's still very obviously inspired by the CoD series. Battlefield and CoD has always had two very different recipes for how a their games are made, but in these last few the gap has closed considerably, and it's plain to see.

They are not the same game. BC2 is NOT a CoD rip-off. They are two different games, but oh so much more similar than what the series was 2 installments ago. I hope you see what I mean.

Bad Company is a console focused spin off of the Battlefield series, they've always said that. The series hasn't abandoned PC, DICE hasn't forgotten you, that's what Battlefield 3 is for. Bad Company was never intended to be a 'true' Battlefield game, as you put it. It was just supposed to bring the series on to the console in a way that works best for that platform, DICE never said it would be anything but that.

There's no need to get all upset and feel like they abandoned you, they didn't. They only did something a little different for a completely different platform.

Oh this I know. That isn't really what I'm getting at. I'm just pointing out how BC and BC2 ARE console adaptions, and that they DO take their inspiration from the great book of console-FPS-making, a book that in recent days have been largely rewritten by CoD! Am I getting trough to anyone here? *reaches out desperate hand*

 

[Buccura]

To be fair, Battlefield had a Vietnam game first.

 

[Viik]

As much as a lot similarities with other fps games, it's not just about COD and BF, other fps games are using same templates too, not because it was used in COD but because players liked it.

 

[RobCoxxy]

Actually, the Vietnam DLC has been in the works for one long ass time, it's not just "Oooh, BlackOps!" retaliation content.

 

[Viik]

BTw, DICE already made a game that is a blend between BF and COD, it's a last Medal of Honor. Sometime it looks to me as an uglier brother of BC2 as even GUI was copy\pasted from it.

 

[fozzy360]

-quite the snip-

The things is that Battlefield 2 was released in June of 2005, with Modern Combat out in October of that same year (the 360 version was out in April of 2006). Modern Warfare was out in 2007. If anything, DICE struck first with it's direction the whole modern combat thing, so they basically established the rules they were gonna follow for their games first. Sure, Modern Combat basically streamlined the set-up for consoles (with the HUD, controls, and gameplay being quite different from the PC version), but it was out before Modern Warfare. It had made it's own new rules by which the console versions of future Battlefields to follow. 2142, which came out in June of 06, was closer to Battlefield 2, but that's par for the course because the console version and PC version are two vastly different beasts. However, DICE followed it's own get up before MW had the chance to do it. MW just made a bigger splash when it was released.

Even with the change in venue, the console Battlefields still felt like Battlefields. The larger arena of combat, the chaotic focus in the combat, and the heavy emphasis on teamwork still. COD feels more like a lone-wolf type game where teamwork isn't really as focused (that's just how I feel). BC2 on the other hand has a better focus on teamwork. Lone wolves get picked off quick, and it takes the team in order to win the game. DICE never forgot it, which is why BC2 feels like a completely different game. They're playing by the rules they made in their game.

It;s like I said, the PC and console versions are very different from each other, let alone different from COD.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

How have people not heard about this until now?! Its been featured in almost every gaming magazine for the past few months and no, it isn't a rip off of Black Ops, it was in the works before they had even announced Black Ops.

 

[Snowalker]

I love DICE's games and I have no doubt that the game will be fun; I'm just surprised that they're so blatantly ripping off Black Ops.

Its kinda funny that you make this announcement so late and presume to know all about it. It was announced a while ago, only a couple months after the games' release. Meaning, it was announced well before there was any conformation of Vietnam missions in Black Ops, so saying this is a desperate attempt to beat them in the marketing is ho-hum, but I can see the fact that they did want to present a challenge to it. Since they are the only real competitor in the market though, that makes sense. Don't be such a know it all if you haven't done the research.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Well to be fair, Battlefield: Vietnam was made yearrrrrs ago, so they already beat COD to it.
but anyway as for BFBC: vietnam, they announces this ages ago, im *almost* sure they announced it back at the time when there was only rumours that the next cod would be in vietnam.

 

[Kukakkau]

No, this isn't a joke. It's a real expansion for Bad Company 2 that's coming out in December.

I hate to say it, but it's very hard to make the argument that this game isn't trying to be Call of Duty right now. I enjoyed both Bad Company games, but...really? Did they think no one would notice?

In case you don't understand what I'm implying, I'd like to point out that BC2 is a modern game; it takes place entirely in the present day (or a fictional representation of it). To make a game centered on Vietnam just after the release of a Call of Duty game that was (for a large portion) set in Vietnam seems almost like an act of desperation. It also seems strange considering the decidedly modern setting of the Bad Company subseries.

I love DICE's games and I have no doubt that the game will be fun; I'm just surprised that they're so blatantly ripping off Black Ops.

What do you think about this?

Sources:

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/30/battlefield-bad-company-2-vietnam-strikes-dec-21-vip-map-pack/

http://www.battlefieldbadcompany2.com

http://store.steampowered.com/app/47880/

Well sir I have a source for you to look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Vietnam

http://www.ea.com/uk/game/battlefield-vietnam

They're actually just rehashing their old game a lot like they did with BF:1943. Except they actually had the ability to work with it as a DLC for their disc title this time around

For the love of god look into things before just saying "wahh they're copying CoD again!!"

 

[rabidmidget]

Truthfully, the entire time I spent reading this thread, I was thinking "Man, Bad Company 2 was awesome, I should start playing it more"

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

The difference between the two being Battlefield will actually slightly resemble the Vietnam conflict. While Call of Duty still has you spasticly sprinting around as some guy who looks nothing like a soldier, with M4s and red dots and what not, Battlefield is actually accurate to what we used over there and doesn't have us play as Rambo, for fuck sake.

 

[Vrach]

Excuse me?

I'm not a fan of pay-for DLC and I won't be getting it, as I'm not a big BC2 fan either, but act of desperation?

It's pretty much an expansion, or at least that's what they're calling it, they're just selling it through digital distribution alone.

Also they beat them to the punch with Battlefield: Vietnam a long time ago so that point is moot. Not to mention, Battlefield series has gone through just about everything, they had 1942, 1943, Road to Rome, Vietnam, Secret Weapons of WW2, Battlefield 2 (that already did the modern warfare thing), Battlefield 2042 (futuristic). So if anything, CoD can only be copying from them cause they already went through it.

Not to mention, Black Ops is about well... Black Ops, you're killing Castro to start with and last I checked, Cuba wasn't located in Vietnam. BFBC2 is doing a proper war game, not a few twats dicking around during that "era". Not to mention, the gameplay is very different from CoD, so why wouldn't we have a parallel timeline in a game many consider superior? Personally, I'm just looking forward to an actual game coming out, aside from that and the bloody Cataclysm, there isn't anything decent for PC gamers until February with Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood.