Zero Punctuation: Battlefield: Bad Company 2
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really enjoyed this game, mostly for the multiplayer, and the tanks... and the hell is he talking about 'impenetrable walls of dust'? I played the beta and the released game and found no such dust that i couldn't see through. I get the feeling yhatzee was reaching for the first and or most obvious petty fault he could find.
Anyone else find it ironic and funny how we're given an ad for BC2 right before the review starts and Yahtzee rips it a new one?
XP
XP
Hmm, I was rather looking forward to him dusting off the "Its like God of War but..." poster for this week only to burn it because it would be God of War. A slightly boring review, probably because I don't play shooters and find them to be the most uncreative form of game design.
As I recall, Yahtzee has always said that a multiplayer game should still have a single player mode that's worth playing on its own (or something to that effect, with a cool accent and a hat). In this regard, he's perfectly in his own right to review them as such.
And I'm actually glad I'm not the only onwe getting tired of companies pushing realism always further. Soon, as a way of escaping real life, we'll go play fake-real life... (I think it's called the Sims, or somehting...)
And I'm actually glad I'm not the only onwe getting tired of companies pushing realism always further. Soon, as a way of escaping real life, we'll go play fake-real life... (I think it's called the Sims, or somehting...)
Wow. Seeing Yahtzee reconcile with Duke Nukem was something I seriously did not expect. Especially not after his Duke Nukem Forever pseudo-review.
But what I'm wondering is if I'm the only one who noticed what appears to have happened. That the FPS genre started getting flooded with soldiers, space marines, and realistic (or pseudo-realistic) shooters because developers started taking the genre seriously. What do you think is a better word for that? Would it be tragic or ironic?
But what I'm wondering is if I'm the only one who noticed what appears to have happened. That the FPS genre started getting flooded with soldiers, space marines, and realistic (or pseudo-realistic) shooters because developers started taking the genre seriously. What do you think is a better word for that? Would it be tragic or ironic?
I have it for the computer and I never noticed the haze... I have had experience with the dust though, but you'd think there would be dust if an entire building was crumbling down around you/walls being blown out. I think its a neat feature that I actually use to my advantage in multiplayer. Shoot a rocket at a wall and use the dust that is blinding the enemy to run around. It works out pretty well actually.
Other than that, definitely not one of your better ones. I enjoy reading your articles far more than your videos now. I'm glad you took up writing those now.
Other than that, definitely not one of your better ones. I enjoy reading your articles far more than your videos now. I'm glad you took up writing those now.
Also, if I would be a game writer, wouldn't present wars be against insurgents and rebels, ambushing and suicide bombing the technologically advanced soldiers (I'd rather not say Americans, due to the fact that present "realistic" FPS protagonists always includes Americans).
I would love a Third-person war game in which you're on the rebels' side of the war fighting against technologically advanced enemies,owning them via ambushes, suicidal-bomber teammates, and dirty tricks. You would be destroying their radar and radio system by hijacking one of their vehicles, commanding your rebels to keep the guards busy while planting mines and traps as well as RPGing all of their sattelite and radio machineries to impair their communication.
I'd rather want a war in which there's other objectives than just running around, taking cover, and gunning everything down.
I would love a Third-person war game in which you're on the rebels' side of the war fighting against technologically advanced enemies,owning them via ambushes, suicidal-bomber teammates, and dirty tricks. You would be destroying their radar and radio system by hijacking one of their vehicles, commanding your rebels to keep the guards busy while planting mines and traps as well as RPGing all of their sattelite and radio machineries to impair their communication.
I'd rather want a war in which there's other objectives than just running around, taking cover, and gunning everything down.
Meh, I like most of your reviews Yathzee but this was meh... ill probably be called a fan boy by someone (wow nice one thats original). But really i enjoyed the single player it was entertaing and better than Modern warfare, yer the dust could be excessive its not that bad. Also you seem to have a serious case of "Penis" on your mind this week i didnt count but at a guess at least 7 references? There are other things you can use as a funny analogy.
You'd never play it but really the Multiplayer is where this game is strongest but your above tha sort of thing aren't you
.
You'd never play it but really the Multiplayer is where this game is strongest but your above tha sort of thing aren't you
.Im aware that he aint into the whole multiplayer scene, but this game has a very poor singleplayer, the multiplayer is the main aspect.
I enjoyed the review, but it was particularly uh, off I suppose.
Battlefield has never been about Single Player. 1942 didn't even ship with a single player campaign at all, it was a purely multiplayer experience, unless you enjoyed playing with bots all day. That IS the essence of the Battlefield series.
To argue that this game is at all realistic is pretty facetious, the selling point of the single player campaign in this game that it is, essentially, a complete pisstake on Modern Warfare 2. Bad Company's SP campaign has always been a spoof of the war genre in general.
I've never noticed this so called 'blurry fuzz' that you saw when you were sniping, quite possibly a result of playing it on a dumbed down console version. Battlefield has and always will be for the PC.
Just because a game has destructible buildings (an incredibly useful feature in Multiplayer, I might add), does not mean it's going for realism. The only thing even slightly realistic is bullets being affected by gravity.
And about the dust, you could, you know, just move elsewhere?
Battlefield has never been about Single Player. 1942 didn't even ship with a single player campaign at all, it was a purely multiplayer experience, unless you enjoyed playing with bots all day. That IS the essence of the Battlefield series.
To argue that this game is at all realistic is pretty facetious, the selling point of the single player campaign in this game that it is, essentially, a complete pisstake on Modern Warfare 2. Bad Company's SP campaign has always been a spoof of the war genre in general.
I've never noticed this so called 'blurry fuzz' that you saw when you were sniping, quite possibly a result of playing it on a dumbed down console version. Battlefield has and always will be for the PC.
Just because a game has destructible buildings (an incredibly useful feature in Multiplayer, I might add), does not mean it's going for realism. The only thing even slightly realistic is bullets being affected by gravity.
And about the dust, you could, you know, just move elsewhere?
This may shock you, but it may be because it is actually a pretty good game. Waiting around for someone to say something you agree with isn't a barometer of a game's quality.Jaredin said:
Everyone calling for "non-modern" shooters do realize that Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect 2 are out right now, correct? You know, decent, completely playable games? Just because Yahtzee said a few unflattering about them, doesn't mean that they're ALL bad. Or, for that matter, that they don't exist.
At any rate, they're better buys than BF:BC2.
I mean, Christ, if you took Yahtzee's word for law, your video game collection would only consist of Half-Life 2, Portal, and Silent Hill 2. Which, of course, would be an awesome collection, but you also wouldn't have played anything in the past two years.
At any rate, they're better buys than BF:BC2.
I mean, Christ, if you took Yahtzee's word for law, your video game collection would only consist of Half-Life 2, Portal, and Silent Hill 2. Which, of course, would be an awesome collection, but you also wouldn't have played anything in the past two years.
That final scene made me wretch slightly...
...So, a new type of aerial vehicle based on imps... Great Plan is Great
Edit: TV_Casualty +1 Correct
...So, a new type of aerial vehicle based on imps... Great Plan is Great
Edit: TV_Casualty +1 Correct
I loved the first BC's campaign - the blowing up stuff mechanic was pretty intense and fun, but the best thing was that the story and characters didn't take itself too seriously, so after you have your cover being blown to bits and went through the usual gun fights, you get treated to some toilet and high school humor in between and it somehow worked (still loved the scene where Haggard was shooting his shotgun into the air while crossing over a border to chase for GOLD in the first one). BC2's campaign was dry with most of the humor gone (except the MW2 pokes, which if you didn't play MW2 it would just fly right over your head) and took itself way too seriously, yes, exactly like in a "hey I'm pretending to be MW2!" way. BC and MW occupied different spaces the way I saw it, and it's a damn shame that BC2 decides to ditch what made it fun in the first place to try to move into MW's space.