'Battlefield: Bad Company' is one of the best military shooters ever made

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Kevlar101 (6145 posts) -
In terms of campaign, the first 'Bad Company' game is (in my opinion) one of the best shooters ever made. It had all the makings of a great military shooter: Great shooting mechanics, great sound effects (which made the game really SOUND like a warzone), destructable enviroments (which, along with the great weapon sound effects, made the place really LOOK like a warzone), all vehicles are drivable (which also adds to the warzone feel), the maps in campaign were very open and large, the missions are long (it takes me an hour and a half to beat each mission on hard difficulty; sometimes 2 hours), and it has good characters (that last one is debatable I suppose :P ). I mean, its campaign has all the makings of a great shooter. 'Bad Company 2' was not as cool because the open maps were now very closed in (with the exception of Sange Del Torro), and vehicles were no longer able to be driven at will. KEEP IN MIND, I am referring the the CAMPAIGNS of the games, not MULTIPLAYER. So, who agrees and who disagrees? And why? What are your opinions?
#2 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18477 posts) -
My problems with BFBC1: having to hold down LS to sprint is beyong pathetic, the respawn system instead of checkpoints breaks immersion and weapons are all the same. Other than that it's a damn good shooter: when I first blew a hole a in a roof with my grenade launcher I was BLOWN AWAY. The humor is great too, which was sadly missing in BFBC2.
#3 Posted by Kevlar101 (6145 posts) -
My problems with BFBC1: having to hold down LS to sprint is beyong pathetic, the respawn system instead of checkpoints breaks immersion and weapons are all the same. Other than that it's a damn good shooter: when I first blew a hole a in a roof with my grenade launcher I was BLOWN AWAY. The humor is great too, which was sadly missing in BFBC2.Black_Knight_00
Exactly! the humor is absent from BC2, and I did not like that. Also not present in BC2 was the open maps and drivable vehicles. The campaign was much more linear in BC2. In fact, the only reason why I gave BC2 a 9 was for its MP. Also, I do agree on the "holding down LS to run" complaint, although to me, its only a minor issue. I also agree and yet dont agree on the spawn compaint. To me, given how the combat works, it would have broken immersion for me if there were standard checkpoints. Although, there is a "Revert to last saved checkpoint" option in the pause menu............ just so you know :P
#4 Posted by Legendaryscmt (12532 posts) -

I really don't like the game, SP wise (I don't play MP games that much). The shooting to me feels extremely heavy and unreliable unless I'm extremely close. The damage at times also seems to be random. It's either those, or I really suck at the game. :D

#5 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18477 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]My problems with BFBC1: having to hold down LS to sprint is beyong pathetic, the respawn system instead of checkpoints breaks immersion and weapons are all the same. Other than that it's a damn good shooter: when I first blew a hole a in a roof with my grenade launcher I was BLOWN AWAY. The humor is great too, which was sadly missing in BFBC2.Kevlar101
Exactly! the humor is absent from BC2, and I did not like that. Also not present in BC2 was the open maps and drivable vehicles. The campaign was much more linear in BC2. In fact, the only reason why I gave BC2 a 9 was for its MP. Also, I do agree on the "holding down LS to run" complaint, although to me, its only a minor issue. I also agree and yet dont agree on the spawn compaint. To me, given how the combat works, it would have broken immersion for me if there were standard checkpoints. Although, there is a "Revert to last saved checkpoint" option in the pause menu............ just so you know :P

I know about the checkpoint option, but the fact that when you die you respawn 100 meters away and all the enemies you killed stay dead... well, it makes the game incredibly easy: just keep respawning until they're all dead, even on hard. I think a standard checkpoint system would have done the game greater justice.
#6 Posted by Kevlar101 (6145 posts) -
[QUOTE="Kevlar101"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]My problems with BFBC1: having to hold down LS to sprint is beyong pathetic, the respawn system instead of checkpoints breaks immersion and weapons are all the same. Other than that it's a damn good shooter: when I first blew a hole a in a roof with my grenade launcher I was BLOWN AWAY. The humor is great too, which was sadly missing in BFBC2.Black_Knight_00
Exactly! the humor is absent from BC2, and I did not like that. Also not present in BC2 was the open maps and drivable vehicles. The campaign was much more linear in BC2. In fact, the only reason why I gave BC2 a 9 was for its MP. Also, I do agree on the "holding down LS to run" complaint, although to me, its only a minor issue. I also agree and yet dont agree on the spawn compaint. To me, given how the combat works, it would have broken immersion for me if there were standard checkpoints. Although, there is a "Revert to last saved checkpoint" option in the pause menu............ just so you know :P

I know about the checkpoint option, but the fact that when you die you respawn 100 meters away and all the enemies you killed stay dead... well, it makes the game incredibly easy: just keep respawning until they're all dead, even on hard. I think a standard checkpoint system would have done the game greater justice.

True, but for me, playing on hard is a big challenge because it takes a lot of effort just to advance a few meters, especially if you are up against a bunker with a 50 Caliber Machine gun and Grenade Launchers in it. To me, just getting past 1 bunker like that took a lot of effort. In fact, I remember one time that it actually took me 20 minutes to find a way to flank it (it was hard because there were watch towers with 50 Cals in them on the bunkers right and left flank). Stuff like that is what I find so enjoyable about the game.
#7 Posted by SoNin360 (5482 posts) -
Overall I enjoyed BC2 more and it's still one of my favorite FPS, and this is mostly due to the MP of course. I blew through its campaign really fast but still enjoyed it. I mostly liked that you didn't have to use that stupid injector to heal yourself. I guess I'd agree that the first game had a stronger single player. The levels were incredibly open for a FPS, the vehicles were fun, the humor was enjoyable, and it was an all around great game.
#8 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18477 posts) -
True, but for me, playing on hard is a big challenge because it takes a lot of effort just to advance a few meters, especially if you are up against a bunker with a 50 Caliber Machine gun and Grenade Launchers in it. To me, just getting past 1 bunker like that took a lot of effort. In fact, I remember one time that it actually took me 20 minutes to find a way to flank it (it was hard because there were watch towers with 50 Cals in them on the bunkers right and left flank). Stuff like that is what I find so enjoyable about the game.Kevlar101
The only part I found difficult was the tank escort mission about one hour in the game, maybe the helicopter fight at the end. Anyways, I really hope they opt for a Bad Company 3, but only if they go back to the playful, funny style of the first. It would be a shame to toss those 4 characters out of the window. Plus, the bad guy at the end of BFBC1 survives, so they could bring back the whole "Acta Non Verba" thing, which is much more interesting than the Russia VS USA stew.
#9 Posted by Kevlar101 (6145 posts) -
[QUOTE="Kevlar101"]True, but for me, playing on hard is a big challenge because it takes a lot of effort just to advance a few meters, especially if you are up against a bunker with a 50 Caliber Machine gun and Grenade Launchers in it. To me, just getting past 1 bunker like that took a lot of effort. In fact, I remember one time that it actually took me 20 minutes to find a way to flank it (it was hard because there were watch towers with 50 Cals in them on the bunkers right and left flank). Stuff like that is what I find so enjoyable about the game.Black_Knight_00
The only part I found difficult was the tank escort mission about one hour in the game, maybe the helicopter fight at the end. Anyways, I really hope they opt for a Bad Company 3, but only if they go back to the playful, funny style of the first. It would be a shame to toss those 4 characters out of the window. Plus, the bad guy at the end of BFBC1 survives, so they could bring back the whole "Acta Non Verba" thing, which is much more interesting than the Russia VS USA stew.

I agree, they should make a BC 3 and make it like the first. I mean, the whole "Russia is invading through Alaska!!!" crap at the end of BC2 was just stupid.
#10 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

I enjoyed Bad Company's single player but it was boring at times. Still, it could have been expanded to be something truly special. Why not include 4 player co op? The large maps would allow for some fun tactics not seen in those types of games. Have someone in a chopper, a sniper, a couple people in a jeep, etc. Unfortunately they squandered it with BC2. And let's not even talk about Battlefield 3's single player.

Dice should really give BC3 a chance and seriously examine what they can do with the franchise. I think it's probably the most unrealized IP out there this gen.

#11 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18477 posts) -

I enjoyed Bad Company's single player but it was boring at times. Still, it could have been expanded to be something truly special. Why not include 4 player co op? The large maps would allow for some fun tactics not seen in those types of games. Have someone in a chopper, a sniper, a couple people in a jeep, etc. Unfortunately they squandered it with BC2. And let's not even talk about Battlefield 3's single player.

Dice should really give BC3 a chance and seriously examine what they can do with the franchise. I think it's probably the most unrealized IP out there this gen.

IndianaPwns39
Considering the welcome the BF3 and MoH:W campaigns received, I'm not sure Battlefield 4 will even have a single player component.
#12 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I enjoyed Bad Company's single player but it was boring at times. Still, it could have been expanded to be something truly special. Why not include 4 player co op? The large maps would allow for some fun tactics not seen in those types of games. Have someone in a chopper, a sniper, a couple people in a jeep, etc. Unfortunately they squandered it with BC2. And let's not even talk about Battlefield 3's single player.

Dice should really give BC3 a chance and seriously examine what they can do with the franchise. I think it's probably the most unrealized IP out there this gen.

Black_Knight_00

Considering the welcome the BF3 and MoH:W campaigns received, I'm not sure Battlefield 4 will even have a single player component.

And nothing of value will be lost if that happens.

#13 Posted by wis3boi (31378 posts) -

neither one felt like a BF game to me, and BC2 had some of the worst hit detection I've ever seen

#14 Posted by Kevlar101 (6145 posts) -

neither one felt like a BF game to me, and BC2 had some of the worst hit detection I've ever seen

wis3boi
I am not even refering to BC2. And its because BC did not feel like a BF game that made it so special.
#15 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

In terms of campaign, the first 'Bad Company' game is (in my opinion) one of the best shooters ever made. It had all the makings of a great military shooter: Great shooting mechanics, great sound effects (which made the game really SOUND like a warzone), destructable enviroments (which, along with the great weapon sound effects, made the place really LOOK like a warzone), all vehicles are drivable (which also adds to the warzone feel), the maps in campaign were very open and large, the missions are long (it takes me an hour and a half to beat each mission on hard difficulty; sometimes 2 hours), and it has good characters (that last one is debatable I suppose :P ). I mean, its campaign has all the makings of a great shooter. 'Bad Company 2' was not as cool because the open maps were now very closed in (with the exception of Sange Del Torro), and vehicles were no longer able to be driven at will. KEEP IN MIND, I am referring the the CAMPAIGNS of the games, not MULTIPLAYER. So, who agrees and who disagrees? And why? What are your opinions?Kevlar101

I agree. It's too bad they couldn't carry over the length and quality of that game into the subsequent iterations. I didn't even bother to buy the last one. From the user reviews I read, it looks like the Bad Company series has taken the word "bad" a bit too literally.

#16 Posted by Shmiity (5127 posts) -

Bad Company TWO is f*cking awesome. I hated the first one because of the damage system. Too many bullets to kill people! The second one was SO GOOD

#17 Posted by Killzonage (408 posts) -
BC2 was amazing in the MP department. BC1 had a great SP because it was different. EA/Dice need to go back to that, cause BF3's sp was terribad.
#18 Posted by Beagle050 (717 posts) -
[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I enjoyed Bad Company's single player but it was boring at times. Still, it could have been expanded to be something truly special. Why not include 4 player co op? The large maps would allow for some fun tactics not seen in those types of games. Have someone in a chopper, a sniper, a couple people in a jeep, etc. Unfortunately they squandered it with BC2. And let's not even talk about Battlefield 3's single player.

Dice should really give BC3 a chance and seriously examine what they can do with the franchise. I think it's probably the most unrealized IP out there this gen.

Black_Knight_00
Considering the welcome the BF3 and MoH:W campaigns received, I'm not sure Battlefield 4 will even have a single player component.

I hope not. Bf3's campaign was horrible. They should keep the campaign to BFBC, imo, and instead give us more maps and possibly bot combat training instead.
#19 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

its a good game but it seems to be aimed at a more hardcore crowd since the games are long and the maps are so huge. i prefer COD though its more pick up and play. when i was playing battlefield i spent the majority of the time just running. it takes forever to find someone to kill.

#20 Posted by jsmoke03 (12901 posts) -

i found the bad company series to be boring if we are talking about campaigns....

i like the humor, i like the destructions

i hate the shooting in this game....its just utterly clunky.

couldn't comment on the multiplayer since i picked it up in the bargain bin

#21 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

You spelled Arma wrong...

#22 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18414 posts) -
Dice have already said they will make another BF games set in the BC universe.. the BFBC games sold really well so of course they will make more.. eventually. Maybe after BF4.
#23 Posted by bjvill (150 posts) -
Battlefield 3's single player campaign was so weak compared to Bad Company. Maybe they should just sell such single player campaigns (Bad Company's fun story, and MoH's military recruitment campaign) as add-ons / DLC to Battlefield 3, instead of doing it the way they currently do since they all use the same engine anyway (that way they can also raise sales for Battlefield 3).
#24 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
It really isn't. The story is fairly ho-hum, the protagonist is like wallpaper (but the supporting cast is a strong one). However the campaign and its level itself are a real mixed bag. It's fairly open, but it doesn't do much with its openness, and the pacing is all over the place. Sometimes it wants to be tactical, sometimes it just lumps you into a shooting gallery. It's not outstanding, not great either, but it is the best a BF game has been in terms of singlepayer. The second was atrocious by comparison though.
#25 Posted by punkpunker (3321 posts) -

BF2 is better and it doesnt even have a story!