@ztg360 Operation flashpoint 1 is a tactical shooter, Opflash:dragon rising and red river are military shooters going off your list, they are so far from its simulator roots they're a running joke amongst the arma players (who's developers created Operation Flashpoint 1)
@Colekern Why would I need to read the review of arma 2 when I have it and play it EVERYDAY since release, guess what it was broken at launch, STILL has buggy AI etc Also explain buggy multiplayer please because what is so buggy (which you bring up twice)?? Im pretty damn sure you ahvn't played arma 2 because you would know all of the issues present in iron front are present in arma 2 with various patches either fixing or somewhat improving them (Like I mentioned AI is still a problem with arma 2 with some upcoming patches testing out new ai they're planning for arma 3)
@Smosh150 @KingBobCat not saying he would succeed in dumbding this game down but its this kind of whining about complexity that gets other games dumbed down e.g crysis "it has too many stances, toom any buttons to remember" come crysis 2 only 2 stances using just one button to switch between them
@KingBobCat properly read it again, he complains the game has multiple buttons for stances......like its something bad bf1942 to bf3 have 3 buttons for stances, crysis as far as i can remember has 3 buttons for stances. Its this kind of moron that gets pc games dumbed down for the masses
Yup reviewer is biased, probably doesnt play pc much, for a start being made on the arma 2 engine (improved by the way) means that ALl of the issues he raises with regards to sound/graphics/AI can be fixed with mods in the exact same way Arma2's was, the difficult to find multiplayer match......welcome to the world of a "server browser" its been around since the stone ages of pc online gaming. Next up stability problems again welcome to pc gaming where games have to be made for infinite probable combinations of hardware, it WILL be fixed in time this is a non issue. Lastly something he doesnt brush up on whatsoever is the fact it comes with a mission editor exactly the same as arma's which allows players to design their own mission and potentially share them with other players.
Would also like to point out he is clearly a console gamer "All sorts of small arms are, ostensibly, realistically modeled, along with vehicles, heavy weapons, airplanes, you name it. But the game tries to cram realistic performance for all of these things into its limited controls, creating a morass of impenetrable key bindings that are impossible to memorize and even harder to implement when someone is shooting at you. Why, for example, is there a separate key for "stand up"? Why can't you simply hit the "crouch" or "prone" button again? Conversely, double-tapping the forward button to sprint is extremely clumsy, especially since your sprinting speed is so similar to your normal movement speed that it's hard to tell at times if you've even started sprinting successfully." pc games have had all this for years, ArmA has multiple buttons for stances, the battlefield series same thing. The reviewer is so heavily biased against pc gaming its plain obvious this was going to get a bad review
Its clear to me close quarters is affecting the "real" battlefield experience with the claymore example, shotgun nerf's, rpg nerf's etc. These all happened to stop them being overpowered in cq the problem of course is they made them rubbish in the large conquest games as well, if they wanted to do this style of game then simply put they should have made a different game or turned bad company into this type of fps (which is geared more towards the consoles therefore cq suits them more, that said even they are starting to get sick of the same generic arena shooter fps games now).
Everyone forgets this is the sequel to battlefield 2 not bad company 2 (i personally wouldn't mind if it was called bad company 3), battlefield 2 had completely different gameplay to bad company 2 it was slower paced and more tactical (not snail paced), it wasn't a full blown sim like arma it sat nicely in the position inbetween call of duty and arma whereas bad company sat inbetween bf2 and call of duty. BF3 sits between bad company and call of duty in terms of gameplay it leans way too much towards the run and gun gameplay....they've completely alienated the fanbase they made the game for in the first place (battlefield 2 players), and also a lot of the bad company players with the shift closer to call of duty style gameplay (which a lot started playing bad company for a change from the constantly running around like a headless chicken gameplay)
@Philly1UPer Also people bought this because it doesnt have arena shooter style gameplay, they bought it because it has big open games with vehicles something most arena shooters (and what ea consider main competition doenst have) so why now pander to the arena fans instead of perfecting what they do best instead of chasing what the competition does best.
calum1984's comments