Battlefield: Bad Company 2...anyone try the demo?

[mattmanB182]

I dont feel let down by MW2 at all, and it is true that the sighting system is another one of my complaints about BF. Perhaps I will try it again if a friend gets the game, but i can no longer stand to play the demo at all. COD is far more smooth and polished.

SO is there really a Hardcore setting for BF? If not, then im definatly not playing it again.

I can see where the game could be really fun, but its just got nagging things about it. That and the incredibly long matches.

[Nokturnal]

Just wanted to add my $0.02 on the discussion.

Battlefield and CoD games cannot be compared in terms of gameplay. They are almost entirely different genres if you think about it.
Battlefield focuses on a more war-like experience, you work as a team and have various roles for supporting one another.
Whereas CoD games essentially let us play as John Mcclane but with a bigger choice of weapons. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not the same at all.

In response to a few comments/questions raised in this topic:
- Prone - This won't be added as it slows down gameplay and encourages camping. Unlike CoD, a sniper isn't a lone-ranger fighting for himself, he is supposed to follow the squad (at a distance of course) and provide support.

- Damage - Play hardcore mode, simple as that. Health is reduced, making 1 shot kills possible with the sniper. (not that it's actually more realistic, just a more deadly style of gameplay when cover is actually useful and not an obstacle)

- Graphics - As someone else pointed out, the high-end graphics are unable to be seen yet, so do not judge the graphics based solely on the beta.

- Realism - Neither game even comes close to being realistic. If you want realism, try playing OFP (original..not dragon rising) or one of the ArmA games... I could rant for hours on how much more realistic they are when compared to the other FPS' out there, but i won't waste your time.


So what i'm trying to say is, these games are not in competition with one another. The fans want different things.
If you want to jump into a game and start killing instantly, and don't want to have to utilise teamwork, stick with CoD.
If you've got a group of friends and like working as a team, stick with Battlefield.

Personally i'm not a huge fan of either of these franchises. I've been a "mil-sim" player for too long, and the slower pace makes me almost useless in these crazy fast-paced shooters. That being said, it's still fun to jump in occasionally and give it a go.

[Desode]

Originally Posted by Nokturnal

Just wanted to add my $0.02 on the discussion.

Battlefield and CoD games cannot be compared in terms of gameplay. They are almost entirely different genres if you think about it.
Battlefield focuses on a more war-like experience, you work as a team and have various roles for supporting one another.
Whereas CoD games essentially let us play as John Mcclane but with a bigger choice of weapons. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not the same at all.

In response to a few comments/questions raised in this topic:
- Prone - This won't be added as it slows down gameplay and encourages camping. Unlike CoD, a sniper isn't a lone-ranger fighting for himself, he is supposed to follow the squad (at a distance of course) and provide support.

- Damage - Play hardcore mode, simple as that. Health is reduced, making 1 shot kills possible with the sniper. (not that it's actually more realistic, just a more deadly style of gameplay when cover is actually useful and not an obstacle)

- Graphics - As someone else pointed out, the high-end graphics are unable to be seen yet, so do not judge the graphics based solely on the beta.

- Realism - Neither game even comes close to being realistic. If you want realism, try playing OFP (original..not dragon rising) or one of the ArmA games... I could rant for hours on how much more realistic they are when compared to the other FPS' out there, but i won't waste your time.


So what i'm trying to say is, these games are not in competition with one another. The fans want different things.
If you want to jump into a game and start killing instantly, and don't want to have to utilise teamwork, stick with CoD.
If you've got a group of friends and like working as a team, stick with Battlefield.

Personally i'm not a huge fan of either of these franchises. I've been a "mil-sim" player for too long, and the slower pace makes me almost useless in these crazy fast-paced shooters. That being said, it's still fun to jump in occasionally and give it a go.

I can't get into the rush mode, It just isn't Bf to me. I like to creep and stalk and use tactics and the rush mode kills that for me. I'm just glad that full conquest will be read on release day this time around. I don't understand why Dice is pushing this rush mode so much. I personally think having rush mode in the demo hurts the franchise and hurts bringing new players in to the game.

[Nokturnal]

Originally Posted by Desode

I can't get into the rush mode, It just isn't Bf to me. I like to creep and stalk and use tactics and the rush mode kills that for me. I'm just glad that full conquest will be read on release day this time around. I don't understand why Dice is pushing this rush mode so much. I personally think having rush mode in the demo hurts the franchise and hurts bringing new players in to the game.

Unfortunately i would say the rush mode is actually DICE's attempt to get some of the CoD players interested. As you say, it's less about skill and tactic and more a hectic killing spree with bullets flying everywhere and people playing independently. Certainly not why people play Battlefield.

I don't like it much either, but you can't really blame them for trying to "steal" players from other games....I just sincerely hope it doesn't work I would hate to see a Battlefield game become the new CoD.

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

Most of the team I usually play OFP and BC with are serving millitary or ex-millitary and we play in BC as a giant coordinated party team. We've had 12 in a team all on one cooridinated team.... and we dominate the games we play in.

If these friends of yours are in either the UK/US or Australian army, you should get them to "borrow" a copy of VBS2, that will even make OFP and ArmA look arcadey. Then you can send me a copy!

As for everything else you said, i agree completely.
CoD games aren't what they used to be.
They came, they impressed and entertained us for a while..Then they switched their target audience and became a waste of time/money.

[Desode]

Originally Posted by mattmanB182

I dont feel let down by MW2 at all, and it is true that the sighting system is another one of my complaints about BF. Perhaps I will try it again if a friend gets the game, but i can no longer stand to play the demo at all. COD is far more smooth and polished.

SO is there really a Hardcore setting for BF? If not, then im definatly not playing it again.

I can see where the game could be really fun, but its just got nagging things about it. That and the incredibly long matches.

WOW you don't like long matches ? Thats one of the reasons I hate cod with a passion, there is just no fight to it for me. And Hosting systems are just the worst thing a DEv can every put into a game. If you are the host in a COD game you can go 32 and 4 as easy as eating cake. The hosting system is so bad that on one person's screen they could have put a whole clip in your head and on my screen I knifed them before they even saw me.
Thats just crap MP gameplay in my book. There is no excuse for a DEV to cheap out that poorly on a game. I mean they made how many millions in the first 24 hrs !!!

I will say MW2 is better then the other cods because the maps are bigger, but still its just to arcade for my taste. Hard Core mode is the only thing worth playing in COD but the lack of real servers kills that 75% of the time.
Plus, I can't even play COD without getting hate mail from people because they are so stupid that they throw a fit if someone plays smart, and then they can't run and gun. People really have mental break downs ! I had a kid in Cod 4 who tossed his xbox through his parents tv because of me. XBOXlive contacted me since his parents called them,because he told his parents I was cheating ! I had saved all the messages from him and gave them to xboxlive when they contacted me. Xboxlive told me they were clearing my account of negative feedback. I guess I had so much negative feedback from COD4 that I was told I had been put on a moderator watch list ! but once they saw my playing they cleared my feedback list. They also told me to notifiy them any time I got hate mail. LOL I said man you would hear from me everyday if I did that ! because everytime I play COD I get hate mail.

Plus there is no reward for holding your end of the map in COD, you still get spawned some where else even if your holding your territory and winning ! The spawn system is better then other CODs but its completly limited with no choice. If I had a penny for every time I got spawn killed in cod I would be a millionare.

You wouldn't like the Huge modes in MAG because I have had battles last 30 minutes. For me this is were I see the most reward in a MP FPS match. You experience the ups and downs of a real battle and each side has the ability to grow and adapt to the their enemys tactics. In MAG there is something about watching the total chaos of 256 players going at it. Seeing how your Squad leaders , and Platoon leaders and then commanders adapt to strategic element is amazing !, Say your a squad leader and your getting over run on the left flank , you can switch voice channels and tell the platoon leader and he will actually send another squad over there to help, or send bombers or mortors in to clear the area. Warefare isn't just about clearing out some bad guys, Its a host of strategic events that you have to change and adapt to as a team.
It even goes clear down to a moral factor. I have seen a squad so discouraged they are ready to quit and then a good platoon leader comes on and gives them some advice and then you watch that squad turn the course of the battle.Complete strangers coming together to get something done and achieve a objective. Thats what I love.
I have really seen MAG do something I have never seen any other FPS game do,, that is make people think ! Kids don't last long in MAG, if you aren't smart enough to learn tactics and learn what each objective means to your side you won't last long.

I'm not attacking your love for COD, I still play it when I have limited time and I just want a tiny TD match. I'm just explaining my personal opinion of what I like in a fps. I like to see tides of a battle shift back and forth and there really isn't any of that in COD for me. I like taking 3 guys from my squad while the rest defend our bunker and then crossing a huge battle just to repair a mortor gun ! Somehow ,knowing that just the 3 of us could pull it off, and that we could maybe change the tide of the battle , WELL That to me is Epic ! BF 2 Pc does this and MAG does it. BFBC 2 does it o a certain degree but on a smaller scale.
DESODE

[Panzergranate]

We played one OFP mission, "Looking For Lois", for over 2 hours. We'd captured the FlaK tank, using the capture glitch, at the radio station and went on a rampage down to the naval station to steal the APC.

As we were playing ranked and the enemy units on that map re-spawn once outsiide the thether zone, we spent the time racking up the points before completeing the actual mission.

It is intresting how soldiers and ex-soldiers from different contries can operate as a cohesive and coordinated team.

I've been the driver in a M1 MBT (I was a light tank gunner in 1979), with a serving German tank gunner gunning and an ex-Gulf War US commander and we functioned perfectly.

OFP is probally as close as a player can be to real combat situations without all the tiredness, cold, wet, fatigue, bruises, hunger, thirst and suffering anyone who's been in any army, even on exercise, mostly remembers enduring.