Battlefield: Bad Company Review

Fool's gold?

Version tested: Xbox 360

Bad Company is very much the kind of army I could imagine Eurogamer inhabiting. Comprised of all the ne'er-do-wells, workshy fops and insubordinates that you wouldn't even want on your paintball team, we'd be the guys any sensible army would send out as cannon fodder to lull the opposition into a false sense of security. Of course, what would transpire is that we were only pretending to be shot-shy slackers, and, when put in life-or-death scenarios we'd rise to the challenge and kick everyone's arse.

Placed in this no-win situation in DICE's latest console-oriented take on the Battlefield series, you find yourself filling the role of the improbably named Preston Marlow (no doubt inspired by DICE's two favourite English branches of Little Chef). This unassuming, down-to-earth rookie is joined on his adventures by three rather clueless but usefully invincible Bad Company squadmates: Sarge, Sweetwater and Haggard. Afforded precious little respect by your superiors, when things don't quite go to plan, you and your knuckle-headed trio decide to chase a trail of mercenary gold in the misguided belief that they'll be able to bag all this tasty loot for themselves.

Set across seven sprawling campaign missions, the single player portion of Bad Company is an unexpected treat. Building on the sense of open-ended freedom we've come to expect from the Battlefield series for years, DICE has finally managed to distill all the good ideas of its multiplayer-focused titles to often breathtaking effect. The key weapon in distinguishing Bad Company from the legion of samey first person shooters is evidently its beautiful and versatile Frostbite engine. By offering the level designers immense scope in so many areas, it's the first shooter to emerge in a long time that demonstrates a significant evolution of the genre.

'Battlefield: Bad Company' Screenshot 1

Remember kids, tea cosies are no substitute for military headgear.

For a start, the pre-release boast about "90 per cent destructibility" isn't that far from the truth. Not having paid an awful lot of attention to the hype, it was quite a shock to discover that you can't simply duck behind walls, trees and other cover points and expect to be able to hide from an incoming missile like you've been able to do in pretty much every FPS ever. In Bad Company, the chances are that the tree you were hiding behind will fall on top of you, or building you ducked into will be reduced to a hollow shell, while you peer ruefully through an enormous cloud of brick dust and smoke to get your bearings and find your next tenuous cover point. This, of course, has major implications when you're on the offensive, too. Finally, you can flush out enemies from their sneaky camping positions, knowing full well that a well-placed grenade or rocket will cause pandemonium. Gone are the days of ridiculously impregnable sandbags, fences and thin brick walls, replaced by a much more physical environment that you can blow the crap out of.

'Battlefield: Bad Company' Screenshot 4

You can't raze buildings to the ground, but you can have a pretty good go.

Just as significant is the Frostbite engine's ability to render vast, sprawling, vivid environments that boast arguably the most detailed, convincing outdoor scenes on a console title to date. Significantly, that famed Battlefield freedom has finally been translated into a coherent single player campaign, where your choice of route can have a distinct bearing on your chances of success. Governed by a linear succession of objectives, the route you take to get there can often be genuinely up to you. Be it stealthily on foot, sniping everything from afar or storming the gates in a tank, you simply use whatever hardware's at your disposal and set about taking down everyone in your way, in whichever way you can. With gunships and motorboats occasionally upping the ante further still, the moments when Bad Company is firing on all cylinders are thrillingly epic.

Wisely, Bad Company never takes itself too seriously, either, avoiding the inevitable 'So Macho' territory of four super-serious steroid-pumped leathernecked marine jocks Hooyah-ing their way through another appallingly scripted journey into cliche-ridden tedium. Full of surprisingly warm humour, you're never left in any doubt that this lot are in the Bad Company ranks for a very good reason, though at no stage does the storyline descend into parody, either. It's a fine line that DICE successfully negotiates. It's a fool's (gold) errand where the fun comes from seeing what ludicrous scenario they can stumble upon next rather than yet another eye-rolling save-the-world trudge into sterility.

With so much experience of crafting Battlefield titles down the years, it's no surprise that everything feels exceptionally polished. Whether you're steaming along in an APC, piloting a helicopter or dodging tank shells in a speedboat, the handling is always intuitive and satisfying. Likewise, the multitude of weapons feel (and sound) absolutely spot-on. In a genre so saturated of late, it's the little things that often jar, but in practically every sense, Bad Company feels like the product of a developer inspired to make something that pushes things forward.

That said, in the process of making bold decisions, there are a few controversial choices that DICE has made which might not gain universal acclaim. The most obvious is the curious, bold decision to spawn players back into the single player game, as if you've got infinite lives. Evidently a legacy of its multiplayer roots, there's an inescapable sense that you're cheating your way through the game. Safe in the knowledge that you'll simply respawn a few paces back, you'll continually chalk off a few enemies, get blown up and run back to continue the battle - except on a few time-sensitive, mission-critical occasions when the game deems it necessary to enforce checkpoints if you fail.

'Battlefield: Bad Company' Screenshot 2

They call it Aciiiiiiieeed.

Near-instant respawning is a design decision which certainly cuts down on re-loading time (and a fair amount of frustration), but it does smack of an idea based on fixing a lack of balancing than anything. The truth is, if the game didn't respawn you, it would be mercilessly difficult and almost certainly very frustrating, so it's hard not to consider it a controversial decision. Equally questionable is your ability to endlessly heal yourself by doing nothing more than injecting yourself with some sort of magic potion. Fair enough, recharging health and endless medipacks are an equally ludicrous game mechanic, but it does feel faintly bizarre to have to constantly press L1/LB followed by the right trigger/R2 in the heat of battle. Frankly, given the option of a cheating health restoring fudge, recharging health does the exact same job without constantly requiring the player to juggle equipment when you'd rather have your weapon to hand.

There's also a sense that the enemy AI isn't especially dynamic or adaptive - just irritatingly accurate. Having completed the game on the hard difficulty setting, it's especially noticeable, with enemies capable of picking you off with unerring accuracy the split second you move into their line of sight from improbable distances (interestingly, the problem is still apparent on Medium). Somewhat disappointingly, there's never any evidence of teamwork on their part, with no big chases ensuing, or surprise flanking - just a continual procession of entrenched enemy to pick off one by one. Squad AI, too, is often noticeably inert, with frequent instances of your team mates failing to take the initiative in glaringly obvious situations. Worse still, despite your squaddies being specialists in different areas, there are a number of occasions when the game still forces you to deal with situations that they would have logically dealt with. The sum total of this inherent lack of flexibility is that the further you progress, the more predictable and transparent the whole experience becomes.

Bad Company is still very entertaining if you take it at face value. It has a huge amount going for it if you try not to think about it too hard, but you sense that the shackles still restrict it from being a true single player representation of the mighty Battlefield experience. The most obvious restriction is the way the game binds enemy behaviour to a tiny local zone, when the scale and scope of these sprawling maps suggests the potential was so much greater. For now, though, we must be content with the freedom offered by the immense destructibility, the removal of arbitrary 'corridors' funneling you through the game world, the choice of weapons and how you get to your eventual destination, rather than how convincingly the game reacts to your actions.

Needless to say, the game's multiplayer component removes many of these issues at a stroke, allowing you to get stuck into a truly rampaging 24-player Gold Rush match. As detailed at considerable length by Dan during the beta, the premise of defending or attacking crates of gold is riotously entertaining, extremely lag tolerant and a huge amount of fun - largely as a consequence of the sheer destructibility of the environment. Having dipped into a test server last week, and engaged in some 'real-world' online action today, basically everything Dan observed in the beta still holds true, so there's no need to go over old ground here. In summary, the savage fury of the experience will either be very much a Good Thing, or something to send you scurrying for something a little less chaotic. Personally, I had a lot of fun, but you can expect to die a lot in the process of learning the ropes.

'Battlefield: Bad Company' Screenshot 3

This guy's fooling no-one.

As is always the case with Battlefield games, the bewildering degree of choice available to you in terms of vehicles, loadout and routes available to you presents an almost vertical learning curve to the unwary, but comes into its own once you figure out a strategy and can rely on like-minded team to figure out a strategy. Initial sessions are absolutely insane, and it's quite likely that it'll remain that way for at least the first few weeks until a community builds up and begins to figure things out. Later, remember, the Conquest will be downloadable for free, so there's plenty to extend the lifespan of the game long after you're done with the Story mode and have had your fill of the eight maps available in Gold Rush mode.

Once you've experienced the various highs and lows that Bad Company has to offer, it feels like an immensely polished, ambitious effort that will build up a strong following for all the right reasons. The single player portion, while never less than hugely entertaining, stops short of true greatness thanks to a few fundamental design shortcuts which offer easy health restoring concepts seemingly at the expense of balanced AI. Some of this is irrelevant in the online mode, and the profound implications of a massively destructible environment make it a unique proposition in online gaming right now - albeit a riotous chaotic one. Riccitiello needn't have worried.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (87) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • rob230 #1 4 years ago

    Interesting, thought this was going to be one way or the other, still can't decide if it's worth a purchase though....

    .....hmmmm
  • Beano #2 4 years ago

    Tried the demo - seemed like generic rubbish to me...
  • Peew971 #3 4 years ago

    Well deserved (from the demo).
  • Cider-X #4 4 years ago

    in before "MY CONSOLE BETTAR DAN UR CRAP LOL360 LOLPS3"
  • booner #5 4 years ago

    I am gonna get this game, when I get my 360 back... I teamkilled a muppet in the demo and my 360 RROD on me....Karma's a bitch.
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 15:51
  • rob230 #6 4 years ago

    Also... I don't think there's a Little Chef in Marlow....
  • CannonAnBall #7 4 years ago

    I can't decide. I really can't.

    The demo didn't really blow me away to be honest.


  • Huntcjna #8 4 years ago

    Really looking forward to getting stuck into this, hopefully my pre order will arrive Thursday! \o/
  • Rirekon #9 4 years ago

    Might actually pick this up if I didn't have a whole ton of other stuff to play, I did enjoy the "blow the shit out of cover" approach :-)
  • systems #10 4 years ago

    @rob230 - you are correct, but there is a Wimpy on the high street.
  • asphaltcowboy #11 4 years ago

    Surprisingly the SP was what grabbed me in the demo, not the MP! Might use the £2 off from ShopTo on this... or maybe SSMB (although NoE deserve a boycott given how long it's taken to arrive on our shores!). Krudster - roughly how long does the SP campaign last?
  • rob230 #12 4 years ago

    True Systems!! many times have I staggered from Chequers in my own game of Frogger across the road to get a burger!
  • wankerw #13 4 years ago

    well i wnt b gettin this on friday [SSBB FTW o_0 !!1] but i might pick it up some other time

    demo was VERY laggy tho =S
  • themorganator #14 4 years ago

    Play the demo with your mates and it will convince you. 8 seems about right to me.
  • El_MUERkO #15 4 years ago

  • krudster #16 4 years ago

    Single player on hard took about 12, 13 hours I think.
  • asphaltcowboy #17 4 years ago

  • cyber_nicco #18 4 years ago

    i enjoyed the demo, as no doubt I'll enjoy this when I pick it up. Just sitting on the side of the road mowing down trees is worth the price of admission.
  • Altrezia #19 4 years ago

    Tried the demo - looks pretty, but oh holy crap the controls were rubbish.

    I am a PC FPSer though - so not entirely surprising. Looks ok to me, but not going to invest.
  • SBfistfun #20 4 years ago

    I don't usually comment on the content of reviews, but the lack of detail on the multiplayer aspects is awful. Yes there was a good preview a while back but that was a preview, not a review.

    Is the lag (experienced on the demo) sorted out? Is there the option to join EU servers or are you just chucked in willy nilly like the demo? How many maps are there? Is the squad system useless like the demo? Is there a party mode???

    For somebody like me who was interested in in finding out what multiplayer is like in the final game, this review is useless.


    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 16:27
  • krudster #21 4 years ago

    As a footnote, I did initially find the controls over sensitive, but quickly adapted.
  • Miths #22 4 years ago

    I can't wait to get my hands on this on Thursday - I've got the Gold edition on preorder.
    I loved COD4 multiplayer, but I haven't really felt like playing it for a few weeks now, so I need another multiplayer fix (and MGO just wasn't it, as expected).
  • Darren #23 4 years ago

    I thought the demo was better than I thought it would be, it reminded me a lot of an old PC game called Operation Flashpoint in terms of feel and scopre. This is also the first Battlefield with a decent single player mode but... but... but... at the end of the day, it's just another military-themed first-person shooter and quite frankly I've had enough of those. Also I'm not interested in playing these kinds of games online, too damn repetitive to keep me entertained, so it's clearly not for me. Nice to see DICE making an effort though.
  • krudster #24 4 years ago

    As mentioned in the review, there are eight maps.

    There is no option for EU servers that I saw.

    Yes, the squad system is non-existent.

    I'm not sure what you mean by party mode.

    Dan's preview observations basically read *exactly* as they would have in this review. Rather than basically cut and paste, those who want that level of detail will find out everything they need to know there. Besides, real-world servers are only just starting up - the test servers we played last week might not even be a fair reflection of real-world conditions, so it's not fair to make assumptions. Realistically, as with almost every game with an online component, it's nigh on impossible to properly review them until the game's actually on the shelves.




  • StarchildHypocrethes #25 4 years ago

    After withholding my outrage for quite some time, I reached breaking point and have to rant...

    Marlow is far too posh for a Little Chef! I can't believe you'd even suggest it. Shocking!

    Appalled, Marlow
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 16:44
  • Anthony_UK #26 4 years ago

    So i've got to go back to the preview of the beta to learn about multiplayer cheers!

    There's 8 maps for multiplayer according to its website for example, come eurogamer that was just lazy!
  • SBfistfun #27 4 years ago

    @krudster

    Thanks Krudster, didn't mean to sound overly critical of the review, I just expected there to be more detail on the multi player. Is there likely to be a another look at this once it's released? I thought the demo had potential but there's a lot that lets it down. No EU servers means a no buy for me.

  • Miths #28 4 years ago

    I've seen a lot of complaints about lag in the demo, but I honestly didn't notice any at all in the perhaps 30-40 online matches or so I played in the 8-10 days after the demo release (PS3 version).
    Did it only occur later, or was I just lucky?

    In any case, it's probably not entirely unrealistic to expect some issues the first week or two after release. I didn't play COD4 from the start, but from what I hear it was a lot less than smooth for weeks as well (oddly enough I still see people complaining about constant lag these days - around nine out of ten matches I play are smooth, while the last one tends to end in a complete disconnect after a minute or two).
  • BiscuitBase #29 4 years ago

    Was a bit worried about this one, glad it's decent! Might have to pick it up.
  • Scimarad #30 4 years ago

    I must admit I thought the (PS3) demo was a load of old arse and not particularly impressive visually. From what was being said in the forum in doesn't sound like it was particularly inferior to the 360 version, either. I wonder if this is a case of 'crap demo' or if the game just isn't to my taste.
  • gizmo #31 4 years ago

    "I am gonna get this game, when I get my 360 back... I teamkilled a muppet in the demo and my 360 RROD on me....Karma's a bitch."

    Lol, All time classic.
  • Prodigy_BE #32 4 years ago

    Say Krudster, any info on the deeper Online specs.

    Can you set up and manage a clan within the game?
    Can you lock a room, so only your clanmates can join?
    Is sending invites still as crappy as the demo?
    What about voice chat on the PS3? Do you have different channels, like in RFOM?

    Or did you only get the SP as a review code, not the multiplayer part?
  • SBfistfun #33 4 years ago

    @Miths
    I was playing the 360 version which almost constantly lags. Doors break a second after firing at them, vehicles skid and jitter all over the place, hit detection is extremely vague, you have to fire RPG's about 20 ft in front of anything moving, the squad system doesn't work...

    There was meant to be a patch released for the 360 demo (as reported by Eurogamer) but I haven't heard anything since. It certainly runs a lot shoddier than Battlefield Modern Combat at the moment, and if that's the way it's going to be I'll be giving it a miss.

    I'm certainly not relying on Dice to fix the full game with future patches because their track record with patches is atrocious.
  • Prodigy_BE #34 4 years ago

    @ SBfistfun

    I play the PS3 demo almost every day, and never have any lag.
    Sure it's not your internet provider which is laggy?
  • bhutz #35 4 years ago

    @booner Ha ha, horrible luck

    I've played the multiplayer demo prob about 20 times or so and I defo have to say it grows on you. I had played BF2 and BF2142 on PC and loved them so desperately wanted to show some love to this game, unfortunately a few of the features that made it great didn't make it to this version...things like a nice responsive control system, creating your own squads, spotting enemies manually (for some reason I have to shoot the enemy before it will appear on the radar for the rest of my squad) and other things that should be in the game by default like parachuting and goin prone (WTF!)

    I have experienced the lag issue a few times and it really does spoil the game, I think I will pick this game up but only cos I need a break from COD4!

    This game really should have been so much more, so pretty disappointed based on what I have seen from the demo!
  • TitusCrow #36 4 years ago

    the demo was a lot of fun in SP but the multi was spoiled by the lag. think ill hold off for a week or 2 to see if the final versions servers are solid, if they are im in!! - if not "shrugs"
  • Ryuken #37 4 years ago

    It's polished? Well, that's a first for DICE, hopefully they'll do the same thing with Battlefield 3 then.
  • Skurmedel #38 4 years ago

    Good review, sums up pretty much everything I thought about the demo.

    If I get this game, it won't be for the single player, I didn't like it in the demo. It felt like you had a bunch of smart-talking cretins following you around while you had to do all the dirty work (and dying.)

    Multiplayer is awesome though, especially the sounds of everything, it roars and thunders like a drunken dragon.

    Also I don't quite agree with the "lag free sessions"-stuff, I've had veeery laggy sessions and I'm rather confident my ISP is not the problem.
    Edited by 5 at 23/06/08 @ 17:53
  • polaris70 #39 4 years ago

    The multiplayer is great fun once you get over the initial "This isn't like COD4". You have to stick with your team mates or get into armoured vehicles or die. I found after a couple of days playing that it got better and better as you worked out different strategies and played around with the classes. With other players getting more experienced the game will be awesome. In a couple of matches all our team were on the same wavelength and for an hour the game was breathtaking as the Main battle tanks, choppers, hummers and boats all worked together, I haven't experienced anything like it on multiplayer. I hope this is the future as more clans get together.
  • MrWonderstuff #40 4 years ago

    The sound in the demo is awesome. The thud thud thud of tank fire in the distance is eerily realistic as is the whizz of bullets flying overhead.
  • KTroopA #41 4 years ago

    loved the demo, ordered the full game.

    sound as has been said is amazing, best ive heard in a shooter ever.

    11/10

    end of.
  • Xerx3s #42 4 years ago

    I guess the EA head honcho is pleased with you.
  • Anthony_UK #43 4 years ago

    Battlefield explosion sound effects v frontlines explosion sound effects?

    Realistic muffled time delayed explosions FTW!
  • dryden555 #44 4 years ago

    nice review that points out the weaknesses in the single player game unlike some of the other game site reviews out there. i want this game, but I can certaintly wait until the price goes down in a few months.
  • TheRealBadabing #45 4 years ago

    "So now bland FPS games getting 8/10, I'm looking elsewhere for reliable reviews, you're telling me this trash got the same score as MGS4, and one more than Ninja Gaiden2!!?. GTF! "

    You don't want to look at this review then or your head might explode:

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=74994 ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

    Or maybe you should factor in fun when comparing games. This sounds like fun. MGS4 and Ninja Gaiden 2 are not fun for a lot of gamers.
  • SBfistfun #46 4 years ago

    @Prodigy_BE
    I play the PS3 demo almost every day, and never have any lag.Sure it's not your internet provider which is laggy?

    Nah it's definitely not that, most of my gaming time for the last few years has been spent on numerous multiplayer games. There was an announcement just after the demo came out saying they where working on server configuration problems which caused the lag, no mention since though.
    I was hoping there would be separate euro and us servers as this tends to cut out most of the latency problems playing against players the other side of the world!
  • patchbox360 #47 4 years ago

    8 vs 8

    something tells me mgs4 is a better overall game than battlefield bad company
  • T4RG4 #48 4 years ago

    Loved the PC games, but this felt poor in SP and MP though (and I did try it alongside mates). COD4 deals nicely with my shooty shoot needs for now.
  • Vedfolner #49 4 years ago

    So which one is better? The PS3 or the 360 version?
  • PapaSmurf630 #50 4 years ago

    Haha I bet the MGS4 lovers heads are exploding right now. Loving the sound on this game. Find myself firing off my machine gun in the general direction of the enemy (with no intent on hitting anything) just to hear the sound! Really good fun game.
  • YourMessageHere #51 4 years ago

    I'm still waiting to hear why this is on consoles only, when the main group of Battlefield fans are all on PCs.
  • TheRealBadabing #52 4 years ago

    Yeah, the main BF2 fans are on PC but, like me a lot have said sod it and got a console. My PC could run this no probs yet I prefer Live. I must be getting old...

    Actually quite happy I am on holiday the week after this releases. Though I really enjoyed the demo (been on an hour too long tonight, the wife will kill me) I am concerned about the squad system. Ruined Frontlines for me, no lobby and not being able to have a bigger team than 4.

    CoD4's party system was what kept me coming back for more. Nothing better than spending an evening with some EGers and I do mean all evening. In fairness, matchmaking within a party was also CoD4's achilles heal as many dropped players will agree. If this does not have a functional party/lobby of (at the very least) the same quality as CoD4, then I will have serious doubts about a purchase.

    Like I said, I am happy to be away that week because the basic multi-player stuff like that simply wasn't covered in this review. I will have to rely on my friends list to give me any real idea of how well it works.
  • Miths #53 4 years ago

    "So which one is better? The PS3 or the 360 version?"

    [link url=http:// www.gametrailers.com/player/35183.html
    ]http://ww w.gametrailers.com/player/35183...[/link]

    Looks like this is a really close one - fortunately.
    I tried both demos and the only difference I noticed was that I couldn't work the damn 360 controller properly, as I've been using my PS3 and the Dualshock 3 99% of the time the last couple of months :), which I'll be doing for Bad Company as well.
  • symmetry #54 4 years ago

    Fair review although I would have mentioned the absolutely shocking helicopter controls and the overwhelming god-power of the artillery.

    Still a fantastic game though, roll on Friday.
  • krudster #55 4 years ago

    The chopper controls are absolutely fine once you get used to them.
  • Prodigy_BE #56 4 years ago

    Say Krudster, any info on the deeper Online specs.

    Can you set up and manage a clan within the game?
    Can you lock a room, so only your clanmates can join?
    Is sending invites still as crappy as the demo?
    What about voice chat on the PS3? Do you have different channels, like in RFOM?

    Or did you only get the SP as a review code, not the multiplayer part?
    edit delete
  • OllyJ #57 4 years ago

    NOTHING about the audio????

    This game sounds amazing!!!!!!

    bah!!!!
  • kangarootoo #58 4 years ago

    "Or maybe you should factor in fun when comparing games. This sounds like fun. MGS4 and Ninja Gaiden 2 are not fun for a lot of gamers."

    Amen. I tried MGS4 the other day, and found it far from fun. Someone explain that to me.

    TBH though, comment by idiots whining about score comparisons (AGAIN) are hardly worth responding to. If someone is unable to grasp the subjectivity of game reviewing, coupled with a score scale that has only ten divisions, they are beyond helping.
  • Farzlepot #59 4 years ago

    I would suggest that people whining about scores should read the reviews instead of just scrolling down to the little number at the bottom, as the review explains exactly why it got that number and is far more valuable than the number itself.

    However, there are probably too many words in the review for them to read. Because I imagine that they've skipped most of this comment for the same reason, I'm going to give this review a review score:

    9/10
  • Execta #60 4 years ago

    I'm also still wondering about purchasing this game. I really cannot decide. The destructable buildings were a real dissappointment for me and also there are many other stupid things and bugs in the game, like everything 'small' breaks with latency (happens in every server, so it's just the game's fault)... Like when you hit wooden planks on the door, they all "explode" suddenly, and it happens few seconds after you have already hit the planks. Really annoying.

    At this moment, the demo didn't fill my expects, pretty sure now that I'm not gonna buy this game. Seems still pretty OK in online but... Well, just too many bugs, average graphics and stuff... Waiting for Resistance 2, the savior of online games for PS3. 8)
  • izak #61 4 years ago

    Are there ANY split-screen local play options? Co-op, or multiplayer, 2 or 4-player?
  • Moz #62 4 years ago

    I think my big praise for this game is that it's not in shade of brown!!!! yay for green grass and blue skys

    edit:

    @izak - sadly no i'm guessing that Frostbite is already pushing the consoles quite abit so they'd have to sacrifice to much detail to give you split screen, (hence why halo3 looks so rubbish ;o) )
    Edited by 1 at 24/06/08 @ 10:57
  • izak #63 4 years ago

    Thanks Moz,

    I'm just irked at developers not paying attention to 4 player local play capabilities. With this generation's controllers being wireless (and not requiring stupid multi-taps ala PS2), and with a big hi-def TV local 4 player games are a blast. Much more fun (although more difficult to set up) than online play in my opinion.
  • costa_k #64 4 years ago

    I had chatting problems while playing the demo,when i invited people to private chat i could hear them but they couldn't hear me.I had to reset the 360 every time.
  • BobsUncle #65 4 years ago

    "the handling is always intuitive and satisfying."

    O' Rly? So that's why Accelerate is on the left trigger then? (in the 360 demo anyway)
  • Beek4257 #66 4 years ago

    @Krudster

    "they call it aciiiieeeed"

    LOL. You must be ancient!

    /looks in mirror

    Oh crap ...
  • clockworkzombie #67 4 years ago

    I purchased the gold edition yesterday and started playing the single player campaign. It is excellent. I am happy to have purchased this.
  • 3william56 #68 4 years ago

    No lag on the demo multiplayer here. Thought it was pretty good, with some lovely touches (tanks, respawning with teammates, the gold as a central target, destructibility), just not outstanding enough for me to give up Warhawk. Single player was also good, not spectacular.

    But for me, the more important thing is that DICE can obviously get the PS3 humming, which bodes very well for Mirror's Edge, which I am truly excited about.
  • DrDamn #69 4 years ago

    @BobsUncle
    You can switch the land vehicle controls to Type 2 and the accelerate/brake & turning are all done a lot more intuitively on the left stick.

    From the review ...
    "Frankly, given the option of a cheating health restoring fudge, recharging health does the exact same job without constantly requiring the player to juggle equipment when you'd rather have your weapon to hand."

    That's kind of the point isn't it? Restoring health is a useful gameplay mechanic but it has to have a downside. In Halo / CoD4 the downside is needing to get to cover and wait, here it is having to switch out your weapon. One of the reasons it is done this way here is due to multiplayer considerations. The Health jab is an unlockable option for the Assault class only with others having to rely on a helpful Support class team mate. They couldn't use a Halo/CoD system as it wouldn't be translatable to the multiplayer.

    For all the little niggles (choppy framerate and over sensitive controls) there is the balance of the open levels and superb multiplayer game. From demo play and the text of the review I think an 8/10 is a fair review.
  • HiredMan #70 4 years ago

    I bought this on Tuesday (EB broke the street date here in Aus). Haven't touched the single player yet...... the multi is sublime! I prefer this to CoD4 by a fair margin at this stage.
  • krudster #71 4 years ago

    I'll concede that the juggling health system is kind of the point, but it's no less irritating :)
  • krudster #72 4 years ago

    Oh, and yes, I am ancient. Legendarily so! I'm so old that all the 80s bands reforming for nostalgia tours are bands I went to see the first time around!
  • Beek4257 #73 4 years ago

    Same here.

    My girlfriend told me I was too old to be playing videogames at the launch of Tomb Raider 1 ...

    Dumped that one -litteraly- ages ago
  • Inquisitor #74 4 years ago

    I dunno. The campaign demo was hit and miss. Loved the characters and dialogue but the enemy AI was dumb but, as you rightly pointed out, deadly accurate. I hated the way it pushed you down certain paths not with clever map design but cheating 'insta death' areas, just lazy level design in my opinion. Big, open map but no care to ensure the player can't escape so simply kill them if they walk too far.

    The multiplayer was good, but it was really, really punishing if you got unlucky with teams. It's a game where losing is draining, getting a right thrashing on BF: BC is almost painful, constant tank assaults, sniping and artillery barrages, spawn then die.

    Still, the destruction aspects were a laugh, even if the wooden objects are laughable in the way they are destroyed. A table, chair, fence, it doesn't matter, if it's wood it explodes in a shower of shavings, no physics at all.
  • mukki #75 4 years ago

    I was suprised that I actually liked the demo...

    does the game have co op and/or split screen?

  • DrDamn #76 4 years ago

    @Mukki
    No unfortunately. Online co-op could have worked quite well what with there being 4 characters in the game.
  • Prodigy_BE #77 4 years ago

    8/10 EG? Are u kiddin'?

    Laughable AI (blow up a house, and enemies ten yard further, don't even notice)
    Faulty gamedesign (reach a smoke signal when in full combat, and you get a cutscene where they all stand around, talking)
    Stupid design choices (the health system is just wrong)
    Sub par controls (there's no gradual speed up when aiming, like in COD4)

    An online mode without clan support
    you can only invite 3 friends
    You can't make your own private room (which means, no clan wars)


    Seriously, how much does EA pay for these banners?
    A 6/10, with a 'great engine, mediocre game' comment would be more like it.
  • DarthKebab #78 4 years ago

    Thanks for the review, bought the game on the strength of this after not liking the demo at all (single player)

    Been playing the single player and it is fantastic, demo's are weird, would never have bought this or Burnout Paradise, yay for reviews!
  • timberwolf #79 4 years ago

    nah.. it's a 7 clearly. this game simply isn't as good as pc battlefield. ps. prodigy your spot on... it's not that the games bad it just should be so much better
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/08 @ 17:34
  • Prodigy_BE #80 4 years ago

    @ Timberwolf

    Look, I don't think an "oh well, it's not as good as it should be, but I'll buy it anyway" attitude is the right choice.
    The way I see it, technology has advanced (PS2 to PS3), but the quality of games is in decline. TimeSplitters was better than Haze, Battlefield Modern Combat was more fun than Bad Company, MGS3 was better than MGS4, Prince of Persia was better than Assassin's Creed and so on. Graphics may improve, but gameplay is in decline.

    And publishers get away with it, because they got a firm grip on the press. Even that EA boss says he won't be happy with scores below a 7. Well Mr Riccitiello, Bad Company is half assed. And if you've let DICE have four more months, this could have been everything they said it would be. But because 4 months of development puts it right in the middle of the hollyday season, you chose to release it now. EA, and all other devs, think $$$ is more important than satisfied customers.

    Not that that's wrong, but they took out the consumers only line of defence: the press.
  • bigdaddydj #81 4 years ago

    So why not bitching from the general pub about the injections as there were about the Haze injections?
  • timberwolf #82 4 years ago

    to be honest battlefeild is only very slightly better than haze. plus the problem is EVERYTHING gets 10/10 now! gtaiv, bioshock, even halo3 all had pretty awful flaws... but apparently these games are perfect or somehow void these flaws because they are popular.
  • Prodigy_BE #83 4 years ago

    Correctomundo!

    You can add GTA4 and Halo 3 to the list I made a few posts earlier.
    But it's not that reviewers think its all good. Its that they are too busy going on fantastic press trips, getting tons of free shit, and keeping their jobs secured by raking in the ad money. Did you see the banner campaign on this page. THAT'S your 8/10 explanation!

    And HAZE... wel, sometimes gaming press has to do something to keep its credibility. And those games get battered on really hard. Haze, Driver...
  • Agent_Orange #84 4 years ago

    Got this on the 360 the other day. I did play the demo and I wasn't too impressed with it judging by the demo. However after playing the full game round a mates I was much more impressed. Im engrossed now, the story is good and quite amusing!

    Been playing the multiplayer and have got to say it is a hellova lot of fun. I tried BF Modern Combat on the 360 before but thats no where near as good as this. This feels a lot more enjoyable and like the Pc version of BF2, albeit without aeroplanes.

    Its really satisfying to defend your gold crates after some guy thinks hes destroyed em with a bomb, only to find a knife in his back :p

    And also, I hear they are releasing some free multiplayer content soon too...
  • local_celebrity #85 3 years ago

    I finally picked this up last weekend, not expecting very much; the demo had left me completely cold.

    How wrong was I: it's absolutely ace!

    I just hope they sold a few copies and made a few bob on this one. We need more shooters of this class coming out.
  • Aggesan #86 3 years ago

    I have many of the AAA games for PS3. MGS4, Resistance 2, LBP, BioShock, Fallout 3 etc. Still my most played game is Battlefield: Bad Company. Other games come and go, but I just can't get over my Battlefield addiction. Awesome game!
  • UKPartisan #87 3 years ago

    Great single player campaign and multiplayer. I just don't understand why Dice didn't include single player bot mode as with every other BF title...perhaps the AI is still a bit dim, as they do have a tendency to stand about still. Nevermind, Multiplayer's the don!