Battlefield 2: Modern Combat Review

By Jim Rossignol Published 24 November, 2005

It's Battlefield, Jim, but not as we know it...

Version tested: Xbox

So here's the thing: Modern Combat has little to do with the stellar PC game, Battlefield 2. The '2' moniker on this title seems almost accidental, since this is not a conversion of the PC game, but a from-scratch console reworking of the Battlefield idea. It has the same general theme of contemporary tanks and infantry, as encapsulated in the 'Modern Combat' subtitle, but as an experience it looks and feels rather different (and tastes, too, if you do that sort of thing). Of course this difference could be a good thing; we don't really want PC and Xbox to be inbred cousins, but instead independent and viable gaming fellows with their own individual spread of tempting DVD dishes. But, hnnngh, I can't help but make comparisons between the glorious fire-fights on my PC, and what's on my TV. No, no! Must... push... thoughts... aside...

So: staying consistent with its forefathers, Modern Combat is a class-based FPS in which your combat kit defines your abilities. It's also a distinct brand of vehicular combat with a strong theme of multiplayer action. Click your way through to Xbox Live and you'll discover each of the dozen battlefields to be littered with swearing men and armoured vehicles. The vehicles can be commandeered for quick transport and the people can be shot for even quicker 'deaths' of up to twenty-four other human beings. You can choose between assault (nice big gun), sniper (long range, with smaller gun), support (medic and average gun) and engineer (hey, bazooka!). Thus equipped, troops must use the tools at their disposal to aid their comrades, healing the wounded, transporting the tardy, and exploding the enemy.

'Battlefield 2: Modern Combat' Screenshot tortoise

Tanks, like driveable tortoises.

Interestingly Modern Combat doesn't feel like a 'keep your fxxkin head down!' type soldier sim, instead it's much closer to the less constricted deathmatch games we're all-too familiar with. (Lots of running, some jumping.) The pace is pretty fast, and although you can crawl or crouch, you're generally going to be legging it between bits of cover and squeezing out as many bullets as you can before death. The weapons too feel simple and solid. Better still, the ragdoll deaths are a delight, especially when someone gets shot up by two or three people at the same time. Bodies go flying, dead limbs whirling, it's beautiful in a hideously morbid way.

Anyway, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat doesn't rely solely on online play, it also delivers a single-player campaign of vaguely interlinked missions. This is a brief objective-based affair in which you fight alongside multiple troopers whom you can swap between if they are in line-of-sight of your current charge. This 'hot-swapping' is an interesting idea, and comes with its own snappy 'zoom' effect as you fly between the perspectives of different people. But it doesn't just look good: it also encourages you to keep friendlies in sight, therefore curbing those loner tendencies that army folk really worry about. Hot-swapping allows for some great on-the-spot killing tricks and traps, but it's also often accompanied by confusion and death.

'Battlefield 2: Modern Combat' Screenshot running

Running, yesterday. Also: some shooting.

Nevertheless the finest moments in Modern Combat's single-player emerge from judicious use of the hot-swap. You're not just one sniper on the roof, you're a bunch of them across the whole town, and you can leap between them to get that vital shot in. Although actually the sniper mission is a bit annoying. Here's a better example: early on in the campaign I was pinned down by an enemy tank (which, for some reason, occasionally disappeared through the floor) and was able to zwoosh to an AI engineer who, at his own automagical initiative, had scaled a nearby rooftop. Unholstering my enormous bazooka (missus) I was able to kill the tank and his nearby friend in just a couple of shots.

The hot-swap is the standout idea in Modern Combat's otherwise fairly bland single-player campaign. The missions are all fairly predictable, although racing about in armoured vehicles with .50 calibre machineguns strapped to the top doesn't lose its appeal all that quickly. Hot-swapping, though, gives it the sense of being something new: even when it doesn't always work, it gives Modern Combat's single-player a unique and startling feel.

'Battlefield 2: Modern Combat' Screenshot humvee

Look! A wild Humvee at home on the plains. Majestic beasts, aren't they?

Perhaps our love of mounted machineguns is the reason why the vehicular combat sub-genre is growing so dangerously fast. Ever since Battlefield 1942 the idea of fighting in a camouflaged arena with tanks, flying things and infantry has only been accelerating in popularity. It's in a mid-period of difficulty maturation now: there are going to be low points, high points, and those middle points that no one knows what to do with. Modern Combat is one of those. It adopts the idea of accessibility, making sure to plot a route away from PC-style complexities and towards Halo-style intuitive play. But it doesn't quite work. Such design decisions quite often leave games stranded somewhere in between two good places. As a result Modern Combat simply isn't going to drive a piece of hot shrapnel through your gaming glands in the way that a dozen other classic soldier games might have done. It's without the best kind of vibrant excitement, and simply lacks the battle-intensity that the best of these kind of games can get so right. There's a measure of international-standard fun in here, especially in the online modes, where real-time chat always comes into its own. Yes, it does have jeeps and bazookas of a kind that force a smile to flicker across our cold, dead faces, but sometimes that's not enough.

Ultimately, if you're unfair enough to want to compare this with Battlefield 2 on the PC you'll see that Modern Combat is a weaker, uglier imitation that lacks the detail and versatility that the original game wields with such ease. It doesn't make you fear the shriek and boom of lead because everything has been turned down a notch. Fun, yes, but not exhilarating in the way that the best games should be. It also lacks the painterly detail of Battlefield 2's levels, which seem so natural in the density of their trash-strewn details. As such Modern Combat fails to clinch greatness, but it's a moderate amusement anyway. Maybe it's the way those Humvees bounce...

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Jim.

About Jim Rossignol

Read more articles from Jim by visiting the Jim Rossignol archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (39) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • caligari #1 6 years ago

    I hear Zealots!

  • jack_klugman #2 6 years ago

    Finally!

  • Carlo #3 6 years ago

    Who rubbed vasaline on those screenshots?

  • Huntcjna #4 6 years ago

    I really don't want to enter fanboy mode here but...

    WHAT THE HELL! ITS AT LEAST AN 8!

    Its one of the best xbox live games I have ever played.

  • Furbs #5 6 years ago

    Maybe it'd be an 8 if it used a keyboard and mouse? :)
    /monty python mode...
    OH NO! Noone expected the PC Zealots!

  • PuffyPipe #6 6 years ago

    And that is why PC gaming is still top by a mile

  • asphaltcowboy #7 6 years ago

    Hmm, the review reads like an 8 at least. One for rental methinks, since I already have BF2 on PC...

  • Furbs #8 6 years ago

    Oh dear...
    (note: mine was a tongue in cheek comment)
    /hides

  • bootsy_NL_30 #9 6 years ago

    maybe we can get this thread up to 400

  • Genji #10 6 years ago

    /laughs at PC zealots

  • jack_klugman #11 6 years ago

    maybe we can get this thread up to 400

    I'm

  • jack_klugman #12 6 years ago

    maybe we can get this thread up to 400

    Definately

  • jack_klugman #13 6 years ago

    maybe we can get this thread up to 400

    Game

  • thegamesthething #14 6 years ago

    "Ultimately, if you're unfair enough to want to compare this with Battlefield 2 on the PC you'll see that Modern Combat is a weaker, uglier imitation that lacks the detail and versatility that the original game wields with such ease."

    haha - you say it would be unfair to make the comparision then go ahead and make it anyway

    actually i think its perfectly valid, though i'd be fascinated to see how well BF2 runs on a £100 PC

  • Huntcjna #15 6 years ago

    There is no way you could port the PC version to consoles effeciently its just not a good idea. This is a title obviously aimed at the console market its more Wham! Bam! Action movie than its PC brother and you have to treat it like that. It you have been "spoiled" by the PC version chances are you won't like it as much. But as an arcade action war title it works incredibly well, its hellish fun to play (Isn't that all that matters) and thats all it ever set out to do it should be reviewed accordingly. Its like the burnout of war games and in mind thats no bad thing.

    Turn off your brain and blow some shit up.

  • Furbs #16 6 years ago

    Well my Sempron 2300 with a radeon 8500 will run it playably at 800x600 and I cant imagine thats worth much more than £100 nowadays :p

    Its not a valid comparison as they are two totally different games. Infact IIRC it wasnt till BF2 was obviously going to be a huge success that the "2" was added to the Xbox version.

    BTW, I've enjoyed it, but like Huntcja says, if you've been used to the PC version it will make it a bit harder for you to enjoy unless you can appreciate its not "BF2:MC", its "BF:MC".
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/05 @ 12:24

  • caligari #17 6 years ago


    PC Zealots are RUBBISH!

    You'll usually find that console zealots have huge evenly muscled arms, where as PC zealots have one good arm and one puny arm (the arm that is used to control the mouse may well appear malnourished or withered)...

    I think Jeremy Beadle is a pretty famous example of why PC Zealots SUCK!

  • Furbs #18 6 years ago

    ROFL!
    /commits to memory

  • banjo21 #19 6 years ago

    Lovely simple game with great graphics I thought - much more suited to us folk with only 30 mins every now and again to pick up rather than the dedication the PC game requires.

    Shame its ANOTHER GAME with ONLY right handed controls. Whats wrong with us lefties???? SHAME. I can't play / play it even worse than other games.

  • knif3r #20 6 years ago

    I've played the Xbox demo to death - simply the best Xbox Live game around

  • jack_klugman #21 6 years ago

    PC zealots have one good arm and one puny arm (the arm that is used to control the mouse may well appear malnourished or withered)...

    The trick is to counter the effects with a strictly enforced regime of daily masturbation.

  • hoathenfold #22 6 years ago

    'Shame its ANOTHER GAME with ONLY right handed controls. Whats wrong with us lefties???? SHAME. I can't play / play it even worse than other games. '

    I wonder why no console manufacturer has ever made a left handed controller, with everything round the other way?? (Not being a leftie myself is there a really obvious reason why this doesnt happen?)

    Millions of gamers must be left handed so why not make them a specific controller? Good marketting idea.....

  • gizmo #23 6 years ago

    Has the retail version got the regular.... pause.... which was in the demo version?

    Couldn't handle that performance glitch for long, even though your brain did blank it out after a while.

  • Huntcjna #24 6 years ago

    Well I am ranking up pretty quickly online and with the exception of 2 battles out of about 30+ I didn't have problems with any lag or gobby american youngsters people tend to actually speak to each other and set tactical assaults a lot more like ghost recon than halo in terms of online chat.

  • BraveArse #25 6 years ago

    It's all very funny and all, nice response to the SW: BF2 comments etc. But surely those of us with xboxes who come onto the site deserve to see a review of the game rather than a veiled PC is better than Xbox feature?

    EDIT: and no this isn't an xbox fanboy comment, I own em all, including the PC. I just would like to see an unbiased review of games, and this and SWBF2 have not been that at all.
    Edited by 1 at 24/11/05 @ 14:31

  • SwedBear #26 6 years ago

    I like this game a lot., I decided not to try to compare it to BF2 on the PC (which I really like) but treat it as a separate game. I love the way you can switch between people (nice effect) and I think the game is really fun. The AI sometimes is a bit moronic but in the end I am having fun.

    I definitely recommend it.

  • Feanor #27 6 years ago

    Where's all the 1 votes?

  • Xerx3s #28 6 years ago

    Am i the only one who thinks that the BF series is over rated?

  • jack_klugman #29 6 years ago

    Am i the only one who thinks that the BF series is over rated?

    Yes.

  • tiddles #30 6 years ago

    It's like instant coffee and filter coffee - pretend they're two completely different substances and you'll be fine.

  • Diabeu #31 6 years ago

    One of my favourite Live! games

  • kentmonkey #32 6 years ago

    "Ultimately, if you're unfair enough to want to compare this with Battlefield 2 on the PC " and you were!

    Really poor review IMHO, can't say I disagree with the score as I haven't played it but this just sounded like a whine that it wasn't the PC game, which I doubt very much the XBOX could have handled anyway. You made quite a big thing out of not comparing it...but then did. Don't mean to be harsh but just giving honest feedback, with this and the WRC Review in 2 days I think the new reader reviews section currently has better quality reviews than some on the homepage.

  • grimboy #33 6 years ago

    Lovely Game!
    Fantastic FUN online,as essential as Halo2 for xboxlive?

    O yes!

    No Lag,No Assholes,Team Spirit etc = Must Buy!!

    Seriously,I own both versions and love them both the same....but B2:MC is played more just cos its more accessible and more of a laugh..Absolute Top Job and anyone with xboxlive will be mad to miss out.

  • RandolphScott #34 6 years ago

    Just played the opening level. I had absolutely no idea what to do. It may be a good game but I shall never know 'cos I'm taking it back. That's just rubbish design.

  • jack_klugman #35 6 years ago

    Just played the opening level. I had absolutely no idea what to do.

    Hmm. I did. Curious.

  • the creeper #36 6 years ago

    So did I.

    User error is not bad game design.

  • the creeper #37 6 years ago

    Just been into HMV - they're selling this on both platforms for £25. Bargain.

  • CannonAnBall #38 6 years ago

    Good job i checked this game out. the experience on Live is far better in my opinion than Halo 2. Not really got through much single player levels because the online stuff is quality.

  • LOLLERS #39 6 years ago

    Yeah I thought the single player was absolute shite, constantly respawning enemies give you no space for tactical play and I thought games stopped doing that a long time ago. Looks like EA are doing their usual thing of trying to show you everything in the first 30 seconds of gameplay in case you have ADD. And the first Hotswap challenge? I had no idea WTF, gave up and went to play online...

    And the Live half of the game is excellent, can't imagine ever going back to play the single player missions. It's almost like two different games, which they are, because DICE in Sweden did the multiplayer, and EA did the Single player in-house.

    If you can't afford a decent enough PC to play BF2 online this is a perfectly good alternative. And there are plenty of people playing it on Live too, no problems finding a decent game.
    Edited by 1 at 19/12/05 @ 10:12