We five mobile gaming packs to giveaway that include a Sony Xperia Z3, a PS4, a mount for your Dualshock controller and a pop-up gaming tent!
Sony Xperia Z3 Mobile Gaming Giveaway Featuring a PS4!
AusGamers presents a hands-on report of the third major game in the 'World of' series from Wargaming, World of Tanks.
World of Warships Hands-On Preview
We take a look at the latest mobile gaming setup from GAEMS to see just how useful it is.
Tech Tuesday - GAEMS Vanguard Black Edition Review
We chat with 343 Industries about Halo 5: Guardians and the upcoming multiplayer beta!
343 Industries Talks Halo 5: Guardians Multiplayer Beta
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Battlefield Bad Company 2

PC | PlayStation 3 | Xbox 360
Genre: First Person Shooter
Developer: Digital Illusions Official Site: http://www.battlefield.com/b...
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Battlefield Bad Company 2

Genre: First Person Shooter
Developer: Digital Illusions
Official Site: http://www.battlefiel...
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Hide Video Player
Click To View the Battlefield Bad Company 2 Video
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Review
Review By @ 01:59pm 16/03/10
PC
The first Bad Company was a nice departure for DICE from the norm, at least in terms of their single-player offerings. It served to offer up a tongue-in-cheek experience that took as many digs at popular action games as it homaged. But it was far from perfect. The destruction system needed some work and the set-pieces throughout lacked the same sort of punch as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Multiplayer, on the other hand, unsurprisingly offered a robust experience that was perhaps a little overshadowed by the multiplayer of the aforementioned IW title; and we've seen a gaming nation divided by these two ever since.

Well, that divide now has a clearer patch of green on one side - specifically populated by DICE thanks in large part to their dedication to dedicated server support. The peer-to-peer set-up Activision and Infinity Ward have opted for is something of a game-breaker to many, and while the server situation for Battlefield Bad Company 2 here in Australia is far from ideal, the sheer fact it exists has many people leaning closer to DICE's latest offering.

But before we delve too deeply into the multiplayer component of BFBC2, there's an even more engaging single-player campaign on offer this time around, proving DICE have adopted an evolutionary process in their development of the series, and while it's still arguably somewhat lacking in comparison to Modern Warfare 2, they still need to be given a "good job" pat on the backside for their efforts here.



Kicking things off with a nice nod to their previous Battlefield entries, BFBC2 begins its tale in 1944 before jumping into the modern setting where Modern Warfare (1 and 2) is all but safe from cheesy stabs in the back. The characters throughout constantly drop digs at Infinity Ward's monster, and while some are funny, you can't help but feel a slight sense of jealousy written throughout - rather than just let your game do the talking for you, DICE are making a conscious effort to bully the Modern Warfare series, which in itself slightly lets down the otherwise stellar effort on offer here.

From 1944 the game takes players on a raucous adventure through snow, jungles, deserts and urban settings; each with a lush visual injection of "me too" at the competition, though touting their more superior destructability angle seems a more gracious option than snide remarks or visual flexes. It's in this chaos-inspired system BFBC2 really does shine, with a far more robust mechanic than what we saw in the first game; offering even more tactical option in the multiplayer department, and smile-inducing fun in the single. I'd argue there isn't quite enough offered in context for the system in the main campaign, and at times it does feel like this really only is a primer for the fights against real humans (in an online "virtual" sense), but what is available for play in the main campaign more than suffices.

Gameplay sees a mixed bag of scripted gunplay, vehicle mounting and even platforming. It's all given to you at a powerful and compelling pace with an overarching story well and truly worthy of your eight or so hours at its helm. The game's characters are scripted in throwback style, like some awesome 80s action movie starring the usual suspects like Bill Duke or Sonny Landham, BFBC 2 constantly feels like a Joel Silver production, and never fares poorly as a result. It's stunning to look at on PC, and even the Xbox 360 version holds its own. PS3 owners have been given the lesser version of the game due to a lack of anti-aliasing - it looks and plays like a port on Sony's machine, but a PC port, not 360, for those of you counting.



On my rig the game ran without a hitch (GeForce 8800 GTX, 2.4ghz Quad Core CPU), with pretty much all settings at maximum. There are a multitude of PC-specific options (check them out in this video), but being able to play with framerates and the like really creates a much more customisable experience than that found on console. It serves as a point of DICE's pedigree in this day and age of most games being built for console with PC seemingly an after thought, and equally offers added value to an already excellent product.

Of course, the single-player portion of any Battlefield title really is just a sidetrack to the main draw: Multiplayer. In this department Battlefield: Bad Company 2 delivers intensity in spades with excellent game modes, a solid destruction model, dedicated servers and a tight engine. The system in place is a synergenic one as balance here is key. Maps are designed to allow outside-the-box thinking with few choke-points or bottlenecks. Vantage points are made by the player, not the design, thanks to the destruction model, and each is large enough to tactfully engage the vehicular side of things. There are eight in total out of the box, or 10 if you scored yourself a VIP code (personally all these "pre-order advantage offers" are growing a little tiring), and these can be played in four different game modes - Conquest, Rush, Squad Deathmatch and Squad Rush.

While there are only a small number of modes, each offers a unique experience ranging from long-term, tactical engagement (such as Conquest), to bare-bones quickies (Squad Rush) and filler in between. And like so many Battlefield multiplayer options before it, each game offers a platform for war stories to be told later, as a single person can literally turn the tide of battle. In saying that, BFBC2 is a team effort, even the game's mild prod at deathmatch requires a side (four teams of four pitted against each other) - there's no open free-for-all here, and it works in the game's favour because of the overall tool-set. You gain XP for most usual things, such as objective completion (or attempt), kills, healing, fixing and more. XP then goes on to unlock more options for either your player, or the game as a whole - building on the strengths of balance and fair play. Incredible players aren't the be all of this multiplayer, because you're only as fast as the slowest person. In this regard, BFBC2 is not only a completely different beast to Modern Warfare's mostly solo multiplayer skew, but arguably more engaging - it's not about broken mechanics, hording or camping (as so many MW matches can be), but rather about being an important cog in a larger machine.



While the dedicated server point is definitely a strength, in Australia there simply aren't enough to go around (especially since we had to shut down a large percentage of them while EA implements better support), and it can take a while to get into one as a result. The server browser is also somewhat lacking, making it difficult to get into a good game (at least at this stage), though we're under the impression we'll not only get more (Internode have said they have a stack coming in, and BigPond are just awaiting approval from EA to roll out a lot more), but we've been assured that these gripes will be ultimately addressed (click here for more on the issue directly from DICE). It's the meat of DICE's support model - they feed off the community, and the more people get onto their forums and explain issues, the more likely it is they'll be broached.

In comparison to Infinity Ward's MW series, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 stacks up neatly. The two are different enough they can certainly co-exist, with one claiming strengths over the other in various departments. Multiplayer is a different sort of game with DICE's option, and will cater to a specific type of player. You're also always going to end up with a unique play experience in each of the modes on offer, which is another strength over Modern Warfare's more streamlined multiplayer. In the campaign end though, it's Infinity Ward's ability to craft eye-popping set-pieces that still outshines those found here, it doesn't help that BFBC2 recognises a need to compete; taking as many jabs in the dark as possible - in the end it kind of comes off as a bit desperate.

It's also important to know I scored it on gameplay merits because most of the major problems are in the throes of being fixed (server issues etc), so while I agree it's a shitty situation out of the box for a lot of dedicated people, the game itself is still excellent and deserving of a good score, just EA and DICE's initial support that's lacking in the initial stages. It should still be noted that if you are a hardcore multiplayer gamer, you might want to give the game a couple of weeks for things to stabilise.

Regardless, you're going to have fun with BFBC2 - the single-player is a much improved affair over that of the first game, and the multiplayer is like a fine wine (when it works); crafted from vintage cellars who've made it their business to perfect their art.
What we liked
  • Looks stunning
  • Single-player is much improved over the first game
  • Destruction model is more robust
  • Multiplayer is excellent
  • Dedicated servers
What we didn't like
  • Server browser is really lacking
  • Single-player still lacks a definitive action punch
  • Music sounds ripped from Indiana Jones (seriously)
  • Some dialogue is a little too cheesy
More
We gave it:
9.0
OUT OF 10
Latest Comments
E.T.
Posted 02:24pm 16/3/10
Multiplayer. In this department Battlefield: Bad Company 2 delivers intensity in spades with excellent game modes, a solid destruction model, dedicated servers and a tight engine.


If you can get the f*****g thing to login and let you play. Oh and if you can get the game browser to find Australian servers, your doing better than me. I only see about 8 of them and Im sure there are a lot more, wish I could find them.

9/10 is way too high for a game that has caused a lot of angst for the those who have purchased it. Sure, the gameplay is pretty fun, its not 9/10 fun though (if you get to play at all)

Anyone know how to get a joystick to work properly with this thing? Didnt BF2 have rudder control of flight mode!?

last edited by E.T. at 14:24:20 16/Mar/10
rec
Posted 02:45pm 16/3/10
Proper joystick support coming. PS. the engine is not tight - it's still flaky and frustrating. Just not as much as previous DICE titles.

As for connection frustration: http://www.cafepress.com.au/GUarmory.436456080
Eorl
Posted 02:53pm 16/3/10
E.T, I found a great way to get around the buggy server list. WHen its searching for games, cancel it and then filter everything but punkbuster, and let it sit for 30 seconds max. Should pop up with crap load of games and then you can just sort by ping.

If that doesn't get ya anything, just search GameArena or Hypernia, theres at least 9 servers for each of them, and majority are HC
Methz
Posted 03:15pm 16/3/10
I found the SP much more open ended than mw2 (obviously) and as a result the game felt much more "mine" than mw2 did. It always just seemed I was along for the ride,unable to add my own flair the the campaign.
Steve Farrelly
Posted 03:17pm 16/3/10
EA and DICE are working on fixing the issues - you can find out heaps more here
iJebus
Posted 03:25pm 16/3/10
I'm with E.T. on this one, I feel like the review is way too lenient. Given that the game was pretty much broken for a lot of people on release (still ongoing, for some), to comment merely that the server browser is 'lacking' seems somewhat of an understatement.

For myself, I'd probably have used the word 'down-right broken' for the server browser and 'dodgy at best' for the EA login servers. The login servers part I feel could be more related to my current situation (living in China), so I wouldn't put too much weight on my specific complaint there - that said, it seems to be a large issue for a lot of people still. You only need to read the BFBC2 twitter to see the number of times the XBOX360 servers have been down for apparent patching, only to be followed by another post 'so, apparently it's still broken for a lot of you.'

Amusingly, I actually quite the musical score in this game. If you're not into orchestral then I guess you're crap out of luck, and I suppose it's vaguely disingenuous of them when they used decidedly rock music to advertise the game (what was it, the vines? I forget).

Oh, my final issue - 8 hour singleplayer? Seriously? I dunno, I just played through on medium, which took approximately 5-6 hours. This on my s***** Dell XPS m1530 thats about 2-3 years old - I frequently ended up dieing while in the throes of heavy chug :\ That and/or I just suck.
Steve Farrelly
Posted 03:30pm 16/3/10
I played through on hardcore, but that's just a ballpark time to cater for varying types of players, and while I agree with everyone's gripes, they're not unable to be fixed - if they were permanent issues unable to be broached, it would change my attitude a lot, but we're being promised a fix in all the areas of issue, and the times I've been in a good game I've had a blast, and given most of the issues stemmed from EA and DICE not expecting to move as many PC versions of the game as they have, I highly believe they'll iron it out and the game will be enjoyable for everyone (finger's crossed)
trog
Posted 03:37pm 16/3/10
This is a tough question to ask from a review perspective. I can appreciate Steve's perspective that, when you actually get to the play the game, it's awesome fun and everyone has a good time. However, there's clearly the other side of things - that it's SUCH a f*****g pain in the ass to get into a game that it really ruins the experience.

I went through the same thing with Left 4 Dead and it's lobby system. While it wasn't actually broken (usually) per se, I just found it such a pain to use to get into a game with friends that I often felt I was spending more time f*****g around than I was actually playing the game. I know logically that I spent a lot of time actually playing and having a totally awesome zombie-killing time, but probably my most vivid memory are all the times that I just couldn't play because of these stupid reasons beyond my control.

In this case I think Steve's score is based more on the potential of the game to be awesome when the stars align just right and on the basis that Dice are working their asses off to fix these problems.

I, personally, have a rule about not buying EA games in the first couple of weeks of its release. Because I know from bitter experience how it works - EA ship to a timeline, not "when it's ready". I feel like all hardcore gamers should know this by now and while it s**** me to tears that EA still do this, I understand their reasons - its more important for them to have the game out than it is for it to be perfect, and most of the time they can fix critical issues in a few days or weeks anyway.
Viper
Posted 03:39pm 16/3/10
I agree with a 9/10 the single player certainly did feel lacking and a bit repetitive and definitely very predictable.

The multiplayer is actually really good, and as mentioned its not about a 1 person running around owning up the server, you really do have to work as a team and its one of the most satisfying feelings when your whole team works perfectly together and you just rape a bunch of nubs and their whole team is accusing your whole team of hacking, many lols to be had.

With regards to finding Aussie servers basically I just hung out on game arena for awhile but once they started getting full I found the best way to find Aussie servers is just sort by alphabetical order and then go to the bottom of A and just look for games with Aussie or AU in them, been working for me just about every time now.
Methz
Posted 03:57pm 16/3/10
Yeah that's what I've been doing and has worked a treat. My favourites list is steadily filling up too so soon ther'ell be no need for the SUPER refresh you have to sit thru.
Douche
Posted 04:49pm 16/3/10
i got favorites friends and history all working fine. takes about 30sec to load up and start playing in a server...
Calsy
Posted 04:50pm 16/3/10
I think there is way to much whinging and b****ing going on. Yeah the server browsing was s***** on release but its par for the course these days with most new releases. Give it a month and all these issues will be ironed out and you be able to enjoy a very good game here.

I mean theres been months of no dedicated server bashing since the MW2 saga and now you finally get it and you still want to rip it for some cheap issues that will be sorted soon.
Douche
Posted 04:54pm 16/3/10
couldnt agree more dell should ship stackhats wth their pc's
RockitMan
Posted 04:55pm 16/3/10
Still waiting on delivery from cdwow. Worst QGL advice evar.
Khel
Posted 05:04pm 16/3/10
I think there is way to much whinging and b****ing going on.


People are paying money for an unfinished, at times flat out broken game; I think they're well within their rights to whinge and b****.

It did seem like a fun game from the beta, much, much better than I was expecting it to be. Didn't bother buying it myself though, theres just too much other stuff to play atm and not enough time to play it all. Maybe when things quieten down, or when Steam does a 50% off deal on it, I'll pick it up then (and all the bugs and broken-ness will hopefully be ironed out by then too).
Calsy
Posted 05:19pm 16/3/10
Just because they picked it up first day, tried to play multiplayer like a billion other people that day and it didnt work they want to run around crying.

Your buying software, not a table for your living room. Its an ever evolving beast.

For a bunch of supposed 'elite PC gamers' you keep forgetting this simple fact again and again especially with multiplayer. Its been this way with games for decades. It aint nothing new.
Methz
Posted 05:39pm 16/3/10
erm. I might have a slightly jaded memory but I'm sure I didn't have said issues with many past games such as q3,TF1 & 2,CS,HL,UT etc etc.
s*** and thats just the FPS games I can think of.
also this is almost a good month after release. far from the first day champ.
Dazhel
Posted 05:45pm 16/3/10
What's wrong with expecting a game to work from day one? If it's not ready then it shouldn't be released!
If the games are flat out broken developers and publishers are f*****g over exactly the kind of customers that you want to keep - the ones wanting to get in first and pay top dollar.
Waiting for that third patch and a $30 price drop gets more and more attractive each year.

Sure, there's always going to be issues at release time, but now more than ever it seems that gamers (console and PC alike) are getting alternately shafted or nickel and dimed to death.
trog
Posted 05:48pm 16/3/10
What's wrong with expecting a game to work from day one? If it's not ready then it shouldn't be released!
I agree - but PC gamers (EA gamers especially) have had years of experience to know what it's often like buying a game on day 1. While we certainly should expect games to work out of the box, we've collectively had years of experience that tell us that often they don't work.

I think the best thing for people to do now is either return the game (if possible) or simply shelve it for a week or two until the next major update.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 05:58pm 16/3/10
I think the Score should reflect the game AS IS.

When the game reaches its potential or whatever, then amend the score to reflect it.
Don't give a score for something that hasn't happened yet, it may not happen.

From what I hear 9/10 is not worth the score for this game in its current state. Generous scores like these make me less confident to trust in Steve's scores and in Ausgamers overall.
Dazhel
Posted 05:59pm 16/3/10
No disagreement trog, experience suggests waiting.
I wholeheartedly support the idea of whinging and b****ing when a game is broken though, because you haven't got what you paid for and it encourages timely patches. Accepting it as 'par for the course these days with most new releases' as Calsy said lets folks in the wrong off the hook.
Hogfather
Posted 06:06pm 16/3/10
I think the Score should reflect the game AS IS
Midda
Posted 06:11pm 16/3/10
Just because they picked it up first day, tried to play multiplayer like a billion other people that day and it didnt work they want to run around crying.

Well pretty much every other PC game I've purchased has played just fine online on day one. If they have the brains to release a dedicated server, then there shouldn't be an issue. DICE and EA totally went balls up with the launch, and even now, it's hard to find servers. I don't know about you, but I expect to get what I paid for.
E.T.
Posted 06:22pm 16/3/10
In this case I think Steve's score is based more on the potential of the game


Trog. I review should be on "what has been delivered" not the potential. Otherwise, its pure speculation. People make purchased based on reviews and we will NEVER see game companies deliver good quality off the bat with s*** reviews like this singing their praises when they HAVE NOT YET DELIVERED the correctly working product.

Steve, review what has been delivered FFS. Help the gaming community, not the $$$ hungry multinational game companies happy to deliver faulty products. F*** me, please have some balls and give what has been delivered a 7 or remove your review until such a time that a patch has been released and lets see what it actually delivers.

/rant, for now.

last edited by E.T. at 18:22:08 16/Mar/10
Calsy
Posted 06:20pm 16/3/10
month after release??? its been 2 weeks tops since the game came out.

Yes and q3,TF1 & 2,CS,HL,UT etc etc. were all completely flawless straight out of the box, damn none of them ever needed a patch and they worked fine on everybodies PC a week after release. I have never had to bust my arse trying to get those games working for multiplayer.

I dont know this must be some crazy lalla land seriously. ITS BEEN 2 WEEKS SINCE RELEASE.

Ill just feel sorry for you when people are still playing this game couple of years from now and your response to not playing it will be 'ohh didnt work in the first week it came out so I shelved it'.

That aint PC.
d^
Posted 06:24pm 16/3/10
Am I correct in saying the first was not on PC?
Calsy
Posted 06:46pm 16/3/10
Speculation??? the multiplayer is there its not missing.

Do you know how reviews work ET? I mean here you have a game that will be played for the couple of years from now and you have a week to make a judgement call.

You cant hold off on the review, you have deadlines to meet much like the people who made the game in the first place.

I for one whole heartedly agree with the review and think people will be well worth investing the $89 for the months of multiplayer action they will receive.

If you cant see the potential, then why did you even buy the game?
trog
Posted 06:55pm 16/3/10
ET, I see your point completely. I personally would have scored it much lower for the reasons you defined. I have talked to Steve about this extensively because I want to be sure we're scoring games appropriately - I believe games should be scored on the out-of-the-box basis that you've described, generally.

At the end of the day though, Steve didn't experience any crippling problems when playing the game. Many users haven't either - if you're a casual gamer that doesn't give a crap about renting servers, playing on specific servers with friends, etc, it's possible you can just fire up the game, play, have a great time, and then call it a day.

To mitigate this problem somewhat though we're in the process of revamping our review process to try to make sure 'genre specialists' are the ones that are reviewing each game. For example, I know that our score for this review doesn't have a lot of value to me, because I'm thoroughly aware of the problems on the game back-end that would seriously impact me (as a hardcore FPS gamer). I want to know that when I read a review, it's written by someone who is obsessive about s*** like that as I am.

At the end of the day though - if a game comes out and is really freakin' awesome fun to play, even if there are a few obstacles to playing, we're more likely to score it high.

The other problem ET though is that it sounds like you just went out and bought the game immediately anyway without waiting to read our review! I'm not sure if you did that on the basis of the beta or other reviews or what, so it probably wouldn't have made any difference what we said.

This is my big goal for our reviews - to distill down all the reams of description, screenshots, videos, thoughts, and ideas that come out as a result of the review process into either one of two bits of information: buy the game, or don't buy the game. Because at the end of the day, I feel that this is the only reason to read reviews. Our BC2 review clearly says "buy the game", and - while it might not be perfect right now - I'm pretty confident in thinking it is a game that most hardcore PC gamers are going to want to own.

Compromise? If they haven't fixed the game in a couple weeks I swear before Zeus and Bacchus that we will revise our review.
Methz
Posted 07:01pm 16/3/10
2 weeks/4 it's f*****g irrelevant.
the core multiplayer mechanics should work OUT OF THE BOX
they didn't, did they?
and before you start with the "gee too bad for you when its patched" s***, I play this game and love it. I just hate its s***** server browser and connection issues, wich, once again should worked out of the box. Didn't have to be awesome,just had to have it working.
Viper
Posted 07:00pm 16/3/10
Yea, I rage up at this game every time I play it for its faults, but it's still worthy of a 9.0 in my books, I as most people expected it to be a little buggy, ok maybe a little less buggy but still I know that they are actively working on patches as quick as they can. The overall gameplay is still fun as long as your not getting spawn sniped.
Khel
Posted 07:02pm 16/3/10
Calsy, your fanboy logic hurts my head. I was going to try and post a reply here, but every time I try and make sense of your argument my brain goes into meltdown. I think you're trying to say its ok (or in fact, good) for PC game developers to ship broken games, and that we should all be thankful for it and happily pay $90 for it based on some speculative, fantasy idea that "Oh, but one day it'll be awesome!" And apparently complaining about any of this is tantamount to declaring your hatred for PC gaming in general?

Yep, there it goes, brain meltdown.
trog
Posted 07:06pm 16/3/10
I just hate its s***** server browser and connection issues, wich, once again should worked out of the box.
A lot of this stuff was exposed in the beta though. If you're paying attention to back-end details (which unless you're me and a handful of other really hardcore nerds with too much spare time to think about things like this instead of just shutting up and playing games), then you would have noticed that it doesn't have any good mechanisms for joining servers from outside of the game (means no good support for things like ServerQuery/The Arena/Xfire etc).

There's lots of little things that they could have done that, I feel, would have completely and utterly mitigated the problem. I'm reading the BC2 server mailing list so I know what is going on and why its broken, and (I can't talk about details because of non-disclosure agreements) I think their problems would have been pretty embarrassingly trivial to solve if they'd followed a few of the lessons of some FPS forefathers.
trog
Posted 07:10pm 16/3/10
I think you're trying to say its ok (or in fact, good) for PC game developers to ship broken games, and that we should all be thankful for it and happily pay $90 for it based on some speculative, fantasy idea that "Oh, but one day it'll be awesome!"
But THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE DOES!

I have been whining about it for years and trying to tell gamers to be more discriminating!@# But for better or worse, when people buy a game and it sucks at the start but then it gets awesome, people forget what it was like at the start. And when it comes time to buy a new game, all they think is "oh yeh, that game was awesome".
Vash
Posted 07:24pm 16/3/10
Holy s*** i just got this game today, yep, agreed on the server browser front. F*****g woeful.
How do i play? I cant even add Gamearena servers to my favorites, it just sits there "waiting for data"
and refreshing the whole list takes forever. i cant even refresh an individual server.
I cant believe its been released in this form.

Can servers be refreshed outside the game and connected externally ?
HurricaneJim
Posted 07:29pm 16/3/10
I will disagree with most of the people in this thread. I'd rate the game higher despite the browser issue, I expected it and just worked around like any competent PC user. I've resolved the issue with joystick via the BC2 forum users work around and flown with both good pilots and gunners.

Multiplayer is where all Dice games shine and BC2 is no different. Whilst my own opinion could be discounted my 17yo stepson played over the weekend and said it was "awesome" (about a 9.5 in his rating), he even mentioned some "classical" moments in the game that I've experienced myself. I think that these "classical" moments is what adds to the game, all relate to some form of pure dominance by you and your squad.

To that extent if your problem is browser/master server related, which does require fixing, what have you got to whine about when it is fixed?
Steve Farrelly
Posted 07:31pm 16/3/10
wow, look I'm a hardcore FPS fan, I play all my games on the hardest setting and can hold my own in most multiplayer scenarios, it's not that I'm not an expert on shooters, in fact it's one of my most loved styles of game to play. But I reviewed the game on its gameplay merits, of which it has the goods. I barely had any issues playing online multiplayer here, but that's not ignored in my review. The score I gave the game is reflective of gameplay, I agree out of the box it's not a whole game, that's not an argument here, and anyone who actually read the review, will see that I've covered all of the server issues and even pointed people in the direction of any answers they might be seeking as to "why" or "how long", to ensure every aspect of the game is broached in writing. A score is only one part of a review, the other part is the body, and I stand by all the stuff I wrote in the body. I don't agree with scoring it 6 now and then 9 later when all the issues are ironed out - that's just retarded.

At the end of the day there are massive teething problems here, and much of that is due to the overwhelming success of the game on the PC platform, EA were not expecting it to pack a retail punch like this, which means they've had to review their process and attend to fixing it immediately. While the early days are not good as a result, the latter days will likely be even more solid as a result.

I'm not here to review EA or DICE, I'm here to review Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which I did.

On another note, being a games journalist means I don't always have the time to invest entire weekends or evenings on a single game or its multiplayer, because we're always working on something else, this comes through in my, and everyone else's reviews in the industry. I've scoured, and some of the more respected sites I peruse agree with every facet of what I've said and I feel validated that a lot of other players in this thread have had more good games than bad and agree with the body of my review /rant
Calsy
Posted 07:40pm 16/3/10
Fanboy??? Maybe I should be the eternal pessimist who thinks of only the worst and that the game will never get better and that its a 'fantasy' to think they might fix some connection issues, yes Khel that sounds good an all but ill leave that you.
glynd
Posted 07:52pm 16/3/10
I think you're trying to say its ok (or in fact, good) for PC game developers to ship broken games, and that we should all be thankful for it and happily pay $90 for it based on some speculative, fantasy idea that "Oh, but one day it'll be awesome!"
But THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE DOES!

I have been whining about it for years and trying to tell gamers to be more discriminating!@# But for better or worse, when people buy a game and it sucks at the start but then it gets awesome, people forget what it was like at the start. And when it comes time to buy a new game, all they think is "oh yeh, that game was awesome".


!!!!
E.T.
Posted 10:00pm 16/3/10
At the end of the day there are massive teething problems here


And the problem here is that we could see on the EA web site:
"Ausgamers 9/10!" and ignore the rest of the concerns raised throughout the BFBC2 thread here. If you want to rate the gameplay 9/10, then fine do that, but make that part of your review and not the some total of your summary score. Ie, gameplay 9/10, interface functionality 6/10, overall ?? if you want to be taken seriously Steve, you'll give this some thought without being defensive about it. The argument you have put forward would see Silent Hunter 5 rated perhaps around 8/10 and a lot of people just like me cant even get passed the stuffed DRM to play online. The "game" is a package of the entire product, not just gameplay.

Trog, thanks for your feedback man, appreciated.
Re the review and me purchasing on the basis of it, give me some credit :p I'm happy to make my own decisions, good or bad. My point was that a lot of folks out on the interweb may very well read this review, see the big "9/10" and purchase without reading a lot more into it. Hold the buggers accountable. We want quality delivered from new products FFS. Patches used to indicate extensions to gameplay, not fixes for what should have been delivered in the first place.
Viper
Posted 10:56pm 16/3/10
I'm going to give my props to Steve for coming here and defending his review, it's nice to see that happen.

I agree with you changing a review at a later date is retarded, and it is definitely deserving of a 9/10 despite its problems.

I'm not saying I agree with devs releasing a game that is full of bugs nor am I saying that I agree with releasing a beta and fixing almost 0 of the bugs that came up in that.

A review should stay the same though and to do that you should take into account every aspect of the game which does include how it will play after bug fixes.

E.T.

So what if the 9/10 shows up on the EA website, the more people that buy this game the better way I see it, I could do with some more nubs to pwn.
It is an awesome game and personally I think you are blowing some of the problems a bit out of proportion.
The game still works and there is nothing really game breaking, and its still fun which is the most important thing.
I'm not saying don't hassle the devs to fix the problems but at least do it somewhere where they are going to read it like the EA BC2 pc forum.
ctd
Posted 11:01pm 16/3/10
It would be a shame that a good game would get a 5 or 6 because of a few weeks at release but company's shouldn't get the kudos for a s*** heap at release.

L4D2 got the same treatment from Aussie reviewers even though it was an awesome game and quite a quick and easy process to avoid the censored version.
Calsy
Posted 11:05pm 16/3/10
BTW, whats the problem?? The majority of people dont have issues with multiplayer. Steve said himself that he had no issues getting into games and whatever issues are currently being reported presently are being delt with by the DICE team.

Whats the problem here, that it doesnt work for you? should he knock down the score for your sake?

'Take that you heartless multinational corporation, strike one for the little guy, even though i like the game i dont care'.

Ohh btw, you should check out a site called metacritic.com man it will blow your mind. You got plenty of complaining to do though cause not a lot of people actually agree with you.
Pinky
Posted 11:07pm 16/3/10
I have two friends playing regularly, both say the game is very buggy and have had problems with it.
Calsy
Posted 11:31pm 16/3/10
I mean E.T. have you ever read a review in your life??

interface functionality??? that is not a sub group.

It just s**** me when people try to have an opinion on something they have no idea about.
Dazhel
Posted 11:36pm 16/3/10
interface functionality??? that is not a sub group.


Unscannable!!!

seriously, wtf? plenty of reviews split their scores out to reflect where a game performs badly. i.e. the single player experience may get 9/10 whereas the multiplayer may get 5/10
Psycho!
Posted 12:21am 17/3/10
hey pricks...! :)

my kids love this...after two (count em) two f**** years on a s***** wireless connection in our new home Smelstra finally have set me up with an adsl2+ port at last!!

Adam, my eldest is pretty bloody awesome in this game let me tell yas. he plays often as 'somedudewithguns"..i keep telling him to play on GA servers but like other he can't seem to find that many.

might even get 'into' this and show him some old school, quake style fraggin!

:)
Dazhel
Posted 01:34am 17/3/10
omg it's a semi annual post by Psycho!

I feel your pain - dial-up from Jan 2004 through to Jul 2007. It sucks hard!
DEVDOGG
Posted 07:30am 17/3/10
THIS GAME HAS NO LAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when i buy a game that is meant to have such good multiplayer capabilities (as to be expected from any battlefield game) i also expect all of my friends and myslef to be able to get together and LAN!

sorry but, if i were to meet the game devs, i would be saying awesome job, but im not buying cuz it has no LAN.

and they keep saying that they may include LAN into a later release, but thats just not good enough for me.
trog
Posted 10:35am 17/3/10
LAN is dead :( It's pretty sad. But I don't think it's coming back any time soon.
Douche
Posted 10:35am 17/3/10
this game kicks the s*** out of mw2
Martz
Posted 11:01am 17/3/10
your loss..

when I'm at a lan with m8's, we all jump into a pub server anyway.. or setup our PC's, don't play at all and have a major piss up party..
DEVDOGG
Posted 01:47pm 17/3/10
i dont think lan is dead, we have at least one lan party a month... and we would just jump onto a public server but then we get retarded 12 year olds from the states calling us noobs and saying that we hack just cuz they r loosing. plus most of the time we the only place we can setup doesnt have an internet conection. but really what is better than being able to lean over a table and yell "HEAD SHOT" at a real person! rather than typing it.
weedy
Posted 09:07pm 17/3/10
I think the PS3 version of this is a 9/10 i think the PC version is a shoddy 6/10 and i got both.

Whilst the writer can say his setup runs it fine theres a lot of people out there that cant and im one of them with:

E6750 C2D OC @ 3.0Ghz
1GB GTX285
4GB DDR2 800

I found the PC version to run terribly slow 25 fps on most maps even on low, no aa or af, and res of 1024x768 improves nothing (my rig kills all other games).

The server browser is useless and looked as if it was hacked up in the week before release (favs dont work, theres no refresh or auto-join), i could never even join a game at all in fact i couldnt play multiplayer for the first 3 days at all. Plus i seem to get no hit registration like the auto server join is putting me on a server in china.

PS3 version, looks fanbloodytastic, plays fanbloodytastic, join almost every single time, great hit registration every time. I love this game on PS3.

Lets not sugar coat this game, this is a console game ported to PC, which is a real shame but its the truth...
Khel
Posted 09:19pm 17/3/10
It just s**** me when people try to have an opinion on something they have no idea about.


This just had to be quoted, for irony's sake.
athzhr
Posted 10:14pm 17/3/10
I think if half you f*****s had been receiving the "Failed to connect to EA online" message for 2+ weeks, you definitely wouldn't be saying how f*****g glorious this game is.

I am yet to see a single server in my browser, and EA is doing f*** all about it. I have e-mailed them with all the solutions I have tried, and they told me to TRY IT ALL AGAIN. ARE YOU F*****G S***TING ME?










F***
Douche
Posted 08:28am 18/3/10
like i said, game works perfectly for me and plenty of others. maybe its time to upgrade or maybe your a giant nub
Keato
Posted 09:48am 18/3/10
ET
* N U K E D *
Reason: Abusive


OWNED !!!!!
Ez2SQz
Posted 06:59pm 30/3/10
if your looking for aussie servers
Type in "GameArena" (exactly like its spelt) into search term
Many aussie servers put that into the name even if they arent GA servers

i dont even bother with the favourites list anymore (because it only updates 5 at time anyway!)
trog
Posted 07:02pm 30/3/10
Many aussie servers put that into the name even if they arent GA servers
only until we catch them and tell them to stop being a jerk!
iFraktuRe
Posted 07:27pm 30/3/10
But trog, they say Not GameArena! :P
Tiny
Posted 07:31pm 30/3/10
The initial online experience seems to be split. I have had pretty much no issues apart from the odd CTD which is understandable giving buggy software.

A lot of you just sound like a bunch of winging newbs. Just use a bit of tech savvyness and get it to return some results. I agree its buggy but in no way in my opinion should that have stopped the release.

You forget games developers work for a business, a business that wants to make M O N E Y. Yes, that's right money.
iWhoop
Posted 07:48pm 30/3/10
Multiplayer. In this department Battlefield: Bad Company 2 delivers intensity in spades with excellent game modes, a solid destruction model, dedicated servers and a tight engine.

Do any servers anywhere give a ping of less than 200? I've not seen anyone with a ping of less than 150-200 even on servers claiming to be hosted on gamearena and even servers claiming to BE game arena servers (I'm with telstra big pond). The server browser will say the ping is about 16, then when I get in game it's more like 160 and to be honest I'm noticing about the same amount of lag in this game from when I pull the trigger to when bullets hit/people die as I do in MW2 so it's really quite sad coming from a dedicated server.

edit:
E6750 C2D OC @ 3.0Ghz
1GB GTX285
4GB DDR2 800

Something is wrong with your PC then because you've got pretty much the same specs as me and I can run it everything on high @ 1920 x 1200 although I turn all the AA and AF down to 1x because seriously who needs AA at that res?

I've got:
E6850 @ 3.3Ghz
GTX285 1Gb
4Gb of geil s*** running at who knows what but CPUz says it's running at 372mhz.

I'm also using 32bit windows because I'm too lazy to migrate to 64bit to take full advantage of all my memory.

Fraps says I get about 62fps whenever I look at it but I tend not to care to look while I'm being shot at or in a firefight but I don't notice any slowdowns most of the time.
You forget games developers work for a business, a business that wants to make M O N E Y. Yes, that's right money.

I remember a time when buggy hardware/software meant customers would stay away from that product for quite some time, seems these days nerdy gamers need their games so badly they're willing to put up with buggy s*** time and time again so long as it gets patched "eventually".

last edited by iWhoop at 19:48:36 30/Mar/10
E.T.
Posted 02:02pm 31/3/10
i dont even bother with the favourites list anymore (because it only updates 5 at time anyway!)


What's with this? Is it a bug with the favorites?
ocarinaboy
Posted 12:34pm 22/5/10
It's easy to find aus servers in bbc2. Just click on server browser, click on the Oceania tab and click search. Hundreds of aus servers should pop up. Works for me. By the way, your internet speed needs to be above 1 Mbit/s to play online.
Spook
Posted 12:45pm 22/5/10
By the way, your internet speed needs to be above 1 Mbit/s to play online.


i think you will find that is the wrongest thing said anywhere on the internets today
Tollaz0r!
Posted 06:39pm 22/5/10
iWhoop, the ingame latency reading is not the same as a server ping. a 100-200 ingame reading is normal.

I get pings of 32 in the server browser, which is about right for most servers that I play on for steam games.

There are various settings.ini (or whatever) tweaks that you can use to make the game feel better, a particular one is renderahead (set it to 1 or 0) and something else that you set to your ping. Google it.
iWhoop
Posted 06:52pm 22/5/10
duuuuuuude, I posted that like, 2 months ago. Thread necromancy FTL.

p.s. pings in the browser for GA servers is around 15 :)
Tollaz0r!
Posted 07:43pm 22/5/10
Blame the other guy.
MatchFixah
Posted 07:47pm 22/5/10
I forgot what i posted that caused it to be nooked.

Now i'm curious about what i said in my own post.

:/
koopz
Posted 08:15pm 22/5/10
LAN is dead :( It's pretty sad. But I don't think it's coming back any time soon.


we've all known for some time that you haven't the time for lanning Dave. still the Qgl crew set an example that many have followed in the hope they they measure up to your standards.

no one in the AG crowd who work for a living talk about their love of gaming. why is that? and who who is this Steve F dude?

Jim pops up occasionally - though I think he has Daddy issues :/
Commenting has been locked for this item.
72 Comments
Show