Bad company looks pant compared to PC

dav nagle

Ok so this is how I see it and yes please post your own opinions:

1.BF2 is and so far remains the best FPS multiplayer on the PC to date.

2. BF Bad company (X-BOX 360) is 16 players online which is Boll^x.

3. BF 2142 was a mediocre rushed effort.

---

So I played battlefield for around two years and you can check my soldier name 'damhan' for proof. I want BF3 and I am going to buy a new PC for the at game alone for 1000 euro.

Here are a two questions I would like to ask humanity.

1. Why is the console versions of the BF series co$k?

2. Why 16 players when Frontlines is 50?

TheDoc

id strongly argue that bf2 is the best shooter on pc, cod4 whipes it up imo

it was good in its time...for like a month

was too easy imo, and although the commander and leadership thing was a good idea, never implemented properly.

dav nagle

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote: »

id strongly argue that bf2 is the best shooter on pc, cod4 whipes it up imo

it was good in its time...for like a month

was too easy imo, and although the commander and leadership thing was a good idea, never implemented properly.

Have COD 4 on the 360 and yes it is a brilliant game but maps being too small is where I would draw the line. They implemented the game-play perfectly nonetheless. What I want is COD 4 graphics and gameplay with BF2 maps and vehicles!

TheDoc

dont think a machine could handle it, let alone a server

could you imagine a 64 man game rendering those graphics, sounds too much to me

then again ive been out of the pc loop for some time, damn xbox

dav nagle

Operation flash-point 2 looks like the dogs bollo%.. 10000's of square kilometers of terrain and many vehicles, no squads just (BATTALIONS)! Yes thats right small armies!!!

Spear

dav nagle wrote: »

Operation flash-point 2 looks like the dogs bollo%.. 10000's of square kilometers of terrain and many vehicles, no squads just (BATTALIONS)! Yes thats right small armies!!!

But it's Flashpoint 2 in name only, there's no connection or relation to the previous game.

dav nagle

Spear wrote: »

But it's Flashpoint 2 in name only, there's no connection or relation to the previous game.

Yes but we can expect it to be very close to the original.

projectmayhem

Spear wrote: »

But it's Flashpoint 2 in name only, there's no connection or relation to the previous game.

at least it's still codemasters though. the original devs had their chance with ArmA... but instead chose to screw that up with a hole slew of bugs. if you can get over that, it is a solid title. it would be fun if it worked

dav nagle

I agree I bought ArmA and just felt it was unplayable its a shame because it looks like it could have been amazing..

Genghiz Cohen

I like 2142 better then BF2.

You really have to wait and see why they limited the Bad Company multiplayer the way they did. If demand is high enough after release, I'm sure a patch will arrive and fix all our woes.

dav nagle

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I like 2142 better then BF2.

You really have to wait and see why they limited the Bad Company multiplayer the way they did. If demand is high enough after release, I'm sure a patch will arrive and fix all our woes.

I know myself and many others are starting to realize the the 360 is not a p.c. in a console box. The sad reality is that they make games that are not vast enough or long enough for that matter. The idea that a patch will sort things out is misleading, it gives the game makers the excuse that everything will be patched up. If I cut my arm with a razor I need a patch ? But the cut is still there and I have already lost blood! The point I am getting at is that for some reason the 360 cannot seem to cope with large scale online warfare. Sad, because x box live functionality is better than p.c. for squad chat.

Cuddlesworth

Reasons why most games will never have high numbers on 360

*Games are hosted on a single machine. So no dedicated server.
*Games are hosted on a single machine. So no dedicated bandwidth.

dav nagle

I am utterly disgusted in this 16 player lazy attempt of a Battlefield game. This game personifies what gamers truly do not want. We want 32 minimum players online. We want serious warfare no gimmicky jokes. We want some blood and unnecessary violence. We want massive maps sprawling with enemies and a magnitude of vehicles. We want island maps both land and sea. No tiny maps. We want killer vehicles and realistic weapon recoil and scope vision. We want 'Battlefield' not 'Bad Company'. I really am so disappointed. Who cares if you can blow up trees ? It is a gimmick.

balkieb2002

Was playing the beta last night on the 360 and I have to say you really dont know what your talking about unless you have tried the game.

I've played all previous incarnations of battlefield games and was in clans for most of them so I have spent my time playing them.

I'll try talk about the game below without breaching that NDA malarky.

The server I was playing on had 24 players playing (with zero lag from what I saw) and felt like they could handle more and though the maps felt like they were huge the gametype meant that the action was focused on key points the whole time.

The squad dynamic of the game is also equally well done as your automatically assigned a squad which make for quick action spawning and actual team based workings!

The graphics were beautiful (for a console game anyway) and level design was very well done. As for the interactive (read: destructable) environments they actually provided what I felt was the best war expierience I have played for quite a while. You can hear explosions going off everywhere thanks to very good sound effects (though there are some annoying voice effects).
Theres nothing like quite like seeing a sniper hiding away in a hard to get room and using a tank to blow the way away the wall (or the house!!) letting your team take him down.

Overall first impressions are very good though will try it for another few hours tonight and see if same expierence is found.

CyberGhost

BF2 is epic, it's going to be very hard to beat it, I got bored of CoD4 in a week, BF2 you can just play and play and everytime it's something new and different.

dav nagle

balkieb2002 wrote: »

Was playing the beta last night on the 360 and I have to say you really dont know what your talking about unless you have tried the game.

1. My friends played the Beta last night and said it was awesome.

2. I know what I am talking about thank-you very much. You are misunderstanding the level of war that I am seeking. I am not going to repeat myself. Will I buy 'Bad Company'? Yes because it will be very cool. Is it up to the level of Battlefield 2 on the PC? I doubt it.

64 players pc compared to 24 360?
jets pc 360 no jets
Commanders?

Thanks to people like yourself who except watered down linear Battlefield on the 360 we will not be playing a good battlefield game on the 360 ever. So I will see you on the battlefield with my army of 12 men!

---

''BF2 is epic, it's going to be very hard to beat it, I got bored of CoD4 in a week, BF2 you can just play and play and every-time it's something new and different.''

I agree 100% , COD 4 is boring after a few months and the maps and lack of vehicles allows the game-play to feel repetitive.

dav nagle

I tried the beta and was disappointed that the player could not go prone.

no prone = no purchase
Posted by: *a_geek on March 26, 2008 05:54 PDT



I LOVE the beta so far but it DOES have some issues.

1) The Vehicles...good God they're horrible. Controlling them is torturous for me. I don't know why but I feel like its impossible to get any sort of coordination or rhytm going once I'm inside. I like the option of switching seats... [+]*Full*Comment
Posted by: *ThePremierAssassin on March 26, 2008 07:46 PDT


This game will not take down COD4. At this point here are a few issues DICE has to iron out.

Bullet Damage - rediculous - get ready to use up entire clips for one kill.

Splash Damage - Grenades and Noob Tubes - you might as well not have them - I have yet to be killed... [+]*Full*Comment


Posted by: *Sparticus1965 on March 26, 2008 10:16 PDT
yeah this game needs some serious work...it looks great and i keep feelin like it should be fun...but its not...respawning takes far too long, the whole gold rush thing is gay, unlocking parts of the map is really gay, most of the vehicles are really clumbsy to control, and in fact all the controls feel clumbsy....this game could be better than cod4 if another year was put into it with perhaps some testers that will actually tell these guys that the game sucks....but we all know that this will come out in a few months and still be ultra clumbsy, still be just unfun and all the dorky fanboys are gonna buy it...which in turn will cause more companies to put out crappy games cause they think its what we like.... [-]*Minimize*Comment
Posted by: *dicksnot976 on March 26, 2008 13:09 PDT



I appreciate that you called me on my gripes. Please know that I am a ground floor gamer (day one XBox Live member and fan of DICE in general) and while I can't boast a "game in developement" attempt, nor can I say that I have been in the position of the developer.I have been an advid, dedicated and skilled gamer. My skills as a human being aren't too shabby either. I can use my cognitive and experienced mind to decern correct game play from incorrect gameplay. Amazing huh? I know that the car physics and control in Rally Sport Challenge 2 and Dirt are fantastic. The control and physics in BF2 were sufferable, fun and responsive for the most part. but the collision detection was not great. What happened to the team that tested and played that game? How can the new guys decide a Hummer goes 10 miles per hour top speed and drives like a graham cracker? I know that these guys work hard, but working hard on something that doesn't move and flow and represent a fun and rewarding experience equals no sales. They can spend 60+ hours a week working on a steaming pile and in the end, it's a steaming pile. Certain games have the magic, it is the developers responsibilty to understand what that magic is and spend the publishers money wisely to capture that magic. It is a beta, but a fundamental and automatic understanding of vehicle control should have been included as a first and foremost thought in even the earliest of builds. Just scrap them if you can't get it right. One day, the developer that understands mine and millions of other gamer's hope that vehicles will no longer be a sad "garnish" on the plates of FPS' purchasers will make them a FUN and viable asset and be on top.
Since it sounds like you are headed that direction, give me a call sometime and I will be a tester for you free of charge. <email address removed>. I look forward to your reply and do wish you good luck in your endeavours. (I changed my "fanboy" language for you, you like that?)Yes, there is some cynicism in this response but I do not wish to sound overly negative. My group and I are just surprised at how backwards "next gen" seems to be getting in their understanding of our expectations.

Jackabo

I take it that this game is sh1te then eh ? :rolleyes:

Silverfish

Jackabo wrote: »

I take it that this game is sh1te then eh ? :rolleyes:

So far it seems some people think its good, and some people think its not, and that's never happened before with any game ever.

CyberGhost

Jackabo wrote: »

I take it that this game is sh1te then eh ? :rolleyes:

BF is just not for consoles, you can adapt CoD, but BF is too big for consoles.

dav nagle

CyberGhost wrote: »

BF is just not for consoles, you can adapt CoD, but BF is too big for consoles.

Yes Battlefield is too big for consoles. 'Bad company' is going to be worth the purchase if you have a 360 but I was hoping for something bigger, better. Thanks for the reply's guys