A little while ago someone posted about a leak in information on Battlefield 3, browsing the net this morning I found Battlefield: Bad Company apparently available for 360 and PS3 it seemed this might be the console version of BF3 which suits me just fine. With awesome visuals and what looks like promising gameplay, it includes:

-Destructible Environments
-Fewer soldier classes as in BF2142
-A broad selection of modern weapons as well as a selection of futuristic concept-based ones.
-Ironsight aiming... nothing new.
-A single player mode with a story line as opposed to just fighting bots on the maps given in the game.
-Multiplayer mode supporting 24 players, meaning smaller battles on smaller maps with even vehicle distribution as to still give it the battlefield feel.

I don't know what everyone else thinks but this looks really tempting... and the graphics knocked my socks off.

As I've said before, I'd like to see a game that puts an emphasis on realism and teamwork. Super awesome visuals like those in the preview would be a nice bonus. There are too many pretty looking run and gun fps's out there these days, they're like used women trying to pretty themselves up for a f*ck.

What year is this supposed to be set in? Modern Times?

Looks contemporary/near future from the SF's toys and their SCARs and the fictional adversaries well equipped with Soviet hardware. I wouldn't say their Russian since they can't properly equip their own army any more.

Yeah it's set in the near future and the main characters are soldiers who go AWOL to find gold. Havn't heard that story before...

PS This is even further from a console equivalent of BF3 than BF2: Modern Combat was for BF2. Which is to say not at all. I've seen some other videos and I can safely say it doesn't interest me at all. Action looked boring/repetitive, the 'dark humour' they claim to of filled it with is about as dark and as humourous as something you see on cartoon network. Only good thing is destructable buildings.


You shouldn't try to apply realism or logic to a Battlefield game. They're even using XM8s for christ sake.

yes, but isn't combat in most BF games repetitive and eventually boring? I have to say, this gets me rather giddy... The storyline seems horrible, but I prefer it to the usual "campaign" of the Battlefield series. I'm not sure how team gameplay will end up, but I can safely say that generally it is the fault of the players playing the game that team tactics aren't used... not the developers, too many people want to go at it solo and a game can't stop them from doing that.

Of course, all games get boring eventually, but because there's up to 64 players all participating the variety of scenarios and weapon combinations in a standard Battlefield game is massive, and it takes a very long time to get bored compared to other games. This game though is pretty much just Modern Combat (Battlefield 2 castrated edition, 12 a team) with a visual/gameplay overhaul and added campaign. If you think teamwork is bad in a proper Battlefield game, that's an even bigger reason to stay away from this and the console crowd.

All attempts to bring Battlefield games to consoles have failed in the past, and I doubt this will be much different. Even if it does succeed, it's got nothing on a proper Battlefield game, and whenever it comes around, Battlefield 3.

on a smaller scale battle wouldn't teamwork have more to do with it than in lager scenarios? I'm going to hope that this turns out nicely, though of course I'll wait and see what others say about it before getting it to see if it's worth what it takes to get a game over here.

Usually yes. But the fact it's on a console, and therefore will be played mainly by 10 year olds and likely lack any the proper commander/squad systems, will offset that.


I forgot to mention this comment really pissed me off. Why is combining two redundant classes (for example, anti-tank and engineer) into one, a bad thing? You do know that to compensate for being less classes in BF2142, each of them gets kit customisation right? 3 different weapons (anti tank missile, anti air launcher, anti-tank rifle) and 6 pieces of equipment (vehicle radar, EMP mines, proximity seeking mines, repair tool, explosive defuser, netbat vehicle ID helmet that shares target info with squadmates), so you can still serve the pure roles of either of the two combined classes, and anything inbetween. Try actually learning the facts about BF2142's class system before you make judgements on it, it's no wonder everybody hates on the game when most of them are bellends like you who don't even know what the great points and improvements it has over BF2 are.

you have a point, I was simply relying on the philosophy that more is always better. Also, I do believe that with the recent round of consoles, gamers are now being split up much more, with the 10 year olds going for the Wii and PS3 for games like super smash bros and "Dynasty Warriors" and the like, whereas people going for a much more fast paced shooter/racing game scene focused highly on mulitplayer content go for the 360 and xbox live, I find my self hardly ever being trash talked or annoyed by other people unless they're frenchies that you hit every so often, and I can make my way through the french language so even that isn't so bad. I see team gameplay on the 360.. if enforced enough by the game... having potential.

The 360 can be good for teamwork, but like you said it needs to be enforced to the point where it'll turn off all the casual players and kids who want to do whatever the hell they want ingame, losing the developer their biggest source of income, so it's not likely to happen. Other than that it's pretty much:

Wii - Kids and extreme casual players that might as well be kids when playing them.
PS3 - Asians, fanatical fanboys clinging to what they have left of their old favourite, and people who just don't know any better and buy the best known brand.
360 - Western teenage boys who enjoy 'blowing shit up', and trying to enlarge their e-penis by competing against others like themselves, as well as gathering meaningless achievements actually designed by MS to try and make their games more addictive and extend shelf life.
PC - Where the real gamers are, where the real developers pushing things forward (albeit increasingly slowly) are, but dying out because of price.

were it not for the price and difficulty to keep up with the standards of PC gaming I would probably be more of a PC gamer, but with consoles you get what you get, graphics improve as the console gets older, there are no upgrades involved and it is much more difficult to cheat. I find myself running into a lot of college guys on my xbox, not so much little boys who like explosions, from what I can see, proper teamwork can be easily achieved if they push it enough and PROPERLY!

So true lol. And I do realize my affection for realism is pointless when applied to the Battlefield series and many other games. Its just a personal preference, thats all.

what with bullet-time and all, battlefield is much more realistic than most other games...

I don't think bad company will have any team play since it's main focus is the single play , and the story sucks too .

From what Elanzer said, they should have just named it Three Kings.

weeeeell it's a battlefield game, I can hardly imagine no multiplayer.. that's just dumb. yeah the storyline sucks but I remain optimistic. It is a long way away though... Assassin's Creed however is about 10 days till release and I'm going to be getting it about 3 days after, so... anyone else planning on getting it?

There's not many proper gameplay clips out there of it to form a definite buy/no buy opinion from, but this is the most informative thus far:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24545.html

And as you may of already figured no I personally will very likely not be getting it from what I see. It's not that it looks bad (apart from the humour, which is), it's just nothing that new or something I'd want to spend my money on when at roughly the same time period I'll have things like Empire: Total War consuming my soul instead.

well, I have to say that the gameplay video looks like a copy of CoD4 with destructible environments, which isn't all together bad, but we all know I'm not the biggest fan of CoD4, so I might be sounding like a hypocrite in my blind support of this game... still looks cool though.

I would of said it looked like a copy of BF2: Modern Combat myself, but ok.

a little too polished for BF2, but yes I see where you're coming from.

What do you mean, it's not polished at all, it's an alpha.

still looks better than BF2 ever did, sorry I was speaking of the visuals... you're right... again.

So after an hour playing the beta I've come to the same conclusion I came to on the last page - It's just Modern Combat with destructible environments (which are pretty fun, but not worth £40) and added cheesy dialogue. It also has unlocks that you have to buy over marketplace. Fuck that.

Will skip. Again.

HAH, GG EA.

that's too bad.

yea i got the MP beta for the 360 and i don't really like it either.
the engine seems to buggy and just doesn't feel that great.

Pointless bump -

Well this is going to flop. It's getting less attention with every new video.

Also, note the web address. badcompany.ea.com. Have to wonder whether they noticed that or not.

Cue violin?

i really didn't like the mp demo, played it for a few hours but
it just was not BF at all IMO. So i am not surprised it is not getting much attention.

All Battlefield console games are pants, roll on Battlefield 3.

Yeah, I've been looking at a couple of reviews and them combined with what you've been saying have made me pretty convinced against it.

bump, alright second thoughts about this one. the single player demo was
actually a bit fun, reminded me of a BF game but with elements of a COD
game. anyone else download the demo from the marketplace and try it?

Yeah, still not keen on it all though I'm afraid.

i'm just happy that they are adding conquest mode to the MP.
i'll probably end up picking this one up.

You know what is funny, is the fact that all my cod 4 buddies on xbl are like "LOL DUDE YOU HAVE TO GET BF BC THE ONLINE IS SO AWESOME I MEAN YOU CAN BLOW UP BUILDINGS AND SHIT OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG."

Sigh, general gamers suck ball sacks.

I saw a commercial for the game was was completely put off...this game fails at humor.

YOU AND WHAT ARMY?

PHAIL

indeed it does.

LOL I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A GOOD COMPANY!

It seems a couple of our lovely forum members have splurged and bought the game. What do you guys think of it?

someone else bought it other then me?!?!???

YAH! I forget who.

Zeta.

oh, and a scottish buddy of mine who I've talked about a few times before, promising his PS3 ID. He caved and got a 360 and that's one of the games he's got, he'll prolly meet some of you guys eventually.

ok, heres my thoughts after a week of playing. the single has
the great sandbox gameplay of a battlefield game and the online
is quite addictive. The single player was a tad too easy for normal
and hard doesn't even seem that hard at all( its no cod4 veteran by anymeans)
and the game seemed way too short. the humor of haggard was your
typical stereotypes of a bomb/gun loving american. the weapons and the sounds
are great, my only beef with that is that there are no actual ak-47's or any
G36C's. Oh and stat padding has found its way on the 360
people are rolling humv's on their roof and sitting there repairing it till
they have 5000 points a round but EA will be looking into that and also implamenting
the usual conquest mode soon.

Doesn't sound as bad as the people here made it out to be.

I learned the hard way, any BF on consoles sucks ass.

after playing BF MC i was done buying bf games for consoles.

that's one experience. from what I read yesterday in a couple of dutch gaming mags, and from the things my friends have told me, it's a really fun game, it's just not like all the other battlefields. it's more of an in your face "WAAAAGH ONE MAN ARMY KILL EVERYTHING NOW" type shootem up than the "team work" centered other battlefield games.

Shifty got this yesterday.