Bad Company 2: Worst launch ever?

You expect rough MMO launches - you don't expect FPS titles to follow suit. And you certainly don't expect it to uncover serious issues in modern game reviewing.

It's been two weekends now since Battlefield Bad Company 2's launch. Two weekends of endless re-installing, Punkbuster troubles, log-in issues, and flaky servers. Two weekends of seeing the little news ticker at the bottom of the game's UI telling me that 'EA is aware of the problems and working toward a fix'...

And it's not just me - these issues seem spread across the BC2 userbase, according to the game's own forums. Each fix seems to only reveal another problem over the horizon, too, and a post on EA's Battlefield blog today reveals the full breadth of the issues. Here's just a taste of the fun.

Server Browser bugged: All the following browser issues are things the team is currently working on improving.

Too slow This is caused by the current browser system. - A new system is being developed by the BFBC2 PC team to improve the server browser

Displaying inaccurate number of players connected on game servers - This is caused by the difference in server status between when the refresh was initiated and when the results display.

No ping displayed - This is caused by Windows admin privileges. To view ping in the server browser run BFBC2.exe with administrator privileges.

And that's just one issue. The blog post mentions eight issues that have needed fixing, or are being worked on. And not all of those fixes even work as planned. The Punkbuster issues actually require the old Punkbuster files to be removed by many users, before the manual update, for instance.

For a publisher like EA, and from a developer as skilled at rolling out online games as DICE, it is - frankly - a massive cock-up. These are issues that really should have been nailed before release, and combined with the game's semi-dedicated server system (only recognised and licensed server hosts can set up a game, and they have to wait for serverside updates to be delivered), it means the hosts themselves even have issues keeping up to date with the updates.

The corollary of this, for smaller countries like Australia, is that it can in turn be very hard to find a game, as most servers seem to only last a few days before disappearing. There were about twenty local servers at launch - we're now lucky to find a dozen. It's a moot point, anyway - we can't join any of them at time of writing.

All that said, it is great to see the EA blog being so open about it all, and working so hard on this. But we'd much rather a working game.

EXCLUSIVE Space Marine preview, including PC details. The complete history of Warhammer on the computer and on the tabletop. The hottest hardware, the newest games.

It's all Atomic, and it's ON SALE NOW.

Ads by Google

51 Comments

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

Bundywow Mar 16, 2010 12:37 PM	Yea, most if not all of these launch issues have been felt by many in the atomic gaming community as seen on the forums. I think it is interesting Online games of all nature MMO or games like BF:BC2 seem to have rougher launches than single player off line games. To the point that some game review sites give a 'game play impressions' article and review it later down the track. Game spot comes to mind with their MMO reviews, tho they seem not to do that any more. Should reviews just stick to reviewing strictly the in game content and how well the game palys when it is working or should they include how well the game is supported and how functional the online services after all they do greatly affect the value or 'buy ability' of the game. Personally I feel that when this game works it is one of the best on line shooters made to date and I would hate to see it marked down BUT I had to do a great deal (hours worth) of reading up and troubleshooting to get the game working someone that was non tech savi would have had bigger problems than me.. This article brings up a good point and I'm not sure I know the answer. I think this may be the problem of a arbitrary scoring system. I would change a review process to be focused on aspects of the game and give pros and cons and impressions maybe with stamps of approval for certain areas but not a score system if I managed a review site.
orcone Mar 16, 2010 2:12 PM	EA launches a game called Bad Company. I think it held up rather well to my expectations.
nesquick Mar 16, 2010 2:33 PM	its not the best of games but its fun once you get in an abrams or t90 tank.
Hawkeye Mar 16, 2010 2:48 PM	I really like it, actually. When everything works, I think it's one of the best games of its type ever made - even when you're just on foot. The problem's the woefully inadequate infrastructure.
Bundywow Mar 16, 2010 2:54 PM	Yea I agree with that sentiment, also the engine and how well the game runs is impressive given the scope of the battlefields and the amount of environmental destruction is available.
Boun Mar 16, 2010 4:02 PM	Battlefield: EA Bad Company 2
MagnumXY Mar 16, 2010 4:55 PM	This is why I wait at least 3 months before buying games.
sirtrancealot Mar 16, 2010 5:04 PM	I really rate this as a game, better than MW2 imo, but both let down by shocking server systems designed to combat piracy, but ultimately causing a crap online experience for all. ditch this matchmaking BS and go back to being able to create local LAN games, private servers and such. why? because thats what the people who are PAYING for the game want!! while it's good to review the game content i also think it's quite imperative to know if the actual coding and server functionality of games is good or rubbish. Need for speed is another example of the same thing... great game, but a total slut to get working out of the box. after a few weeks of messing with config it's stable enough if you don't touch it. have EA just got stoned monkeys writing their code for them in the last 6 months??
Jim1992 Mar 16, 2010 5:32 PM	I'd like to also point out that in singleplayer the voices in cutscenes are either extremely quiet or completely absent. DICE and EA need to get their act together and fix this game.
majestic975 Mar 16, 2010 5:53 PM	Later more rigorous reviews. It pays to wait a bit after launch and actually play the retail release and also try the online play as well. As gamers we have we have been lured way too many time into buying a game at launch only to find that its not quite 'as advertised'. Personally I wait now to see what the game is like after launch and read post launch reviews of real game play and realistic gamer experiences. I have been screwed over too many times to buy into all the pre launch hype.
philo-sofa Mar 16, 2010 5:57 PM	It's an absolutely fantastic game. The server browser sucks, but at the end of the day, that is fixable, and the game itself is fantastic. And no offence, but you are kinda 'doing it wrong' if you can't join a server folks, and whilst I can understand why you think this (the browsers shenanigans), the number of servers in Australasia has certainly not decreased!
jiayijames Mar 16, 2010 6:14 PM	I still quite like BF BC2, despite the aforementioned issues, main reason I would say is the game is very popular, especially on PC. The user review score on Metacritic is often a more accurate indication of the real world evaluation but in this BF case it's sitting at 90/9.0, which is quite impressive. I would say I prefer timely but possibly inaccurate scores as I don't just rely on one source of reviews before deciding to buy or not. Therefore reviews aggregating sites in this case are really helpful, not to mention the users can also vote on the site based on their own experience after launch. Sometimes, there will be a big difference between the critic and user scores, examples on PC include COD MW2, GTA 4, FC 2 etc, for which user score is really low, but all have official scores 85 and above.
Hawkeye Mar 16, 2010 7:35 PM	@philo-sofa: I am happy to be proved wrong - hell, I'm happy to have you come to my house and show me MY fail... but I don't buy it. That blog post I listed, which mentioned a planned patch coming down to fix what even EA admitted was an issue with joining servers... guess what, they found issues with the patch, and it's been delayed. So don't say we're doing it wrong, when even EA is saying there are serious issues. At the moment, the game is a lucky dip of FAIL. And don't push that it's the server browser, not the game. It's like saying of a shitty vehicle 'it's the engine, not the car'. I'm sorry, but for a game that is largely about online action, the server browser is PART OF THE GAME, not something separate.
philo-sofa Mar 16, 2010 9:31 PM	@ Hawkeye - thank you for replying, I've obviously ‘struck a nerve’, it honestly wasn’t my intention to anger you, so please take this as an attempt to rectify any misunderstandings (I don’t concede my post was particularly provocative however) and please understand that where I disagree with you, it’s simply on the basis of what I’ve seen and some, at least attempted, logic on my part. Please also note that I'm familiar with the patch in question, having been following it for a while on the EA.com forums. As an owner of the game I'm also quite aware that there are issues with joining servers, as you detailed above. Apologies if this is slightly tl;dr. What this does not, however mean as far as I can see, is that it's impossible, or even particularly difficult to join a server. Was I taking you too literally? Did you mean that you were unable to log on due to EA server maintenance at the time of writing? If so you were a little ambiguous but ok, if not, then I the fact remains that it... seems, you must be kind of doing it wrong (which was and is meant as a friendly interwebs way, not as a deadly insult). To suggest to people who don’t know any better that it's essentially impossible to join the game is simply inaccurate (you may have noticed a few threads about the place discussing the online game on EA and on the Atomic forums). I managed to join a game first time I tried, and the vast majority of people in the local community have no issues getting into a server, barring waiting a minute for the admittedly idiotic server browser. EA may admit there are serious issues, and I whole heartedly agree, if nothing else from having wasted so many minutes alt-tabbing whilst the server browser (excuse me, 'the game') waits to update, and having at times been reduced to shouting at the stupid frakking thing for its utterly unacceptable reduced functionality. However, it is not the whole game, which functions perfectly well for the most part. Again, it's a specific element of it that works badly. Whilst I'm sure server browsers aren't that simple, they no doubt pale in comparison to the difficulty in getting a game engine to work well, not to mention sound, artistry, weapon balance, movement and physics to work well – and I assume errors in this are a lot easier to fix – overall as far as I can see, the game itself is sound - very much so IMO and in a fair few others'. Admittedly, that one part of it, the connecting to a server is much too long winded and buggy, but to simply point at a single issue and go ‘well the whole game is fuxxored’ is strange. In the same vein, to suggest a game which the vast majority of people seem to enjoy playing, can get into fine and which became very near 100% stable a few days after launch is the 'Worst launch ever' seems so far from the mark as to be plain bizarre. I had far, far more issues playing ETW on release - such as crashes every few hours when combining fleets - this was unfortunately very common, albeit not noted in your review. There are also some pretty easy ways to speed up the connection process, such as cancelling the initial search and checking the ‘not full, ‘populated’ and ‘punkbuster’ checkboxes. In short, the browser was essentially the only thing you mentioned in the above article, which makes sense if it’s impossible to connect as that would basically ruin the entire game, however if problems to your level are uncommon (and I haven’t heard any approaching the ones you report from my local community) then it is also factually wrong, and your article is in part, in error. Whether that’s the case, I’ll leave you to work out, but bear in mind that not only have ever been unable to connect to a server, but that just connected to a server all of 60 seconds after loading the game up...
Hawkeye Mar 16, 2010 10:29 PM	It sounds like I - and the 60-odd pages of complaints on EA, and the people having issues on Atomic - have had completely different experiences of the game :) But you'll note, in terms of 'worst launch ever', it was a question, not a statement - I've even said I really like the game in commentary. And I do like the game - when it works. It just doesn't work for me, and I know I'm not alone. But you do make a good point - you had issues with Total War; I did not. But I can only ever review or comment on my experience of a game - sure, that might equate to dumb luck sometimes, but I always research that decision by checking various fora - if I'm not alone in having problems, then it falls into the review. If I am... then that's something much more difficult. But the fact remains, I cannot remember an FPS that's required so much work at launch. Also, I should point out, it's not one issue I've had, but a whole range of them - and again, that's not a solo thing. So, yeah, I have to re-iterate it (and, of course, this may change by the time deadline for my review rolls around), but I cannot recommend a game that simply may not work, or that requires obscure hints and tips to possibly make work. Not based on my experience of it. Let me ask you this, though: as a reviewer, should I ignore a bad experience, if mine is in the minority? Even if that means I am then basing an article on the experience of others that I do not know?
studor Mar 16, 2010 10:39 PM	To be honest after the appalling crash-a-thon called BF2142 I swore I would never buy another Dice game ever. Even the days of BF1942 were plagued with server issues and client crashes. My experience was shared by many other online friends who also suffered from Dice's awful lack of quality control. Sadly it seems the latest Dice game is no different.
Bundywow Mar 16, 2010 10:55 PM	@Philo Well here is what i know and can be found out on EA BF BC2 forums by anyone with an EA account. Water flickering Problems with ATI drivers and Xfire Disconnects from EA on line, unable to connect to EA on line Unable to retrieve server information: Ping, number of players etc. Unable to add to favourites or view history server list. People having rolled back stats or level progression if they disconnect at certain times Problems connecting 2 or more local users to an on line server (I suspect this is a network set up issue) Issues with valid and upto date versions of Punk Buster being identified as invalid and forcing you to reupdate before you can play on punk buster enabled servers again Are either recognised as known issues on Ea forums or reported issues with plenty of responses. --------------------------------------------- On another note I remember when I was disappointed that 2 games I loved got bad reviews, Gothic 2 and X2. Both games are amazing when patched and working bug free but out of the box they are unplayable to a large amount of users this impacted their reviews. the term I like to describe these games is "Diamond in the rough."
GhostFaceKilla Mar 16, 2010 11:10 PM	I would absolutely preferb a review that was accurate - in other words that came out a bit later but actually reflected the real world. Unfortunately this will not in the majority of cases actually happen foe various 'reasons' and 'pressures'. Lets face it a good review sells a game. Nobody wwants people to hold offf for a couple of weeks then to be told that the game is crap. personally I am extremely dissatisfied with Battlefiields BC2. I wish i could return it. It in NO way actually reflects the scores it has been getting. the fact that people can mention a significant issue in the game even in their review yet absolutely not take this into consideration is extremely missleading, unethical, and perhaps even borderline illegal (check the trade practices act and what it says about missleading and deceptive conduct and how it defines it - comments such as 'intending to inducing' should ring alarm bells in all savvy consumers). I am under no illusions that there are reviewers out there happy to take a buck for a positive review. I absolutley think that this will continue and in fact get worse. the review is an integral part now of the sales process particularly in those critical first few weeks. again I am very unhappy with BFBC2 and what appears to be wilful deception on the part of many game reviewers. On no objective criteria can this game be desrerving of the 'praise' it is 'getting'. I want objective real world reviews. and if this means they come out 2-4 weeks after the launch of the game then excellent.
GhostFaceKilla Mar 16, 2010 11:12 PM	Opps - sry about me speeling above.
RevIt Mar 16, 2010 11:14 PM	This all sux bad, but i have to say as one of the lucky communities to get a good reliable server prior to the release of the game Mature Anzac Gamers have experienced nothing but good games, with the exception of an occasional 'out of sync' prob that drops a few players out from time to time... Best way to get on the server is to type MatureAnzacGamers.com in the browser and we will show up, then spam the enter button until a map change. If that don't work xfire me on revit66 and i'll give you a little something to add to your con file ;) Either that or join our awesome community and get 'Boot Em' rights ;)
philo-sofa Mar 16, 2010 11:39 PM	*Let me ask you this, though: as a reviewer, should I ignore a bad experience, if mine is in the minority? Even if that means I am then basing an article on the experience of others that I do not know?* If the article is to be more than a summary of a subjective experience then yes, one should temper ones experience at all times with third-party information, with a view to reporting as impartially and as accurately as possible on the situation (hey, you asked so I figured give you my thinking). Absolutely you can’t ignore your own experience; however you’ve forced my hand a bit in that, in this case I do think that your perspective is fundamentally at odds with the situation that actually exists. I’m quite certain that you’re familiar with, and use to great effect forums’z, however in this case I wonder if perhaps you ended up with too much information to readily get a true ‘lay of the land’. There are a whole host of forums where the game is being talked about incessantly, how to do this, what your favourite gun is, how noob tubers are muppets, etc, etc, with comparatively few complaints (the browser is one). I’d assume that, looking at some of EA’s subforums perhaps it might differently, but I’d argue that is just an appearance, perhaps caused by people who have issues being prominent in forums one might visit to confirm ones issues aren’t isolated (in effect a self-selection bias) . There are problems yes, but I actually see it as being a reasonably smooth first few weeks for an online game (really). I regularly look at my home (on3, nee Gamerhub/ICONZ) forums, as well as Gamearena, EA and a host of clan sites, and I hold a positive opinion of how the community is finding the game. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, rather I’m trying to do what I’m sure you would hope your readers would do if they feel there may be an error. And again, with all due respect and reverence, I truly do feel that you may have made a mistake with this, your experience appears quite significantly atypical. And, really.... “it was a question, not a statement”? That, sir is a bit disingenuous and actually reminds me a bit of Glen Beck ;) You are much better than that and I say that as a fan of your work (genuinely, both of your prose and your editorial direction). Cheers again for you continued correspondence. on3 network Bad Company 2 sub-forum: http://www.on3network.co.nz/forumdisplay.php?645-Battlefield-Bad-Company-2 Gamearena Bad Company 2 sub-forum: http://www.gamearena.com.au/forums/badcompany2/index.php
philo-sofa Mar 16, 2010 11:48 PM	@Bundywow - I have an EA account, and both am quite aware of, and never claimed there weren't those issues you mentioned, as well as others you didn't. However they just aren't that major for a new release. Perhaps BC2 is still a bit of a 'diamond in the rough' but it certainly isn't drastically less cut and polished than other new games, which is the point I'm disputing.
CK Mar 16, 2010 11:58 PM	My 2 cents, give an accurate review on exactly how you see and play the game when you get the complete release(not beta or early code, etc.) Different reviewers will come up with different results and it's up to us as the readers to get all the info we want(from as many reviews as we want to read) before laying down cash to buy said game. DICE/EA unfortunately look like they decided to launch the game with the bugs and i'm sure they're working hard to fix them before they lose customers for good. Of course I thought a beta was there to fix bugs like this before release, but i could be wrong.
DishD Mar 17, 2010 12:32 AM	Hawkeye, i value ur honest reviews, pls continue to reveiw as u experince the game or games, i'd rather wait than get paid per reveiw if u get my drift ;] As for BfBc2, i love it, yes freaking server browser atm sux hard core and yes EA/Dice should have had their shite together after the beta and Yes had all the above mentioned issues in the first couple of days, But the numbers of players and the quality of gameplay is outweighing the downsides. Overall this game rocks ma socks off!! Leaves Mw2 for dead and has me playing Aussie Servers almost all the time. Once the localized server patch is finaly put in place should make things much much betta. personal reveiw is 8.5 outa 10 would have been a 10 outa 10 but start up issues have knocked it down.
gamble Mar 17, 2010 4:37 AM	Ive had several issues with this game including the flickering water and windows. I was playing the beta and read that this crossfire problem was fixed with the retail version, umm no. This is very distracting when you are trying to kill, lol. Also, I have had problems with the browser, disconnects, and twice has the game shutdown to windows. Even with these problems I still really enjoy playing this game. I dont think it can get worse, so I look forward to more stable play. The graphics, MP modes, and in game performance is awesome!
sirtrancealot Mar 17, 2010 9:22 AM	To me it just seems like if the game had the option to connect to servers directly (/connect ip in console or whatever) instead of pulling a list of some POS server in the US, then we'd all be a lot better off. I rarely stray from the same 4-5 different AUS servers for different game modes and don't really want to see the 2 dozen odd servers with pings over 400..
sirtrancealot Mar 17, 2010 9:29 AM	excuse my shocking grammar i was up too late playing online last night... & haven't had my coffee yet.. lol
Hawkeye Mar 17, 2010 9:50 AM	"If the article is to be more than a summary of a subjective experience then yes, one should temper ones experience at all times with third-party information, with a view to reporting as impartially and as accurately as possible on the situation (hey, you asked so I figured give you my thinking)." And I thank you - seriously - for such detailed and very will informed response :) But... I also disagree. Yes, there is a school of thought that journalism should be a record, an impartial statement of facts and figures. But there are a lot of people - and you can probably guess that I'm one of them - that believes journalism (even something so paltry as game journalism) can not only inform, but also act as an agent of change. And, I have to admit, I've always considered my style - and Atomic's - closer to Gonzo journalism. Check the Wikipedia entry on the school: "Gonzo journalism tends to favor style over accuracy and often uses personal experiences and emotions to provide context for the topic or event being covered. It disregards the 'polished' edited product favored by newspaper media and strives for the gritty factor. Use of quotations, sarcasm, humor, exaggeration, and even profanity is common. The use of Gonzo journalism suggests that journalism can be truthful without striving for objectivity and is loosely equivalent to an editorial." And I should admit, I greatly admire the real figure of Hunter S Thompson, and the fictional one of Spider Jerusalem :) For my mind, if every game reviewer out the conformed to your model, I think you'd end up with reviews becoming not only homogeneous, but also lacking any wit or energy. But, if reviewers talk of their honest objective experience, a clever consumer can get a greater and more honest picture of a product - or, in the wider sense of journalism - even an event.
GhostFaceKilla Mar 17, 2010 10:21 AM	Guys I am seeing the very problem we are talking about in responses by some in this very thread. By what criteria are people claiming that the gameplay is 'awesome' and 'the best' and better than MW2? FFS please EXPLAIN yourself. This is why Metacritic user reviews are generally such a joke. There is NO way that this game is a 10 (unless you of course are completely new to (PC) gaming and have never played a BF game before or indeed any game before. the trouble is that BF:BC is a console game/port. It was designed for the CONSOLE not a PC. Stacked up against PC exclusives such as the original BF1942, BF:V and BF2 it is clearly a step backwards. Where those games had sprawling open maps this game has maps that are tiny and linear and basically all versions of narrow corridors with the 'illusion' that they are bigger. Environments do not enhance the core gameplay - in this iteration they actually restrict it. Furthermore they are actually encouraging tard behaviour even further - after a few hours play I am already sick of the squads of snipers, the spawn raping and so forth. All the worst aspects of online FPS games are already apparent. Graphical effects similarly restrict and hinder the gameplay. In its rush to make 'shiny, shiny' DICE have actually forgotten about how to make a 'game world' as opposed to having the game world reflect some version of the real world too closely. This has been no doubt due to the demands of the new young console gamers primarily who base a game overwhelming on how it LOOKS and not on how it plays. But lets bee objective about some more basic gameplay elements present in previous BF titles and missing completely from this. NO prone for example. Being unable to adjust the size of the minimap. I have to keep checking the big map to see where the objective is. Or am I missing something? No commander screen (a great innovation for dynamic gameplay that enhanced teamwork). Player models that look ridiculous. Armour that is next to useless on many maps due to their being no clear open spaces. And 2 rockets take them down anyway. No 64 player maps. Weapons being completely underpowered / overpowered. Stupid PERKS (borrowed from call of Duty) which further enhance the unequal nature of the game especially if you are new to the game. IN Bf2 the standard weapons were actually pretty good. No side had a massive advantage (please no whinging about the G36e). the AK remains a favourite for example. Having to put a clip into someone is neither realistic or good gamelplay especially as you cant see where you are shooting after the first couple of rounds because of the flash (I though we had flash suppressors in the modern world wtf?) and the other person can bunny hop with immunity away. And lets not even start on you having to actually unlock the traits of each class. WTF? If you are going to claim then that the gameplay is awesome at least make the effort to at least compare it with some similar games in order to achieve some kind of objectivity. If you do that then you can still can that you prefer the one over the other. But at least we have something to actually discuss. I notice that in more and more reviews reviewers are getting away from this. indeed the more I read contemporray reviews I cant help but feel that they are all saying the same things. Like they are all reading a pre written speech . . . This game is NOT a 10. Not by any OBJECTIVE criteria. And if you think it is a ten based on your subjective feelings then I would suggest that you either play more games or get outside more. But then gain if you give this game a subjective (not objective) 10 then you are exactly the market that EA/DICE were aiming at. I only wish I hadnt bought this game in order to be objective about it.
sirtrancealot Mar 17, 2010 11:42 AM	Dunno what maps you've been playing dude, but some of the ones i've played are huge! Prone would only make the whole sniper annoyance even worse, so i'm glad they took that out, although a crouch toggle would be nice. I think the particle system and in game effects add to the game by making it more difficult to see targets which i think is more realistic than being able to see everything clear as day from 2 clicks away like in the other BF series games. I agree the Tanks and such can be useless on some smaller maps, but you don't have to use them. and emptying a whole clip into someone with no effect... you really need to check your aim.. I have no probs capping someone with a few shots with the stock AEK-971. while I partly agree that porting from console to PC is a bad play, more and more people are using console as their main gaming device over PCs now so that's hardly surprising that they market it mainly to consoles and PC gamers get the offcuts. I really think thats something that's only going to get worse as decent spec consoles get more and more common, and from EA more than anyone else as they seems to be biased to console games in recent times.
philo-sofa Mar 17, 2010 11:50 AM	“For my mind, if every game reviewer out the conformed to your model, I think you'd end up with reviews becoming not only homogeneous, but also lacking any wit or energy. But, if reviewers talk of their honest objective experience, a clever consumer can get a greater and more honest picture of a product - or, in the wider sense of journalism - even an event.” Fair enough, but I’d dispute that Gonzo journalismsm (or at least anything other than the strictest interpretation of the late Hunter S. Thompson’s methodology) doesn’t preclude a large degree of accurately reporting on the situation as it was after reflection and investigation - rather than as it was experienced for the specific individual writing the piece. I’d say the question is whether a journalists subjective experience is simply confined to his own direct interaction with the subject matter, or his/her interactions with it as well as with others experiences and the integration of that into the journalists experience – the subjective experience of ‘objetivish’ reporting. That way, it seems possible to satisfy the desirousness for a more personal account - providing the whole schebang with colour, whilst not falling down the rabbit hole that is truly non-impartial reporting. The degree to which an author chooses between and balances these two factors is of course up to him or her, but I would definitely dispute the idea that trying to gain and give a sense of the non-subjective needs to ead to dry, boring reporting. From the second page of your BC2 article, you seem critically aware of the immense responsibility that a journo has, and similarly seem to care a great deal about your readership and truth as a whole. With respect to that, the one thing I’d disagree on other than ‘Gonzo’ing the experience of learning about the whole facticity and its interaction with direct experience’ is on the ideal makeup of an individual article, given that a lot of readers (far too many) will only read one article on a subject. Then again…. I would say that as I’ve already expressed a preference towards the, let’s be honest and say ‘anal’ side of reporting lol. Either way, I do continue to look forward to your articles as always.
Hawkeye Mar 17, 2010 11:56 AM	Did... you just make up a word?! Also, can I use it, 'cause facticity is right up there with truthiness :)
philo-sofa Mar 17, 2010 12:10 PM	Nah - 'facticity' is an existing word. It’s used lot in Philosophy (one reasonably famous text is called 'Fact and Facticity’ iirc). It has a fair few definitions, but in this case I meant it in the 'a priori facts after a lot of reasearch, essentially an 'unobtainable ideal that can be talked of in terms of how close we come' concept. So do freel free to use it ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facticity @ GhostFaceKilla (again sorry for the long replies): I’m assuming some of your comment was directed in part at me and am thus responding. I wouldn’t say this game was a ten; in fact I doubt I’ve ever seen a ‘10’ game. And as for ‘FFS please explain yourself’ directed in general at anyone who disagrees with you on the game, I don’t think that all opinion comments on an article need to explain themselves at length or GTFO – for myself I was only disputing the overall judgement and the impossibility of connecting to a server. For others remember that they might not be helping you understand why they disagree, but they are just their opinion much as you would often do. For the record though, I’ve played a fair bit of MW2, and I’d say BC2 is better. The primary reason being the sheer variety and enjoyability of the combat, as a result of funnelling large numbers of surprisingly cooperative players into an area, throwing armour, choppers, destructible environments and a vast number of different weapons into the mix, along with the games ‘combat feel’, which is close to ‘just right’ IMO (excepting that your avatar is a touch too slow sometimes, and that the knife is a tad too effective for my liking). The hitreg is also excellent; unlike MW2’s ‘if the guys internets is working you can usually hit another player lolol’ and BF2’s ‘roll the DICE’ net-coding. The graphics are superlative and the use of sound, and the general aural environment is utterly stunning for me. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say you can empty a whole clip into someone without them dying, are you not burst firing? Also, I think flash suppressors interfere with recoil, so it’s a tradeoff. I’ve also played a hell of a lot BF2 (ahh Uni, I miss it) and I’d disagree that this is a step backwards. The smaller maps are very likely a conscious design choice – rather than ending up with the massively fragmented games you had in BF2, 1942 et.all, you do end up with the corridors you talk about funnelling players into some pretty epic confrontations. Similarly I was something of an ‘instproner’ in BF2, but I wouldn’t’ want it in BC2 – with the design of the game it would become an utter camp-fest if you could prone. I do agree with the BS snipernubfest on some maps, and hope they nerf the crap out of snipers’ arty capability (I can’t decide if they’re worse than claymores, or worse than Hitler). However I have to say, some of the maps are pretty big TBH, not sure what your issue is there. I hope your subjective experience improves, but to each their own.
sirtrancealot Mar 17, 2010 12:12 PM	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facticity :) WIN
Hawkeye Mar 17, 2010 12:25 PM	I liked it better made up - I'll stick with Truthiness. Totally agree on the sound thing at least: when I was able to play (and I've not been able to login AT ALL this week), I got in one firefight under a bridge, and the echo of gunfire and the dull whump of explosions were superb.
sirtrancealot Mar 17, 2010 12:30 PM	Only other thing I can suggest in connection issues is do some port forwarding, there are about 5 ports to do, and it's certainly made my connection "a bit" more stable. http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/427814.page
GhostFaceKilla Mar 17, 2010 1:04 PM	Actually Philo-sofa it wasnt directed at anyone in particlualr. And my comment 'ffs explain yourself' is extremely valid. In order to have a disscussion the other party needs to know WHY the other party thinks the things they do. Not just that they do think those things. In other words if you cant articulate why you feel/think something then it is not a 'justified true belief'. Your opinion then is merely a subjective and emotive rambling and not worth a pile of poo. questions. 1. why is this game constantly compared to the MW2? By your own point they are very different games, with a different emphasis. A Battle field game should be comapared primarily to OTHER battlefield games and games that try to emulate its style of gameplay. The COD series has always done its own thing and done it pretty bloody well. Indedd MW2 has clearly influenced the developer of Bad Company 2. Compared then to other battlefield games it is a step backwards. It is like Battlefield lite. Having spent 1000's of hours on BF1942, BFV and BF2 I a consider myself somewhat of an expert on Battlefield gameplay. This game has more in common with the COD series than you would care to admit. In replies people have acknowledged a number of design and gameplay issues. In the context of comparing like to like we can see already that things arent the same and that concessions have been made to the gameplay to appese the casual console gamers and to encourage aggressive gameplay. Case in point is no prone and no way to toggle crouch. EA/DICE want you from the start to play the game their way. prone in an online FPS is NOT just for snipers. It is firstly a realistic combat move in itself when under fire and seeking cover. It has been removed because casual console players want instant non stop gratification. other such as myslef dont mind spending a bit of time crawling around, scoping an area and then moving in. One of the great things about BF games previously was there 'draw distance'. This attempted to accurately reflect a real world scenario while still making the game fun. It meant that you could acurately and realistically engage tragets at a number of ranges. This was great for squad based play. One squad could pin and cover while others flanked. this was a regular occurence in BF2. This considered, more grown up style of gameplay has now been gotten rid of for all out constant fast action. again this game has borrowed more from the COD series than people want to admit. The Battlefiedl series has always appealed to a particular crowd. those who wanted a fun game but who also wanted the ability to customise the gameplay to them if you know what I mean. You can CHOOSE the type of game YOU want to play. Dont forget that previous BF games were PC exclusive. One of the joys of previous BF games is that people were constantly experimenting with the game world. finding new ways to do things with things to things. That is now out the window. The game presented to you here has ONE gameplay style and one ONLY. It is a gameplay style envisaged by the Developers. It is not a gameplay style that is to be MODIFIED. Map sizes when comapred to the same in previous BF games are miniscule. Also the maps in BC2 are mislleading. While you can bring up a big map the reality is the that most of it is inaccessible. You have to keep travelling down pre defined paths. there are only x amount of ways you can reach an objective. Any objective. The closed in nature of these corridors (which you do acknowledge) means that vehicle assault options are severly limited. BF for example gave you far more options of attacking a target. Even Karkand gave you numerous ways of approaching the square for example. and the fun that was had on the SF maps with the Zip lines and grapple hooks. Accepting that the situation with games and pc vis a vis consoles is what it is is not
sirtrancealot Mar 17, 2010 1:15 PM	@Ghostface 1. why is this game constantly compared to the MW2? By your own point they are very different games, with a different emphasis? Well that one's a no brainer.. when you release 2 Warfare Centric FPS's within a month of each other, it's only natural to compare the 2. and people want to know the subtle differences between the 2, as most people won't buy both, so a decision has to be made on which one is preferred. I do very much agree that BC2 snarfed a bunch of idea's from COD, but is that really a bad thing? I personally hated BF2, and stuck with Vietnam (at least u could fly the choppers in that), and i think BC2 was more like BFV than it was BF2, The engine seems to be a bit more responsive, and it doesn't have that stupid team radio crap, and moreover doesn't feel like your toon is wearing a solid lead suit when moving about.
philo-sofa Mar 17, 2010 1:28 PM	I PM'd re the ongoing connection issues Hawkeye, assuming I'm not crossing a sacred line if I can be of any help, would be happy to do so. adn yeah, truthiness is a fantastic word... not that anything can comapre with the mighty sayings of Jon Stewart swoon.
philo-sofa Mar 17, 2010 1:57 PM	@ Ghost: I disagree on the issue of ‘FFS provide explanations’. In this context it’s perfectly normal for people to write ‘I like it’, ‘I don’t’, ‘lols it’s fail lolol’ and ‘your momma so fat she sat on a BMP-2 and got six kills!!!1’. What you seem to be doing is taking issue with those that say they like the game and demanding they explain themselves to your satisfaction, which isn’t really the point of comments on articles. Don’t get me wrong, I like discussions and doubtless you need more detail to have them, but specifically isolating viewpoints opposing yours and saying ‘FFS explain’ is a bit unfair. - It’s being compared to MW2 as both were released at the same time, both are competing for players, and MW2 is now the established big-daddy. - I don’t believe it’s a step back from previous Battlefield games, it’s certainly different, but I really don’t think it’s a step back. And ‘care to admit’? Sorry, I don’t work for DICE, I have my own genuinely held opinions! - re console gamplay, I disagree again. Battlefield games have always been shaped to be ‘a game’, not an accurate representation of combat. You always had to play the game according to that representation, and the ‘sandbox’ aspect to the game remains (e.g Jihad jeeping, crushing people and so on. - Draw distance in BF2 was a lot less than BC2! I certainly do ’acknowledge’ that BC2 has effective corridors. It also lacks massive, empty spaces such as Zatar, but nonetheless the maps are not minuscule. You’re also pretty wrong about Kark – attacking Square, you could: 1) go down the hill on the left and either go straight North, or drop down to the train track level and go north. 2) go up the RHS street (suicide) 3) go up the LHS street (more suicide) or up the LHS hill, north and across at some point (virtually a guaranteed cap on a pub). That’s three basic routes, and that ‘routing’ methodology was continued throughout the map, and IMO contributed in large part to the resounding success of Kark. BC2 has similar numbers of channels (usually more), with and the result IMO is that each map is a resounding success. True, I’d like the odd huge flat map, like Highway Tampa, but these maps were generally in a minority, and often… not the most popular, which would you make first as a developer? Feel free to reply here, but I’ll make my next reply in PM (or in a thread?) if that’s ok – as we’ve both already contributed to a rather long comments thread!
Hawkeye Mar 17, 2010 2:23 PM	Hey - we love long comment threads!
GhostFaceKilla Mar 17, 2010 4:36 PM	I know!! Thanks to all those who are taking the time to write a decent length thread and contribute constructively to a discussion. yay. GG Atomic.
GhostFaceKilla Mar 17, 2010 4:42 PM	I think what this thread us highlighting is that different people do like different things. And of course that is valid. I for one do like hearing what it is certain people like about certain things. Personnally I feel that DICE pretty well nailed it with BF2. It wasnt perfect, but when it worked boy did it work. It was always going to be hard for them to top it (and they didnt need to just refine it) as BF2142 demonstrated. they could have just tweaked a few things. Not tried to do different things. to bring it back to the 'original' kind of topic area perhaps a fruitful area of discusion is 'how can you be objective in a game review'? given that so many people like different things. can we actually develop some guidelines to show that objectively a is better than b? If a reviewer was actually being 100% honest in his or her review and still being subjective would it matter? I guess I dont mind hearing a persons subjective viewpoint if it is totally honest, reasoned and thought about. Maybe I should give BC2 another go. Maybe I shouldnt compare it to BF2 (A game which i honestly loved) and take it on its own merits in its own context. Maybe if I did this I might enjoy it a bit more. At least then as a consumer I can be honest with myself. But it is not and never will be a 10/10 game. IMHO. :-) Thanks Atomic.
philo-sofa Mar 17, 2010 5:28 PM	GG Ghost :) I guess we can all agree that if someone's being dishonest it's bad, but as to how objective/subjective one should be, ironically I guess that's a subjective judgement lol. Hope you enjoy BC2 more over time, I hear there is a BF3 in the works, so that may be more to your taste otherwise.
philo-sofa Mar 17, 2010 5:30 PM	Oh and cheers to sirtrancealot - am also a fan of the MAG servers, would be on my favourites list if they list actually worked ;)
brumby92 Mar 17, 2010 10:35 PM	A tough question Atomic! I would probably prefer a early review but with that, your unsure of how it will play later. I would expect the online issues would be mostly fixed in a month, but that's years in gaming time, so i would have moved on and lost interest. Ignoring the online issues (as hard as that may be), I still don't see where it fits in gaming world. For me, its trying to be Battlefield 2 AND Modern Warfare at the same time. I loved those two games yet I this seems to have no soul to it.
NRUFrost Mar 18, 2010 7:02 AM	They RUSH games out way to fast these days to keep with demand, So us PC gamers become paying BETA testers, working out the bugs. Where our console brethren sit back and kick arse for hours without issue.
sirtrancealot Mar 18, 2010 8:56 AM	I think the key thing that a lot of people forgot with BC2, was that BC1 was console only... so we should consider ourselves lucky they decided to bring out 2 on PC. bit of a shift from the Battlefields of old, but pretty much every EA game scheduled for this year will be all 3 platforms, no doubt a console port for PC for the majority, which is a shame but hey, it's all about the $$$
Sorceror Mar 18, 2010 10:41 AM	Hmm, I was thinking about buying this, but now I'm not so sure.
NRUFrost Mar 20, 2010 8:14 AM	@sirtrancealot, BF started on the PC and BC1 only on Consoles was a kick to the PC gamers nuts. Although i agree with you on the $$$ they are in it to make money and consoles games make that money faster. Then they port to PC to shut us up. PC gaming is dieing my friends, i have been saying this to my mates for years.
sladeXS Mar 21, 2010 10:10 PM	You almost get the feeling that these companies want pc gaming dead...

Latest Competitions

Medal of Honor has finally arrived!
You have a chance to be amongst the first to play at Atomic H.Q.

Editor's Choice

Area 53

Atomic Magazine

Issue: 116 | September, 2010

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.

What's in this issue?

Subscribe Now!

Latest Comments

"Exactly what Nukejockey said about Red Eye. it was my first energy drink, and Platinum is my ..."

on Rockstar Original Energy Drink: Triple Kick

by Opy | Sep 6, 2010 10:56 AM

"This is a really well written piece David! (not that your usual stuff isn’t)
It’s a ..."

on The Medal of Honor taliban controversy deepens

by UberPenguin | Sep 6, 2010 10:50 AM

"this is kinda silly, America still has military presence in south korea in place if a attack ..."

on Homefront: the next great military shooter?

by PAPA600 | Sep 6, 2010 9:32 AM

"it's an important rule of marketing to understand the audience.
this event does not sound ..."

on Microsoft's Kinect launch laughs at sweaty gamers

by Meowkitty | Sep 6, 2010 8:41 AM

"Now if only it had the power and technical capability to do 3D without glasses as well as ..."

on Smartphone graphics get Unreal

by thesorehead | Sep 5, 2010 7:58 PM

Latest User Reviews

90%

Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance

Within the soul of each and every gamer lurks a creature that feeds on gore, guts and dismemberment. Such a monster is hard to keep satiated, but some

By HellishCrazy13 | Jul 27, 2010