Battlefield: Bad Company 2
- Thread starter Rak
- Start date
Just try to destroy all the first floor walls. They're supporting the houses. You can easily destroy m-com stations with a nade launcher that way
Just try to destroy all the first floor walls. They're supporting the houses. You can easily destroy m-com stations with a nade launcher that way
Hmmm, I think it only works on two-story buildings then. Because I've never seen the roof of a one-story building collapse on the M-Com.
I thought it was fake, so I tried it out in an actual server and it worked.
<Cough> Though I was supposed to be defending...
Completely and absolutely ridiculous.
Quake 3 is more realistic.
uh relax. you do know this is a bug not a feature right?
I picked BF:BC2 up last week for the Xbox 360. After playing Modern Warfare 2 for a couple months - and hating how the maps A) take up all of 2 blocks and B) have no real defense points - this was a refreshing change.
Likes:
* Snipers play a real role in this. There's a lot of places to hide, both high and low.
* Due to the above, it forces you to really use cover intelligently.
* At the same time, your cover can be realistically blown away.
* Sound design is outstanding
* A variety of routes to each objective
* Hardcore mode is a great improvement over the standard game
* Love the graphics from inside the tanks.
* The capture points actually have some meaning, not just a desk and computer thrown randomly into a warzone like in MW2. In real life they would be points of importance - factories, rail stations, etc.
Dislikes:
* Spawn camping is a major issue on the Atacama and Isla maps. I mean, to the point where I just want to throw my controller through the TV. Sick of it. They need to patch that quickly, put some spawn protection volumes in place.
* No proning.
Overall, the gameplay is arcadey, but far more realistic than the amphetamine-driven killfest that is MW2.
Likes:
* Snipers play a real role in this. There's a lot of places to hide, both high and low.
* Due to the above, it forces you to really use cover intelligently.
* At the same time, your cover can be realistically blown away.
* Sound design is outstanding
* A variety of routes to each objective
* Hardcore mode is a great improvement over the standard game
* Love the graphics from inside the tanks.
* The capture points actually have some meaning, not just a desk and computer thrown randomly into a warzone like in MW2. In real life they would be points of importance - factories, rail stations, etc.
Dislikes:
* Spawn camping is a major issue on the Atacama and Isla maps. I mean, to the point where I just want to throw my controller through the TV. Sick of it. They need to patch that quickly, put some spawn protection volumes in place.
* No proning.
Overall, the gameplay is arcadey, but far more realistic than the amphetamine-driven killfest that is MW2.
I played for the first time yesterday on PC and I am enjoying the game as well, due to not feeling like I have to look at 45 places at once ala MW2 in order to survive (among other things). I have noticed some things:
1. M60 and the Carl Gustav are 90% of my deaths. I'm getting consistently sniped by these M60 whores...seriously. Not fun.
2. Recon class is hard - The M24 is only a one hit kill on a healthy enemy in the head. I thought the next one, the Chinese one, would be better since I could get a second and third shot off quicker but I ended up actually going back to the M24. The next rifle is that Russian bolt action I think - why would I want a bolt action that is WEAKER than the M24? Makes no sense to me, but I will try it regardless. Can't wait for the M95 railgun...
3. Offense usually wins Rush gamemode and I seem to be the only person who cares about defending the objectives.
4. Good god I own with the knife xD
Overall I feel it has more replay value than MW2 due to being able to use more than just firearms - tanks, choppaz, boats with semi auto grenade launchers, interactive UAVs etc.
1. M60 and the Carl Gustav are 90% of my deaths. I'm getting consistently sniped by these M60 whores...seriously. Not fun.
2. Recon class is hard - The M24 is only a one hit kill on a healthy enemy in the head. I thought the next one, the Chinese one, would be better since I could get a second and third shot off quicker but I ended up actually going back to the M24. The next rifle is that Russian bolt action I think - why would I want a bolt action that is WEAKER than the M24? Makes no sense to me, but I will try it regardless. Can't wait for the M95 railgun...
3. Offense usually wins Rush gamemode and I seem to be the only person who cares about defending the objectives.
4. Good god I own with the knife xD
Overall I feel it has more replay value than MW2 due to being able to use more than just firearms - tanks, choppaz, boats with semi auto grenade launchers, interactive UAVs etc.
tried a round on a mates ps3, yeah it's alright.
He traded MW2 in and reconed it was a cod-beater.
He loves the way the landscape changes and cover becomes harder to find, i agree but the map i played felt like a condomunium development on the costa brava.
In total contrast i've been playing project reality lately, and obviously reality this ain't - but as i say it's pretty good for what it is i thought.
Looked great and ran remarkably smoothly too - does the PC version run just as well ( was a separate development wasn't it?) and is it demanding on hardware?
He traded MW2 in and reconed it was a cod-beater.
He loves the way the landscape changes and cover becomes harder to find, i agree but the map i played felt like a condomunium development on the costa brava.
In total contrast i've been playing project reality lately, and obviously reality this ain't - but as i say it's pretty good for what it is i thought.
Looked great and ran remarkably smoothly too - does the PC version run just as well ( was a separate development wasn't it?) and is it demanding on hardware?
i think there is mixed results on this. a bunch of ppl say it runs like crap. for me its incredibly smooth on all 4 year old hardware besides a 2 year old graphics card. and it almost looks as good as crysis so im very pleased. it does seem demanding on my cpu though cause the temperature gets high during load times and sometimes during some intense battles.
----------------------------------------------
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=13997695&postcount=1684
Also for anyone who is picky about their mouse movement/speed/feel I highly recommend you run through this little guide. I dont think it was that bad on default, but the game does force mouse smoothing on you and it does feel slightly laggy. With these changes its super smooth.
Well let me put it this way...on an ANCIENT 3.4ghz P4...8500GT...2gb RAM...I can run SP at 1024x768, with most stuff set to low/medium, and play at around 20 FPS.
That ain't playable in MP....but min specs today don't actually mean min spec. Min sec means "Will run at 32 FPS at the lowest settings."
That ain't playable in MP....but min specs today don't actually mean min spec. Min sec means "Will run at 32 FPS at the lowest settings."
Yeah, my 2.2 Ghz AMD dual-core with 3.25 GB ram makes MP exciting... down to 10 FPS in most firefights, but, hey, it's all part of the fun!
Must say I love the freaking Garand, it's not super powerful but powerful enough to drop someone in a good 3 shots or 1 headshot. On hardcore however it's a bit of a beast and lets you really stick it to the recon people
On most maps bar the real CQB ones I find I prefer using it over the short range smg's you get with the engineer class. I'll probably end up using the M14 and G3 more once I unlock them but right now it gives me a good powerful ranged alternative for the engi class.
On most maps bar the real CQB ones I find I prefer using it over the short range smg's you get with the engineer class. I'll probably end up using the M14 and G3 more once I unlock them but right now it gives me a good powerful ranged alternative for the engi class.