By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Should I get Battlefield Bad Company 2?

Akvod on 14 February 2010
Slimebeast said:

BTW, in the final game, will there be voiced commands, taunts and cheers? You know pre-recorded one-liners you activate through a hotkey or quick-command, and which either your team or both teams can hear? I love those. Most games don't have any, but both Enemy Territorys did.

The taunts and cheers give a great feeling of "us vs them", the team-feeling that is important in objective based games.

There's no taunts or emotes. I can care less about tea bagging an enemy when I kill him. Instead, by pressing Select for the PS3, back for Xbox (?), and Q for PC (?) you can order your squad to attack/defend an objective, throw a medkit or ammo box, repair, follow, get in a vehicle, etc.

The characters also automaticly shout things, like "Sniper!" if shot by one. They'll also shout you encouragements if you kill an enemy. They'll curse if hit, etc.

It makes the game very exciting. I like how someone put it: A virtual clan experience, for those who are playing with randoms.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
Akvod said:
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:

My thoughts? I mean... Jesus, what can DICE possibly do if you're not motivated to complete the objectives. I think your problem is simply that you don't have any buddies to play this game with and coordinate. Although I though you 360 people will be alright with the ammount of mic owners you guys have, if you communicate and strategize with people, the objectives don't feel random. When you spam C4s to a Quad with a buddy and take out nearly 3/4s of crate B's HP, that's fun. When you're shouting to simply demolish the walls of the house so you can bring it down, that's fun. When you get a charge on the objective and you tell your buddy to run up the ladder with you and kill all the fools who just go up the stairs, that's fun. When you steal an enemy's tank and wreck havock on them, that's fun. When you tell your squad to raid the indoors objective first, and you're wielding our shotty at close range, that's fun.

 

I mean, but still, you don't have any motivation to run back and defuse a crate? You don't feel the pinch when you're defending crates that are in collapsable buildings and a enemy tank pierces through your defenses? When you see a swarm of enemies break through your front lines and you're on a Heavy MG?

I don't see the problems with switching sides after every round... SOCOM did it, don't know about the old skool games yo, but I like to have some variation in my gameplay.

Green: you're describing lots of game moments that I agree are extremely fun, and they often come naturally, but they don't necessarily connect with the feeling that winning is important. And sitting with your buddy on a hilltop sniping people is just as fun, but it doesn't help the team much.

Red: what's that? C4s? Quad? crate's HP?

Don't get me wrong, switching sides ain't bad and most games do it, but in combination with the artificial team objectives a constant switching of sides doesn't help mutch. I mean in ET QW you can play on the Strogg side the whole night if you want, so it's unfortunate that BC2 didn't use any trick to make the team play more important. Like in MAG you even have to choose one faction and stick with it.

Green: I don't really find it fun to just sit around and do nothing. But even if you do garner enjoyment from that, don't you think that you're not going to get a lot of kills if there's 3 people already sniping from the same spot? Don't you have any other interest besides sniping?

Red: The quad bikes, or ATV, are very agile but also vulnerable vehicles. By putting 10-12 C4s on it, you can create an enormous explosion. If you manage to maneuver through all the chaos and enemies, and ram the bike into obective B (in the first phase of the attack) you can cause major damage to it. Objective B can be pretty hard to destroy through arming since it's not in a destructible building, it's within a crater so it's not really practicle to shoot if with the tank, and it's overlooked by many stationary MGs, rockets, etc.

I don't really see how BC's objectives are "artificial". I mean, if you're wanting some sort of attachment to them, the best way is to simply say "I want to win". Why do you want to win? Because you're playing a video game with the objective to succeed in some form. Whether it is by getting the highest K/D ratio, annoying people by TKing them, etc. It's simply you, not DICE's fault, that you're not interested in completeting the objective meant to be completed.

I mean, I really don't know what to say. All I can tell you is to loosten up, allow yourself to get soaked into the game, don't worry about K/D ratios, but simply desire to win (which is by completeting the objectives given by the devs).

I'm not getting though to you man.

Just saying "I want to win" isn't enough to make objectives meaningful. It almost sounds like you have never heard of this problem before? That in team based games there often are too many so called  "XP-whores", "sniper f**s", "vehicle whores" and whatnot, who don't care if the team wins, and therefore in a way are ruining the experience for those who want their team to play effectively to have the chance to win. I hear these complaints very often even in Quake Wars, the mother game designed to motivate players into team play instead of solo achievements.

Green: what? Where did I hint that I enjoy "sit around and do nothing" lol? And where did I say I only want to snipe? I love to do everything in war games. I play every class, every strategy. Including sniping.

And about the "loosen up" thing. As these are multiplayer community based games, it's very important what others think unfortunately. I can't just decide this by myself. If the general atmosphere is "fuck team play, Im all about getting kills" then you'll get frustrated if you are a dedicated team guy. I've experienced it so many times. The majority must want the same thing or else it's just not fun to team play. Luckily I do think Battlefield and BC-players will appreciate team play and winning, and hopefully that feeling will pass on to me.



Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
Akvod said:
Slimebeast said:

BTW, in the final game, will there be voiced commands, taunts and cheers? You know pre-recorded one-liners you activate through a hotkey or quick-command, and which either your team or both teams can hear? I love those. Most games don't have any, but both Enemy Territorys did.

The taunts and cheers give a great feeling of "us vs them", the team-feeling that is important in objective based games.

There's no taunts or emotes. I can care less about tea bagging an enemy when I kill him. Instead, by pressing Select for the PS3, back for Xbox (?), and Q for PC (?) you can order your squad to attack/defend an objective, throw a medkit or ammo box, repair, follow, get in a vehicle, etc.

The characters also automaticly shout things, like "Sniper!" if shot by one. They'll also shout you encouragements if you kill an enemy. They'll curse if hit, etc.

It makes the game very exciting. I like how someone put it: A virtual clan experience, for those who are playing with randoms.

Yeah, I liked that a lot in the beta so far!



Akvod on 14 February 2010
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:

My thoughts? I mean... Jesus, what can DICE possibly do if you're not motivated to complete the objectives. I think your problem is simply that you don't have any buddies to play this game with and coordinate. Although I though you 360 people will be alright with the ammount of mic owners you guys have, if you communicate and strategize with people, the objectives don't feel random. When you spam C4s to a Quad with a buddy and take out nearly 3/4s of crate B's HP, that's fun. When you're shouting to simply demolish the walls of the house so you can bring it down, that's fun. When you get a charge on the objective and you tell your buddy to run up the ladder with you and kill all the fools who just go up the stairs, that's fun. When you steal an enemy's tank and wreck havock on them, that's fun. When you tell your squad to raid the indoors objective first, and you're wielding our shotty at close range, that's fun.

 

I mean, but still, you don't have any motivation to run back and defuse a crate? You don't feel the pinch when you're defending crates that are in collapsable buildings and a enemy tank pierces through your defenses? When you see a swarm of enemies break through your front lines and you're on a Heavy MG?

I don't see the problems with switching sides after every round... SOCOM did it, don't know about the old skool games yo, but I like to have some variation in my gameplay.

Green: you're describing lots of game moments that I agree are extremely fun, and they often come naturally, but they don't necessarily connect with the feeling that winning is important. And sitting with your buddy on a hilltop sniping people is just as fun, but it doesn't help the team much.

Red: what's that? C4s? Quad? crate's HP?

Don't get me wrong, switching sides ain't bad and most games do it, but in combination with the artificial team objectives a constant switching of sides doesn't help mutch. I mean in ET QW you can play on the Strogg side the whole night if you want, so it's unfortunate that BC2 didn't use any trick to make the team play more important. Like in MAG you even have to choose one faction and stick with it.

Green: I don't really find it fun to just sit around and do nothing. But even if you do garner enjoyment from that, don't you think that you're not going to get a lot of kills if there's 3 people already sniping from the same spot? Don't you have any other interest besides sniping?

Red: The quad bikes, or ATV, are very agile but also vulnerable vehicles. By putting 10-12 C4s on it, you can create an enormous explosion. If you manage to maneuver through all the chaos and enemies, and ram the bike into obective B (in the first phase of the attack) you can cause major damage to it. Objective B can be pretty hard to destroy through arming since it's not in a destructible building, it's within a crater so it's not really practicle to shoot if with the tank, and it's overlooked by many stationary MGs, rockets, etc.

I don't really see how BC's objectives are "artificial". I mean, if you're wanting some sort of attachment to them, the best way is to simply say "I want to win". Why do you want to win? Because you're playing a video game with the objective to succeed in some form. Whether it is by getting the highest K/D ratio, annoying people by TKing them, etc. It's simply you, not DICE's fault, that you're not interested in completeting the objective meant to be completed.

I mean, I really don't know what to say. All I can tell you is to loosten up, allow yourself to get soaked into the game, don't worry about K/D ratios, but simply desire to win (which is by completeting the objectives given by the devs).

I'm not getting though to you man.

Just saying "I want to win" isn't enough to make objectives meaningful. It almost sounds like you have never heard of this problem before? That in team based games there often are too many so called  "XP-whores", "sniper f**s", "vehicle whores" and whatnot, who don't care if the team wins, and therefore in a way are ruining the experience for those who want their team to play effectively to have the chance to win. I hear these complaints very often even in Quake Wars, the mother game designed to motivate players into team play instead of solo achievements.

Green: what? Where did I hint that I enjoy "sit around and do nothing" lol? And where did I say I only want to snipe? I love to do everything in war games. I play every class, every strategy. Including sniping.

And about the "loosen up" thing. As these are multiplayer community based games, it's very important what others think unfortunately. I can't just decide this by myself. If the general atmosphere is "fuck team play, Im all about getting kills" then you'll get frustrated if you are a dedicated team guy. I've experienced it so many times. The majority must want the same thing or else it's just not fun to team play. Luckily I do think Battlefield and BC-players will appreciate team play and winning, and hopefully that feeling will pass on to me.

I don't know about the PC beta, but my assumption is that after the demo, the only people who will buy this game and play in the long term are the ones who are team oriented. If this is wrong, at least incredibly stupid shit like snipers on the sniping rock can easily be countered by a quick and easy mortar strike.

 

Green: I say sitting around and doing nothing, because I'll see half of the team not attacking the objective, or worst of fucking all, not defending the objective. Sorry, maybe some of my frusturation against those players are spilling onto you. I don't mean to be hostile to you, it's just that I've been having a little bit of pent up anger playing with CoD players.

There is a danger of that. I'm assuming that the PC community is going to be much much better than the console. I'm also assuming that if you guys have clan support that'll work out even better, and that finally you have a bigger, more dedicated, and long established fanbase (the original Battlefield fans), and you'll be able to hook up with them. Whereas, both LIVE and PSN is still young, both in terms of the service and its players, and Battlefield isn't as well known of a game there.



Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
Akvod said:

 

 

The quad bikes, or ATV, are very agile but also vulnerable vehicles. By putting 10-12 C4s on it, you can create an enormous explosion. If you manage to maneuver through all the chaos and enemies, and ram the bike into obective B (in the first phase of the attack) you can cause major damage to it. Objective B can be pretty hard to destroy through arming since it's not in a destructible building, it's within a crater so it's not really practicle to shoot if with the tank, and it's overlooked by many stationary MGs, rockets, etc.

Okay, sounds fun but what is a C4?

I didn't know that objective A and B always have that principal structure. Anyway, what is "destroy through arming"? Can you give an example?

And, do you already know that objective A and B will always be each of these distinctive types on every map in the game? Sounds like bad variety....



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
Akvod said:
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:

My thoughts? I mean... Jesus, what can DICE possibly do if you're not motivated to complete the objectives. I think your problem is simply that you don't have any buddies to play this game with and coordinate. Although I though you 360 people will be alright with the ammount of mic owners you guys have, if you communicate and strategize with people, the objectives don't feel random. When you spam C4s to a Quad with a buddy and take out nearly 3/4s of crate B's HP, that's fun. When you're shouting to simply demolish the walls of the house so you can bring it down, that's fun. When you get a charge on the objective and you tell your buddy to run up the ladder with you and kill all the fools who just go up the stairs, that's fun. When you steal an enemy's tank and wreck havock on them, that's fun. When you tell your squad to raid the indoors objective first, and you're wielding our shotty at close range, that's fun.

 

I mean, but still, you don't have any motivation to run back and defuse a crate? You don't feel the pinch when you're defending crates that are in collapsable buildings and a enemy tank pierces through your defenses? When you see a swarm of enemies break through your front lines and you're on a Heavy MG?

I don't see the problems with switching sides after every round... SOCOM did it, don't know about the old skool games yo, but I like to have some variation in my gameplay.

Green: you're describing lots of game moments that I agree are extremely fun, and they often come naturally, but they don't necessarily connect with the feeling that winning is important. And sitting with your buddy on a hilltop sniping people is just as fun, but it doesn't help the team much.

Red: what's that? C4s? Quad? crate's HP?

Don't get me wrong, switching sides ain't bad and most games do it, but in combination with the artificial team objectives a constant switching of sides doesn't help mutch. I mean in ET QW you can play on the Strogg side the whole night if you want, so it's unfortunate that BC2 didn't use any trick to make the team play more important. Like in MAG you even have to choose one faction and stick with it.

Green: I don't really find it fun to just sit around and do nothing. But even if you do garner enjoyment from that, don't you think that you're not going to get a lot of kills if there's 3 people already sniping from the same spot? Don't you have any other interest besides sniping?

Red: The quad bikes, or ATV, are very agile but also vulnerable vehicles. By putting 10-12 C4s on it, you can create an enormous explosion. If you manage to maneuver through all the chaos and enemies, and ram the bike into obective B (in the first phase of the attack) you can cause major damage to it. Objective B can be pretty hard to destroy through arming since it's not in a destructible building, it's within a crater so it's not really practicle to shoot if with the tank, and it's overlooked by many stationary MGs, rockets, etc.

I don't really see how BC's objectives are "artificial". I mean, if you're wanting some sort of attachment to them, the best way is to simply say "I want to win". Why do you want to win? Because you're playing a video game with the objective to succeed in some form. Whether it is by getting the highest K/D ratio, annoying people by TKing them, etc. It's simply you, not DICE's fault, that you're not interested in completeting the objective meant to be completed.

I mean, I really don't know what to say. All I can tell you is to loosten up, allow yourself to get soaked into the game, don't worry about K/D ratios, but simply desire to win (which is by completeting the objectives given by the devs).

I'm not getting though to you man.

Just saying "I want to win" isn't enough to make objectives meaningful. It almost sounds like you have never heard of this problem before? That in team based games there often are too many so called  "XP-whores", "sniper f**s", "vehicle whores" and whatnot, who don't care if the team wins, and therefore in a way are ruining the experience for those who want their team to play effectively to have the chance to win. I hear these complaints very often even in Quake Wars, the mother game designed to motivate players into team play instead of solo achievements.

Green: what? Where did I hint that I enjoy "sit around and do nothing" lol? And where did I say I only want to snipe? I love to do everything in war games. I play every class, every strategy. Including sniping.

And about the "loosen up" thing. As these are multiplayer community based games, it's very important what others think unfortunately. I can't just decide this by myself. If the general atmosphere is "fuck team play, Im all about getting kills" then you'll get frustrated if you are a dedicated team guy. I've experienced it so many times. The majority must want the same thing or else it's just not fun to team play. Luckily I do think Battlefield and BC-players will appreciate team play and winning, and hopefully that feeling will pass on to me.

I don't know about the PC beta, but my assumption is that after the demo, the only people who will buy this game and play in the long term are the ones who are team oriented. If this is wrong, at least incredibly stupid shit like snipers on the sniping rock can easily be countered by a quick and easy mortar strike.

 

Green: I say sitting around and doing nothing, because I'll see half of the team not attacking the objective, or worst of fucking all, not defending the objective. Sorry, maybe some of my frusturation against those players are spilling onto you. I don't mean to be hostile to you, it's just that I've been having a little bit of pent up anger playing with CoD players.

There is a danger of that. I'm assuming that the PC community is going to be much much better than the console. I'm also assuming that if you guys have clan support that'll work out even better, and that finally you have a bigger, more dedicated, and long established fanbase (the original Battlefield fans), and you'll be able to hook up with them. Whereas, both LIVE and PSN is still young, both in terms of the service and its players, and Battlefield isn't as well known of a game there.

Well, I'm with you. That's what Im trying to communicate that I am truly a team player, heart & soul. I get pissed off for the exact same reasons. I was just remarking that I got sort of surprised playing BC2 beta, suddenly thinking, wow, there's so many individual elements that are fun and amazing so I completely forgot about the overall goal. It's like it didn't mean anything who won, and this worried me a little. But I want it to mean everything!

I believe your fears are very adequate. There's gonna be a huge difference between console and PC unfortunately, community- and mentality-wise. Lots of annoying selfish bungholes on Bad Company PS360 lol.



Akvod on 14 February 2010
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:

 

 

The quad bikes, or ATV, are very agile but also vulnerable vehicles. By putting 10-12 C4s on it, you can create an enormous explosion. If you manage to maneuver through all the chaos and enemies, and ram the bike into obective B (in the first phase of the attack) you can cause major damage to it. Objective B can be pretty hard to destroy through arming since it's not in a destructible building, it's within a crater so it's not really practicle to shoot if with the tank, and it's overlooked by many stationary MGs, rockets, etc.

Okay, sounds fun but what is a C4?

I didn't know that objective A and B always have that principal structure. Anyway, what is "destroy through arming"? Can you give an example?

And, do you already know that objective A and B will always be each of these distinctive types on every map in the game? Sounds like bad variety....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29

You get them as Recon, or if you switch to the Shotgun (and I'm guessing the other non-primary weapons) as Assault, you can get them.

"Destroy through arming" is "Destroy through arming the explosives on the crate". In other words, by going up to the crate, holding down the button, and then defending the crate until the countdown finishes. However, since that might not be possible against a good team, you can destroy a crate by applying damage to it directly (firing RPGs, grenade launchers, tank shells, C4s, etc) or by destroying the building the crate is in (the last crates are most likely not in these types of buildings).

I'm a bit confused by your last question. In Rush mode, there will always be crates. They will vary in the location and strategy to be taken out. That will be known when the game actually releases. If DICE did it well, they'll mix it up and the map designs will be unique. There are 4 stages of Rush...

 

Have you played the demo or beta yet BTW?



Akvod on 14 February 2010
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:

I don't know about the PC beta, but my assumption is that after the demo, the only people who will buy this game and play in the long term are the ones who are team oriented. If this is wrong, at least incredibly stupid shit like snipers on the sniping rock can easily be countered by a quick and easy mortar strike.

 

Green: I say sitting around and doing nothing, because I'll see half of the team not attacking the objective, or worst of fucking all, not defending the objective. Sorry, maybe some of my frusturation against those players are spilling onto you. I don't mean to be hostile to you, it's just that I've been having a little bit of pent up anger playing with CoD players.

There is a danger of that. I'm assuming that the PC community is going to be much much better than the console. I'm also assuming that if you guys have clan support that'll work out even better, and that finally you have a bigger, more dedicated, and long established fanbase (the original Battlefield fans), and you'll be able to hook up with them. Whereas, both LIVE and PSN is still young, both in terms of the service and its players, and Battlefield isn't as well known of a game there.

Well, I'm with you. That's what Im trying to communicate that I am truly a team player, heart & soul. I get pissed off for the exact same reasons. I was just remarking that I got sort of surprised playing BC2 beta, suddenly thinking, wow, there's so many individual elements that are fun and amazing so I completely forgot about the overall goal. It's like it didn't mean anything who won, and this worried me a little. But I want it to mean everything!

I believe your fears are very adequate. There's gonna be a huge difference between console and PC unfortunately, community- and mentality-wise. Lots of annoying selfish bungholes on Bad Company PS360 lol.

Yup, I love the sound and all the effects the most (smoke when there's an explosion, debree, etc). Everything is there, DICE did an absolutely fantastic job. Now all that's left is up to us gamers to pick up the slack and make the most of it =)



Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
Akvod said:
Slimebeast said:
Akvod said:

 

 

The quad bikes, or ATV, are very agile but also vulnerable vehicles. By putting 10-12 C4s on it, you can create an enormous explosion. If you manage to maneuver through all the chaos and enemies, and ram the bike into obective B (in the first phase of the attack) you can cause major damage to it. Objective B can be pretty hard to destroy through arming since it's not in a destructible building, it's within a crater so it's not really practicle to shoot if with the tank, and it's overlooked by many stationary MGs, rockets, etc.

Okay, sounds fun but what is a C4?

I didn't know that objective A and B always have that principal structure. Anyway, what is "destroy through arming"? Can you give an example?

And, do you already know that objective A and B will always be each of these distinctive types on every map in the game? Sounds like bad variety....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29

You get them as Recon, or if you switch to the Shotgun (and I'm guessing the other non-primary weapons) as Assault, you can get them.

"Destroy through arming" is "Destroy through arming the explosives on the crate". In other words, by going up to the crate, holding down the button, and then defending the crate until the countdown finishes. However, since that might not be possible against a good team, you can destroy a crate by applying damage to it directly (firing RPGs, grenade launchers, tank shells, C4s, etc) or by destroying the building the crate is in (the last crates are most likely not in these types of buildings).

I'm a bit confused by your last question. In Rush mode, there will always be crates. They will vary in the location and strategy to be taken out. That will be known when the game actually releases. If DICE did it well, they'll mix it up and the map designs will be unique. There are 4 stages of Rush...

 

Have you played the demo or beta yet BTW?

Oh u can destroy the objectives by brute force? That's great.

It sounded like you know that all objectives have the same set-up - that objective A is always in a destructible building while obj B is in a non-destructible building (or a crater?).

Yes, I received a beta code couple of days ago. The PC version demands crazy CPU power so everyone has low FPS even on lowest settings, but I'm loving the game. Haven't played the X360 demo though.



Akvod on 14 February 2010

Try the 360 demo out until you can get your new computer parts =) And yes, the crates will vary in strategy.