The lights are on
In Game Informer's March Issue, they gave Battlefield: Bad Company 2 a 9.5. That's a pretty great score, right? WRONG. In comparison to Modern Warfare 2, which recieved a 9.75, it's a terrible, demeaning score.
I don't know about the campaign for BC2, but I know the multiplayer is the most addictive multiplayer I've played yet. I've spent 17 hours on the demo, which features one stage and one game type, and I'm still going strong.
I'm sure the campaign can't be as bad as MW2: BOREFEST.
I don't think the problem with the review is BC2's score, but Modern Warfare 2's score. Bertz had at least 5 negatives about the game, including saying the campaign is the weakest part of the game.
I agree.
Modern Warfare 2 needs to be a 9.25 or lower.
I honestly think the problem with the review scores is that Game Informer Magazine is scared of some Call of Duty fanboy assassinating the reviewer in question. You' re scared.
<RANT FINISHED>
The problem is that everyone doesn't want to admit that MW2 (and all CoDs for that matter) don't do anything new. Yeah it's been put together real good and the multiplayer is addictive, but that's not enough. Not for me anyway. People need to wake up and at least say that MW2 is not as good as everyone says. It's good, maybe even great, but not excellent.
You want to talk about something wrong? MAG received a 7. A SEVEN! A freaking download only FPS with all of four maps got a better score (8.5). Normally, I respect GI's scores, but if you look at the Metacritic (as well as user reviews), MAG is getting around an 8. I personally scored it higher, but an 8 works as a good compromise score.
boo hoo hoo, someone is upset by someone else's opinion again. Stop the presses, someone disagrees.
But really, how does someone saying the solo campaign is the weakest part of the campaign equate to a negative. Its talking about the strength of aspects of a game. They didn't say the campaign was weak.
"I honestly think the problem with the review scores is that Game Informer Magazine is scared of some Call of Duty fanboy assassinating the reviewer in question. You' re scared."
What are you 10?
@Demon Ragnarok - LOL.
As far as I know, the games are reviewed independently and their final score has nothing to do with games of a similar genre. So arguing whether game A is better than game B sounds kind of irrelevant as it sounds like they are both good games.
Dude u have problems if you think MW2's campaign was boring
Dude...THE REVEIW ISN'T UP YET! Also, get a life. All a review is is a opinion.
One last thing,How was MW2's campaign boring? Or did you rent the game and only play the first level?
I thought this was Bad Company 2 vs. Modern Warfare 2, not lets make someones opinion ruin my life. And have you ever played the campaign in MW2, because if you ask me I found it to be most interesting, and I think most people would agree with me.
Consider the fact that both scores for MW2 and BFBC2 were a bit premature and neither title really warranted either score? MW2 campaign was both exceedingly boring and horribly told. The game has ZERO point to it - it felt rushed and gappy - it can also be done in 4 hours if you take 2 seconds to think about what you're going to do. It's subpar all around.
BFBC2 doesn't show us the campaign aspects of the game, but if they're trying to compete with MW2, I expect it to be about the same. The MP aspects add nothing to the genre (outside of destruction 2.0)... it doesn't even try to. All around, it feels 'average' in every sense of the word - the upside to that is 'average' is highly approachable.
It's hard to talk to a extremely hot chick who acts like she's the *** - bit those average girls, you can walk right up and strike up a conversation easily... MFMC2 is like that. It's not arm candy, but you get what you expect form it (you just need relatively low expectations with the MP demo)
@TheReallyCoolGuy: I actually subscribe to Game Informer Magazine, and the March issue has the review in it.
How was the campaign NOT boring? All you do is slog through the streets shooting every faceless enemy that comes along. The only satisfying parts of the campaign were killing all the innocent people and that AC130 thing.
I came into the BC2 demo with VERY high expectations, and it greatly exceeded them.
BC2 does a lot of things most other military shooters don't do, like vehicles, full environmental destruction, non-regenerating health, HUGE maps, dog tags, unique game modes, a big emphasis on squad play, and defib, to name a few.
"non-regenerating health"
You're a bit wrong on that one...and by 'bit wrong', I mean completely wrong.
Even though BC2 is still in it's beta, I think it's better than MW2. Seems more balanced and fun to me.
You sound like a whiny B****
Ok now that I've thought about it yea, the assassination thing was overly absurd, just like MW2's plot.
I just can't think of any reason MW2 would merit such a score though. Multiplayer alone can't make a game. (Which also had its issues; give better players straight-up better abilities.)
No. The health actually doesn't regenerate. That's why there's medics...
@Raven'sFootball: Take your immaturity somewhere else.
I don't understand why everyone thought infinity ward was GOD until mw2 came out. Now eveyone bashes the game like its completely broken and terrible. It's not at all. If you weren't completely stupid, even if you don't think its fun you can't say it is a bad game or that the plot was stupid. If anything, bad company's plot was completely stupid, though the game was still fun. Theres nothing about MW2 that makes it a bad game. It's an excellent game and so is bad company. Everyone says MW2 sucks because they get killed in MP.
I really don't expect that good of a story from most shooters. They only have good stories when that is their main focus like Bioshock. Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield's main focus is online multiplayer.
I've heard a lot of people criticize the MW2 story. I actually thought it was decent...but what I liked more about the SP story was some of the events that happened in the game. Climbing the ice mountain and nearly plummeting to your death. Running through the city trying to get to the helicopter while everyone is coming after you. Driving the Humvee through the city knowing an attack is imminent. COD: MW and MW2 are famous for killing off main characters as part of the story...which I think is pretty unique and gripping. Anyone who thinks that's boring...I'd like to see what you think is exciting...
Here's a thought though...maybe they're both good games? Just play whichever one you like better...who cares what the score is.
*sigh*
Its your opinion and yous only, nothing is wrong with GI's opinion and nothings wrong about yous.
Just play the games you like and that's that, other people's feelings about the game shouldn't affect your opinion.
Let me just say that Modern Warfare's 2's plot is the most ludacris, absurd plot I've ever seen in a game.
@CaNdlE_LiiGHT: I know I shouldn't care about other people's feelings on the game, but now that both of the reviews are out there, CoD Kidz are going to think "their" game is vastly superior to "ours".
@Saint: Those moments in the campaign you were talking about are set-pieces, which were lower in excitement this time around than Call of Duty 4. They have no effect on the story.
I actually wish I could've stuck with the same character throught the campaign, instead of switching around because IW decided they need ANOTHER plot twist.