Many modern games just toss players into the heat of the battle as quickly as possible, which made dying less of a punishment, considering that gamers would’ve spawned nearly back at the same spot. In addition, besides the obvious fast-paced combat, the rest of the experience, even in intense matches, wasn’t as fast-paced as in modern games, which only brings the Battlefield experience closer to that of Call of Duty. It really does take away from the entire experience. Nowadays, in modern installments, anti-tanks tend to be perfect soldiers killing everything in their wake and leading the scoreboards. That’s why you needed anti-tanks, which sucked at almost everything else by design. Assault classes were fantastic at infantry combat, medics were great as a support, and perhaps suppression fire, but all were collectively horrific in vehicular combat. Spec ops classes were great for their intended purposes, but they weren’t masters of infantry combat, and they suffered massively in middle-to-long range conflicts. We’re not saying that it couldn’t be done playing against infantry as an anti-tank class wasn’t impossible, but it offered very little chance of success. Instead, it meant that you were effective against vehicles but very ineffective in infantry combat. For example, taking an anti-tank class didn’t mean you were an unstoppable force to be reckoned with. There were a lot of classes, and each had plenty to add to the combat, but also suffered noticeable class-specific drawbacks. Not to say that snipers weren’t usable, but there were fewer “death zones” on individual maps, in which mere steps meant instant death by at least four sniper-playing gamers.Ĭlasses were also well-balanced, as opposed to future installments in the franchise. The solid, non-destructible terrain allowed gamers to employ rewarding flanking tactics, and the entire game had much less sniper use. The maps’ terrain wasn’t destructible, and the game didn’t allow you to fight tornadoes, but they were exceptionally well balanced. The game’s best “selling point” to this day remains its maps. Still, according to gamers who are well-acquainted with the Battlefield franchise, back from the LAN gaming days of 2002’s Battlefield 1942, Bad Company 2 and the rest of the franchise fall behind Battlefield 2 for reasons we’re about to disclose. Well, the same can be said about Battlefield 2, which admittedly shares very little gameplay mechanics with Bad Company 2. Resident Evil 4 might’ve made over-the-shoulder aiming popular, and 2006’s Gears of War popularized the cover system, but 2003’s Kill Switch made better use of both gameplay mechanics, despite being less known by the gaming community. But then again, those are the same generations of gamers that believe that the gameplay has to be super-complex to warrant their attention. Well, if you ask those that were introduced to the franchise playing it on their older brother’s computer, Bad Company 2 is the best of the series, and there’s no question about it. But how is it possible for a game from 2005, which was apparently the first game with adequate multiplayer matchmaking, to outperform a five-year-younger Bad Company 2? But Bad Company 2, with its destructive terrain and C4 hijinks, isn’t the best Battlefield game there is the number one spot is currently held by 2005’s Battlefield 2 - which presently has 91/100 on Metacritic scale, opposing Bad Company 2’s 88/100 points.
0 kommentar(er)
