The UK's Finest Video Channel for Switched On Men

Login | Register

games: Battlefield: Bad Company

The single player campaign has you playing Private Preston Marlowe, in a squad of four US army n’er-do-wells known as ‘Bad Company’. They are treated as cannon fodder by their superiors in a fictional war against the Russian Federation. The plot takes you on a nicely varied mix of army missions and the self appointed ‘missions’ of the squad who go AWOL part way in when they realize some of their enemies are paid in gold bars.

Bad Company offers a refreshing change in plot, tone and character for a military FPS. The guys in your squad are actually all pretty likeable, even the knuckle head explosives fan Haggard. They’ve also been well scripted with good humour, good voice acting and nicely done cut scenes showing that a decent amount of care and thought has gone into putting this together.

The engine is pretty slick too. The game claims 90% destructable scenery - which seems reasonably accurate and is not only cool, but also means it’s a lot harder to rely on cover for long making play more interesting. Sometimes things are a little silly, like not being able to open doors to houses but having to grenade them open.

But overall it’s a pretty coherent world. It looks good too with lots of sharp and nicely detailed scenery about. The campaign map is nicely set out and feels like a realistic set of locations rather than an artificial construct to run from objective to objective in. To this end, there is also a certain amount of freedom in how you move through the game, and a decent range of nicely handling vehicles to aid in this.

There’s also a pretty good range of 35 guns, all real-world infantry, but including some prototypes and cancelled designs. They feel nice and there’s a cool collection element to the weapons you can find in a level and information about each gun. You can only carry one gun at a time, and you’ll sometimes need to find a specific gun for the job. But you can also use grenades, your knife, and an array of tools including a rather neat health injector which is unlimited but will take a few seconds to use and leave you vulnerable while your hands are busy and so not on your gun.

But should you die, it’s not the end of the world. Perhaps to mitigate the fact that the game is pretty hard, when you die, for the most part you simply respawn a few paces back, with anyone you’ve taken out remaining dead. And yes, the AI is hard, with relentlessly accurate shots, although neither your enemies nor your team mates have huge amounts of cooperation programmed into them. But hey, the multiplayer is shaping up to be pretty good with the Gold Rush mode included where you must attack or defend crates of gold, and Conquest available as a free post-release download.

Overall a very solid and polished FPS put together with care and charm. Battlefield: Bad Company is a recommended buy and gets itself a well-earned 4 stars.

For the best of the rest:

Euro Gamer:
Bad Company is very much the kind of army I could imagine Eurogamer inhabiting. Comprised of all the ne’er-do-wells, workshy fops and insubordinates that you wouldn’t even want on your paintball team, we’d be the guys any sensible army would send out as cannon fodder to lull the opposition into a false sense of security. Of course, what would transpire is that we were only pretending to be shot-shy slackers, and, when put in life-or-death scenarios we’d rise to the challenge and kick everyone’s arse.

IGN:
The rules of first-person shooters are changing. Videogames that engage the player in acts of war have always promised one thing; cover. During times of extreme duress the player has always had the option of retreating behind a wall or group of immovable sandbags in order to escape their assailants. Battlefield: Bad Company, the latest from the Sweden-based Digital Illusions CE (DICE), changes all that.

Trusted Reviews:
On the PC, Battlefield is one of the biggest names there is. It’s the daddy of large-scale online shooters; the online war that everybody wants to sign up for. On the console formats, however, the brand hasn’t had the same sort of impact, and a lot of that comes down to the fact that, while online action games have a healthy audience on the Xbox 360 and PS3, it’s the single player game that drives sales. For all that, Battlefield: Modern Combat did a fine job of bringing a slightly cut-down Battlefield to consoles, it didn’t quite work so well when played alone. It’s more recent imitator - the thoroughly decent Frontlines: Fuel of War - provided a slightly more convincing campaign, but even this wasn’t enough to steal hearts and minds from the likes of Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4. Battlefield: Bad Company, then, is DICE’s attempt to stamp its ground in the console arena, and prove that Battlefield and single-player can mix.

comments

Chris
August 1st, 2008 - 11:32am

Oh, SWEET!

I can’t believe it’s taken so long to get a soundtrack like this. Remember Cowboy Bebop the Movie - atmospheric and frenetic jazzy funky track there too.

I wonder how long it’ll be before someone puts some Beethoven (seeing as it’s ultra-violence) or Wagner (considering its helicopter-gunship-based pedigree) into a war game like this.

Amusing dialogue from other grunts in the game is always good to have. All the Halo titles made me laugh out loud occasionally, and it’s quite realistic, I expect: soldiers do have (to have) a particularly black sense of humour on them at all times to stop them going nuts.

If the humour is linked to the actual gameplay, so much the better. If you do a long snipe on a moving target in Halo, the guy beside you sometimes says ‘Whoa, nice shot’. And if you waste an entire enemy platoon with, say, a chain gun and eight grenades, someone comes up behind you and says “Er… can I get partial credit for that?”

It looks terrific too. I love the Call of Duty series, but this looks like another level of detail further up. I’ll certainly have a go on this…

August 1st, 2008 - 1:43pm

I’m really looking forward to Battlefield 3 on the PC which will use the same engine as this because imo Battlefield 2 is the best online game ever made.

Not sure if I will ever play Bad Company though. I will get it on the PC if its released but I really don’t like FPS’s unless they have mouse & keyboard controls.

August 1st, 2008 - 5:42pm

I know what you mean about mouse vs console joypad. In FPS games, I find it very hard to be quick enough with a joypad, whereas with a mouse your point of view (and therefore gun site) can move as quickly as you can move your hand.

Doesn’t bother me on Xbox 360 Halo, though, for some reason. Their control algorithm seems to work really smoothly – probably variable joystick acceleration or something clever.

August 2nd, 2008 - 7:00am

Please guys, don’t start the Mouse vs Gamepad stuff again.

Suffice to say, just like different people have different preferences for Mouse or Gamepad, some people shockingly (like ME) even like BOTH!

All games are setup differently, whether on PC or console, and often need tweaking in the controls to get it right for each user.

I for one am normally pretty quick (on both PC and console) to head to the control options screen in whatever game I’m playing and change the mouse or Gamepad sensitivity if it don’t feel right, which it generally doesn’t straight away…

That being said, Battlefield Bad Company felt damn good straight off for me - the only thing I’ve changed is to set the controller vibration to maximum, you gotta feel those tank shells firing!

Pidge
August 3rd, 2008 - 7:29am

Does anyone know if Battlefield 3 will finally support widescreen monitors? I think it’s hard finding a monitor which is not widescreen today.

August 4th, 2008 - 10:08am

Beau, why shouldn’t we talk about Mouse vs Gamepad? There’s are interesting differences between the two, so why not talk about it?

Obviously everyone’s got to understand that people’s preferences are personal, and that neither option is ‘better’ than the other, but that shouldn’t stop us from having a discussion about it as long as people can stay relaxed. I’ve not had this particular discussion before (not been part of a gamer forum before, actually), so I’d find it interesting.

Perhaps Wil or Katharine could use it as the basis for a questionnaire or a poll, or perhaps another video, as it’s something that every gamer must have thought about…

I figure that as long as we can keep emotions and rationale separate, we should be able to talk about anything.

August 4th, 2008 - 11:27am

Yes therein lies the problem though: someone WILL come in and claim that one is just better than the other, where in reality, said person simply PREFERS one more than the other.

Referring to your first comment cedgray, interestingly i have no problem turning fast enough in FPS’s with a Controller, nor can i understand why anyone would, seeing as the game has been MADE for the controller…

Schmung
August 4th, 2008 - 1:00pm

I don’t think it’s entirely a matter of personal preference. You can argue fairly convincingly that a mouse is objectively better as it offers more control and precision than a thumbstick. As a device for controlling an FPS game it does everything better than a gamepad. It just depends on whether you think a gamepad is good enough. I generally find that it is and as you said, developers now work quite hard to make sure that this is the case. Bit of a pain to use a mouse whilst sat on your sofa in front of the telly though!

August 5th, 2008 - 10:39pm

We can’t decide not to talk just in case someone decides to be an idiot - nobody would ever say anything. We all just have to learn to ignore them and not rise to the bait.

Thumb controllers, and games for which they’re designed, cannot turn you as fast as a mouse simply because they have a maximum rotation speed. Full deflection of the stick translates into a rotational speed which, although you can set it to ‘very fast’ can never be as quick as that attained by moving a mouse with your hand, which provides movement faster than your eye can keep up with.

Sure, for most games, maximum thumbstick sensitivity is perfectly adequate, and you can easily get used to it (even Halo 3 on ‘Legendary’ is reasonably snappy), but it’s hard to see why a mouse wouldn’t always be faster just because of the mechanics involved.

The precision point is a good one, Schmung. I find that CoD is far easier on a laptop than it is on the Xbox 360. It’s because the enemies are mostly hiding and you really need to pick them off quickly.

But I’m sure one can get used to anything. I’ve played with a trackball for a while, and even pen-tablet combination, which was rather surreal.

add a comment

Subscribe to newsletter?