Wednesday, March 26 at 08:36 PM | Posted by: Joe, Sam's Club
Category: Gaming

  

How can you not love a game that features a smiley face pin on a grenade?

Battlefield Bad Company is coming out soon and the folks at Electronic Arts were kind enough to provide your humble author with a beta key to experience the game before it comes out. They also allowed me to give you a head’s up on this one. Tonight, I downloaded it on my Xbox 360 and wanted to share my initial impressions.

Remember, this is only the beta version and right now, it is strictly multiplayer. What is Battlefield Bad Company? Well, glad you asked. It is a first person shooter (fps) that is rated M. The multiplayer portion puts you on the side of the attackers or the defenders. If you are attacking, you are getting the gold bars while the defenders are there to prevent that from happening. If you have seen the movie Three Kings, you have some idea of what the game is about.

“But wait, wait” you say. “Doesn’t the world have enough fps games?” Well, yes and no. Personally, I enjoy fps as a genre, but there are a lot of clones out there. This one is different. For sometime, company PR machines tell us that their new game features “never before seen levels of destruction!” Usually these are evolutionary, incremental changes that while adding some level of destruction are not huge steps in moving the genre forward. The developer, DICE, has changed the landscape with their new Frostbite engine. This, dear readers, is a revolutionary advance. When they say it is a destructible environment, they mean it. Cannot find a door? Well, fire some rounds of machine gun ammo and presto, who needs a door when you can create your own opening? That sniper in the lower level causing problems? Introduce him to your grenade launcher as you remove the wall. A machine gunner keeping your team pinned down? Swing around with some shoulder launched rockets and properly welcome him to the neighborhood by making a modification to that chunk of the house he was hiding behind. Only the frames of structures remain to prevent the landscape from becoming too desolate.

So, I jumped in, head first and apparently made quite a target for the opposition at first. Must have been the bullseye on my back! The controller scheme is pretty straightforward. Graphics are solid. I could not speak to other players in the beta, but the game generates voices in a foreign tongue as well as English. Mostly, they were calls for a medic, warnings about snipers, grenades etc… Certainly, the final version will allow for chat so better teamwork can be achieved. Well, after a few deaths and re-spawns, I got my bearings and it was time to go to work. Weapon changes are a breeze with the bumpers. Changing classes is available at spawn and re-spawn as well. Players choose “kits” which dictate primary and secondary weapon selection. Choices include: Assault, Demolition, Recon, Specialist and Support.  One can spawn (or re-spawn) right in the middle of the battle or back a bit in a safe (safer?) zone. After that, it is all about the gold. The game has a ranking system in which scoring points (kills, assists, opening crates of gold, etc…) allows one to move up from a private, sergeant and so on. Not really sure if the rank gets one anything other than letting others know your skill level.

There are Internet reports that Electronic Arts will offer five special weapons to purchasers of the Gold Edition. If you are not getting the Gold Edition, do not despair; they will be happy to sell them to you via downloadable content. Now, EA is saying that the new weapons are balanced and do not provide an advantage or disadvantage. So I am wondering what purpose they serve. If there is no advantage, why offer it? If there is an advantage does that create an unbalanced playing field? Will everyone need to buy it? I am really not sure if I like this as an option and want to see what you think. So here is your chance, read up on it and post your thoughts. I hope Electronic Arts is not floating a trial balloon here. Right now, in head to head play, victory is largely based on skill. If one can purchase advantages, the balance is lost. I do not know if that is the direction we all want to go as console gamers. I say that as a fan of capitalism and with Libertarian sensibilities. I am all for the free market in business. I just like having a level playing field on which to compete. Fair competition makes us all better. I just do not know if this falls under my concept of fair.

All that said this looks like a fun game. Perhaps we can all use a little bit more Frostbite in our lives. Battlefield Bad Company will launch for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

See you soon!

 

Comments
|
Share This
| Permalink Permalink
There no trackbacks for this post.
7 Comments
 
 

I, for one, am looking forward to having another great Battlefield game to play.  I loved Battlefield 2 on the PC (before EA messed it up with the different patches) and the idea of destructible environments is very interesting.

I have to reflect the same thoughts on purchasing weapons on this.  It is a very disturbing trend and should never catch on.  I understand having different gametypes and maps available in a "special edition", as that does not affect the balance of the game, but having a system where people can purchase enhancements to the gameplay?  For shame EA.

FPS always has been, and should always be, a reflecting of a person's skill, not what kind of weapons or enhancements they can buy.  Hopefully, enough people will complain about this feature and it won't happen, but you never know...

 
Kevchuck on 3/27/2008 at 10:25 AM
 
 
 
 

Listen, I love Walmart. And what I am about to say is not personal to the blogger reviewer of a game that Walmart is selling.  So this is not personal.

But to sell a product as you said that has a happy face on a grenade?  What corporate responsibility is Walmart taking for the impact on kids against the backdrop of Iraq, Tibet, Darfur?    And  inner city street violence - oh and mothers that shoot their kids at home (Louisville, KY today).   Make no mistake, being exposed to violence long enough and participating in it in a "virtual" world, only enures someone to acting violently.

Why sell one more,  EVEN BETTER  war murder game?  That's what it is.  A game that brings out the worst in the player. 

 

Does it bring out meditation on peace or rather doesn't it bring out "how well can I annnihilate this person?   Wow that was fun, I just riddled this person with 20 bullets and a rocket launcher." Remember those pain infliction studies you read about in Psych 101?  People will keep pushing the pain button.  So again, what corporate responsibility is Walmart taking with the products you sell?

Just what we need - another game to murder people for fun.  I have seen my nephew play it. I remember a father watching his daughter play with a game like this that he owned and therefore thought it was ok, until he saw her brutally slay someone and not stop - over and over again.  And he said, "that's it, game removed."

I believe I read somewhere that kids who play violent games who enlist in the armed services have an easier time shooting and killing than soldiers who didn't.

Bravo to Walmart.  Is this near the section where you sell guns to the public?

I have always respected the Walmart story - many parts of it.  But this.  You guys should be leaders for change.  Not for bigger and better status quo and indoctrinating the future war mongers of the world.  I'm disgusted. 

 
Boston7977 on 3/27/2008 at 6:30 PM
 
 
 
 

Am I the only one to see the name "Bad Company" and the smiley face on the grenade and have the thought that they made an anti-WalMart game?

 
Johnny Hotsause on 3/28/2008 at 2:46 PM
 
 
 
 

I just have a few comments for Boston7977:

"What corporate responsibility is Walmart taking for the impact on kids against the backdrop of Iraq, Tibet, Darfur?    And  inner city street violence - oh and mothers that shoot their kids at home (Louisville, KY today).   Make no mistake, being exposed to violence long enough and participating in it in a "virtual" world, only enures someone to acting violently."

Wow, I really don't know where to begin.  Is it Wal-Mart's resposibility to limit the selling of merchandise to make them more money?  Is it Wal-Mart's responsibility to take on the role of parenting?  Being exposed to virtual violence and real-life violence are two VERY different things. 

What about taking a stand against other forms of media, such as movies or magazines?  There are movies that are way more violent than any video game on the market, yet video games are the ones that are targeted.  And magazines that explores the depravity of our society in having to know 'What's up with crazy Brittney Spears today' or 'Lose those 10 pounds so you won't be a fatty'... it is NEVER a company's responsibility to take the role of a parent and lessen the number of products sold that could make them money, unless of course the product is deemed unsafe (defective).

"I believe I read somewhere that kids who play violent games who enlist in the armed services have an easier time shooting and killing than soldiers who didn't."

I will go on record for saying YES!  If the soldiers in Iraq can shoot better because of video games, then they have a better chance of coming home to see their families. 

This whole video game debate is rather obsurd.  If a video game affects someone so much as to imitate what they play (in a violent way), then they