Snoopers is the one getting owned, yes. I love it, and I'm never getting owned. ;)

That's what I'm expecting.. so it'll be hard for this to disappoint. Manager claims that this game is more like BF2 than Modern Combat, but (and no offense to Manager) I don't quite believe him.

Consolidated classes, no commander mode (very weak squad control, even), an attack/defend scenario instead of conquest/warfare (hopefully that's just an additional game mode), no jets (right?), no prone, no parachutes, no etc etc.. it just sounds an awful lot like Modern Combat with some additional upgrades and tweaks.

Simplified doesn't mean it's bad.. it's just not going to seem quite as deep to some players and probably won't have the longevity that BF2 did (does). But maybe having to unlock crucial kit equipment and the ability to purchase new weapons off of the marketplace will attract a slightly different crowd anyway.

If you're having trouble with weapon accuracy--make sure you're allowing your gun to stabilize between shots. There's always been a rhythm to using your weapon properly in BF. I heard rockets take two to the chest to kill someone though which is sorta ridiculous if true.

And no worries mt_sabao.

I finally had the opportunity to sit down with this one over the weekend. The experience certainly reminded me of Modern Combat (I'm still not sure where all this BF2 talk came from) enhanced and upgraded in ways you might expect from a sequel. Infantry handle well enough, although the gun play could certainly be more refined--in the end it's not what stands out in Bad Company anyway.

The lack of free-form squads really hurts this one. I've always thought that ditching commanders all together was a big step backwards for the franchise, and I wish I could say that's the only manner in which this game seems downgraded from BF2 or even 2142 (or even 1942). Every portion of the game's design seems like it was stripped down to its more basic components, from the top down (literally--from commanders to the ability to lay prone ;)). This approach stands to enhance the pick-up-and-play experience that one might come away with in Bad Company, but it's detrimental to the games depth and variety.

The new game mode, Gold Mine, is a bit of a letdown. It will be a shame if this game doesn't feature conquest in its final form. Conquest creates a battlefield that is truly dynamic, with back and forth struggles wagging across the map--Gold Mine seems so static by comparison. I wish there were more to it. They should take a page out of 2142's playbook and make this an additional game mode. Doing away with Conquest all together is a mistake.

Enemy Territory managed to make these objective style skirmishes more interesting by creating a good deal of variety in the actions that you were tasked with, and even mixed in some of conquests back-and-forth gameplay by giving players on both sides the ability to push back forward spawns in either direction. In Bad Company we have an objective mode that feels quite a bit more basic. It's almost like a Counter Strike or Call of Duty (S&D) approach to attack and defend, only with respawns, vehicles, and gigantic (by comparison) maps.. this works in CS and COD quite well, but in a more class dependent setting, it just doesn't seem to fit.

My final critique for the time being, is the games RPGisms. Some might argue that DICE invented this unlock craze, and yet they've gone off on a unique and frustrating path that does little to enhance the game experience and works by punishing new players in ways that Call of Duty 4 could only dream of. You have to unlock critical equipment, that should be available to the player from the first moment he spawns into the action. You should not have to unlock things like, resupply bags and medic equipment--it just works against the nature of a balanced class experience. Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of RPGisms in FPS, but DICE takes the cake when it comes to doing it all wrong.

I'm afraid that this represents the future for DICE FPS, since 2142 took a very simular approach to Bad Company. If I have to unlock defibrillator's and frag grenades in BF3, I'll be a little disappointed. Luckily, most of these things are unlocked within the games infancy, and players will spend most of their time with all their equipment available to them. Supposedly unlocks add to the games longevity, but that is simply not true--most of the games fans would continue to play without being egged on by gimmicks--and indeed most of the games playtime will come from players who continue to play long after they've unlocked all of their gadgets.

On the bright side: The environmental destruction seems like an interesting addition to the game, and the game produces some wonderful (framerate aside) eye candy. Vehicles also handle typically well. Chances are, if players enjoyed Modern Combat, they'll enjoy this experience as well. Fans of previous Battlefield games may find something to like here, but it would be wise to go into the experience expecting BF-Lite.

When all is said and done, I would find it hard to recommend Bad Company based on these impressions. There are too many other fine experiences to be had in the genre right now. If classes are your thing, Team Fortress 2 and ETQW (yes really) are better games. I might even find myself recommending FFOW over BC despite itself, at least it tries to be unique.

If you're not dying for a highly class dependent experience, just go play Halo or Call of Duty (class-lite) instead. These games don't offer the same variety that your typical Battlefield game does, but variety isn't the only game in town, and they do everything else better.

That's impossible as EA is hopelessly evil. This is obviously a lie.

On a more serious note.. shame it's still just Bad Company ;)