GameLight Review - Battlefield 3

Official Site: http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3

Source: Youtube Channel eavision

Developer: EA Digital Illusions CE (DICE)

Publisher: Electronic Arts

Platforms: PC, Playstation 3, Xbox 360, iOS

Release Date: October 25, 2011

Genre: First-Person Shooter

Pros:

-Huge maps with a large array of vehicles to utilize

-Sense of camaraderie and of belonging within a unit

-Beautiful visuals and powerful/realistic audio

-Level up system has a lot of depth in customization and item/ability acquisition

-Emphasizes cooperative play a lot more than most FPS games

Cons:

-Single-player is boring and forgettable

-The game is riddled with bugs, glitches, and server lag

-Communication and cooperation can be a problem for console players

-PC players have better graphics, but struggle with even starting a match successfully

-Multiplayer experience relies heavily on the players one sides with

It is clear that all efforts and resources were focused on the multiplayer side of Battlefield 3.  If you’re one to look for a strong cooperative, team-based, first-person shooter to play online, then perhaps Battlefield 3 is the game for you.  If fighting solo and instant action is one requires in their online multiplayer, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 might be more appropriate.  If one seeks a fun and intuitive single-player experience, I would recommend Crysis 2.  Cooperative scenario modes are rare, but perhaps Resistance 3 might be a better choice for an FPS player if they want to play next to a friend in the same room.  Battlefield 3 may be an FPS game, but it’s not for all FPS fans.  Battlefield 3 doesn’t have a very good single-player campaign, but those looking for an extensive online multiplayer experience will be able to enjoy playing the game for the rest of the year and beyond should the community stay strong.  There are plenty of vehicles, weapons, gadgets, classes, and unlocks to keep the game fresh and keep players intrigued to try something new.  The game does suffer from many technical problems, but the developers have always been diligent in correcting them as quickly as possible should any arise.  The game feels a lot more like a sequel to the Bad Company series than the main series, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lot of fun and challenges even the most experienced FPS players.

Aesthetics

The graphics in Battlefield 3 are beautiful.  I think what I really like about the style of graphics done in the game is how bright and inviting it looks.  FPS games in the past have been mostly dark, brown, muddy, boring, and difficult to distinguish objects.  Battlefield 3 has an amazing lighting system that just makes everything pop out and bring it to life.  The physics and effects are very detailed to get the most out of explosions and destructible environments.  There’s also an improvement in the audio from Bad Company 2; however, it’s still not as powerful and life-like compared to DICE’s previous work on Medal of Honor (2010) (it still has the best audio for a military shooter I’ve heard so far).  While the graphics might be incredible, it’s mainly for those who have a PC that can handle them.  Console players will have textures with a lower resolution than the PC, so it sadly has graphics that are great but not incredible compared to the PC put on max settings.  The load out screen right before deploying can be a bit difficult to get used to on console as it was set up originally for the computer mouse on PC, but it eventually makes enough sense to utilize.  I really like the neon-like layouts for the mini-map, HUDs, and menu.  It sets a certain atmosphere to the game that distinguishes itself as “Battlefield 3”.  Some of the problems within aesthetics are texture glitches, objects disappearing, players getting stuck in each other or pushed into a wall when spawning, graphics lag from explosions and smoke, and the audio of gunfire suddenly going silence for an entire match.  Aesthetics: 8/10

Buttons

Playing Battlefield 3 on console is a lot different than playing on PC.  It’s much easier to tag people while still moving on the keyboard.  On a controller, the player has to leave their analog stick in order to press the select/back key (PS3/Xbox 360) in order to tag enemy units which sadly leads to players tagging a lot less on consoles.  The load out menu is a bit confusing between choosing a class, weapons and gadgets, but it eventually makes sense.  Those who have gotten used to the usual FPS settings on controllers will need to adjust a little as keys cannot be customized or changed.  The right thumb stick will be to crouch or prone instead of a melee.  R2 will be the key used to knife.  L2 tosses a frag grenade.  The circle face button is used to interact with gadgets, setting a bomb, defusing one, etc.  I mainly find the spot key to be the biggest problem as tagging enemies is a pivotal action in team fights but leaves the player vulnerable while doing so.  Not being able to customize the keys and switching them around from the norm does make it confusing and takes some getting used to, but it makes sense for multiplayer (for the most part).  Buttons: 8/10

Concept & Content

I was very disappointed with the single-player campaign as I enjoyed DICE and EA’s last two game’s campaign modes (Medal of Honor 2010 & Battlefield Bad Company 2).  The story was told very similar to Call of Duty Black Ops in that the main character is being interrogated and the player relives all the flashbacks.  The progression of single-player is extremely sectionalized with the player just constantly going forward requiring that the player stays undercover for long durations and popped their head out once in a while to fire at the enemy (at least for the more difficult settings).  The story wasn’t cohesive, the gameplay was boring, and the level designs were odd considering its core concept (you have to be under cover a lot, but there is VERY little cover in every level and they can be blown apart).  One thing I have to praise the single-player for is its incredible settings and environment.  Sadly, the campaign mode didn’t feel like there was a lot of thought and consideration put into it.  Co-op mode is unfortunately online multiplayer only and won’t be as fun unless you have friends that you know you can play with (and cooperate with).  I would’ve been nice to have SOME sort of local multiplayer, but there isn’t one.  Thankfully, online multiplayer is really fun (or I would have felt ripped off).  There’s a variety of maps that are large (sometimes too large for its player capacity), plenty of things to unlock as the player progresses their level, and an array of vehicles to fly and drive.  After a good dozen hours of playing multiplayer, I realized that the game still has problems with glitches; however, I already saw problems from the beta fixed while new ones are quickly addressed and remedied.  Multiplayer actually feels more challenging than Bad Company 2 did, but it also feels more balanced.  Consoles unfortunately have half the player capacity that PC players do and it can be difficult to find or even see any enemies for a while.  I find it upsetting that the DLC was planned from the beginning to be sold separately, but I can’t say I’m surprised seeing how a lot of game developers and publishers has turned to purposely excluding content from a game to be resold to players.  Still, the core content within Battlefield 3 is enough to satisfy me on what I want out of it for the rest of the year.  Concept & Content: 7/10

Duration

Single-player wasn’t very long, and that’s alright by me since I didn’t enjoy it that much anyways.  I’m not sure what to say about online multiplayer.  I’ve barely scratched the surface of multiplayer and I’ve already played 10-20 hours on it.  I’m mainly playing as assault as I’ve come to enjoy playing healers in games now (this started when I realized other players not doing their jobs when choosing to play as one).  There’s a lot of things to unlock and experiment with and each match can last anywhere from 10 minutes to half an hour.  The gameplay is slower paced than most FPS games, but that tension right before a really big fight is what makes the game so exciting.  Other times, it’s not but action and both sides are constantly in a fire-fight.  I have to admit that I can’t play the game for long durations (it can be a tiring game), but it’s a game I feel comfortable revisiting again and again as long as I feel up for playing it.  Duration: 9/10

Fun

I had mixed reactions throughout playing Battlefield 3.  I started with campaign first and marveled at the amazing graphics and how breath taking the environment was.  The gameplay was okay for a while and then I started realizing how very little safe cover there were in every area.  Enemies were killing me in 2 shots if not one and that led me to staying in cover a lot.  As the game progressed, it got worse and the story didn’t interest me anymore.  With multiplayer, it was difficult to adjust to the controls in the beginning.  I died a lot trying to knife but ended up crouching or trying to throw a grenade and accidentally knifing the air.  I really hated how the spot key was in a position where I had to leave my analog stick.  It was mainly getting used to playing on controller as opposed to keyboard and mouse (I purposely chose to purchase the console version because the PC version had so many problems that I couldn’t even start it).  After having a grasp at the concept, controls and area of each map, I began to play a lot more naturally and enjoyed the game.  Then there are times when I play multiplayer and can’t enjoy it because no one on my team seems to want to fulfill the main objective and I’m always put in the losing team (which makes sense because the only games with free slots are ones with players leaving a losing game).  When all goes well, I get a game where I get tons of kills, lots of points from healing and support, and the whole team wins which feels so good.  It’s like a crazy roller coaster ride with Battlefield 3.  Fun: 8/10

Overall

The single-player campaign wasn’t that great.  Co-op is only online play and it’s difficult to coordinate on console if you don’t have a microphone (which most people don’t even use for team-work in the first place).  Content that could’ve been in the game to begin with is cut out to be sold as a DLC.  There were plenty of reasons that made me look down upon BF3 and made me wonder why I got it.  Battlefield had always excelled in is multiplayer mode, and although BF3’s multiplayer is really fun, it’s not entirely polished.  I would much rather have had the developers focus on the multiplayer and take out all the problems before it actually launched, have the content that should have been in there stay there and justify the $60 it charged players, and truly have a complete multiplayer.  Still, I thought they did a good job on rebalancing the game from what they did for Bad Company 2 such as changing the roles of each class and the power output of each weapons.  Teamwork is still a must and does a good job emphasizing it by punishing those who go off on their own through its game design.  The game isn’t entirely up to expectations from all the hype it gathered, but I still ended up enjoying it for the most part.  Overall: 8/10

NewNews - Game Releases

Battlefield 3 (Released Today)
It's a big day today as FPS fans get their hands on Battlefield 3 and has started fragging each other as of last night.  My friend just told me he beat campaign, but it's longer than most FPS games' campaigns (I won't spoil anything, even the duration).

Source: Youtube Channel Battlefield

The Cursed Crusade (Released Today)
Published by Atlus, The Cursed Crusade provides a unique co-op hack-n-slash Action game with over 90 combos, dozens of weapons, and a lot of chaos.  Right now, the game is getting killed by the critics.  Not to mention that it released on the same day as Battlefield 3 with little to no advertising at all (not even on the front scroller on Steam).  Oh well, I am very interested in this game and will eventually check it out.

Some games to look out for in the next month:
-October 31: Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
-October 31: Lord of the Rings: War in the North
-November 1: Sonic Generations
-November 1: GoldenEye 007: Reloaded
-November 8: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
-November 11: Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
-November 15: Assassin's Creed Revelations
-November 20: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
-November 22: TEKKEN Hybrid Limited Edition
-November 22: The King of Fighters XIII

NewNews - Battlefield 3 Beta Begins

Official Site: http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3

Source: Youtube Channel cvg

Battlefield 3's Open Beta Testing started yesterday and will only last for a week or so.  The beta is available to everyone on all platforms: PC, PS3, Xbox 360.

For PC:
-Login with your EA account through their new Origin program
-Download Battlefield 3 Beta through the program
-Make sure you have the latest drivers and meet the minimum requirement
-Install Battlefield 3 and launch it to get to the Battlelog screen
-Press Quick Start or find your own server to join and play

For PS3:
-Go to the PSN Store and download the BF3 Beta
-Install it and start up the game and select quick start
-Here are the controls for PS3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/6193188563/

For Xbox 360:
-Go to the XBL Marketplace and go to the demo section
-Download and install BF3 Beta

Please find the time to log into the Battlelog and list off all the bugs you find in the forum page under "Bugs/issues".  I couldn't even play the game on PC because of countless errors.  For the PS3, the game would keep loading without any results, I've fallen through the ground several times before, and a lot of weird ally spawn collision happens.  So there's plenty to report.  Send in your bugs and opinions and help the developers make the best FPS experience they can possibly make.

GameLight Review - Medal of Honor (2010)

After yesterday's post, I played some Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and was reminded of why I took a break from it.  As I mentioned in the review, the game's experience is dependent on your team mates.  I lost most all my matches last night because of those team mates.  Those who only care about killing goes up and does get the most kills, but also died the most and used up most of the team's tickets while not fulfilling the objectives.  Squad mates complaining players to stop playing sniper and rush forward just bugged me because I was a sniper and was the one getting the most capture points, defuses, and squad assists.  Afterwards, I logged onto Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and played a few good games with the last one with me getting the winning shot.  Today's game review will be a sort of mix between Battlefield and Call of Duty.

Official Site: http://www.medalofhonor.com/

Source: Youtube Channel medalofhonor


Developer: Danger Close (Single-Player) DICE (Multiplayer)
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Platforms: Playstation 3, Xbox 360 & PC
Release Date: October 12, 2010.
Genre: First-Person Shooter

Pros:
-Beautifully presented graphics that is both dynamic and easy on the eyes
-Incredible sound engineering with the best recordings and output of audio in any FPS
-Encourages players to work together with specific designs to the maps
-Immersive gameplay with a moving storyline

Cons:
-Program specific triggers and events in Single-player breaks the flow of the game
-Weapons and maps are unbalanced and/or bugged/exploited
-Game's experience for team-specific maps are dependent on team mates
-Limited number of weapon customization, modes, and maps to play on

Medal of Honor (2010) surpassed all expectations out of me as I've never really had any interest in the series due to its dark muddled color schemes, trigger-specific gameplay, and clunky controls for competitive multiplayer.  Medal of Honor has been out for 7 months now and has sold approximately 5 million copies which does not beat the sales of Call of Duty: Black Ops, Halo: Reach, or its own game Battlefield: Bad Company 2.  Despite quickly ignored after the release of Black Ops, the game is a fun shooter that truly had me on edge through the campaigns and kept me excited during multiplayer matches.  There are many aspects that make the game great but is hindered by problems that eventually discourages its players to leave.  Despite minor set-backs, I was happy with my purchase of the game and hope that the series sees as much quality as this one did with resolution to the problems it had before.

Graphics
The graphics for Medal of Honor is simply magnificent and a huge difference from previous installments within the series.  This was the video that got me interested in trying out the game:

Source: Youtube Channel medalofhonor

The models are clean, the colors are dynamic and is easier on the eyes, the textures are sharp and beautiful and the effects are amazing.  Something as simple as explosions from grenades were a spectacle to see during multiplayer with every detail to environment debris, smoke, the lighting from the fire, and the audio tops it off making it as realistic and immersive as possible.  There were parts of the game where textures went haywire and glitched out of the models in mountains, the sky, or trees.  The found the HUD to be pretty unique with a nice futuristic feeling color and lighting effect similar to Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter series.  The points display is similar to Call of Duty and presents itself in a clean semi-neon text.  The HUD is really nice in that its information is straight forward and also doesn't take too much of the screen making for efficient use without being a hindrance.  Graphics: 10/10

Audio
Possibly the first thing I immediately noticed when I tried the game on PC during open beta was the sound of the guns.  They sounded so powerful (I have headphones on when playing) and close rather than just being a recording of a gunshot.  I'm not exactly sure what the sound engineers did for the audio, but the reverb from explosions, gunshots, taking hits, and voice acting were all incredible and possibly the best I've ever heard out of a FPS game.  It might be just me, but I think the programming and recordings for the sound effects in multiplayer is different from singleplayer.  Single-player doesn't have that bombastic effect in the gunshots as it does in Multiplayer.  I loved it so much that I went out of my way to buy an audio processor so that I could use headphones with simulated surround sound on my Playstation 3.  The sound of a shotgun, machine gun, and especially sniper rifle never sounded so good in a videogame before.  Audio: 10/10  (By the way, if you play with headphones on and have a strong bass, getting shot is pretty scary which I felt added the effect to multiplayer.  An incentive not to get shot = sudden loud thump noise of bullets hitting the body).

Gameplay
The singleplayer and multiplayer were developed separately by two different teams and will be judged as such starting with the singleplayer.  I really liked the singleplayer, but not without some complaints.  Some of the events are cinematic-style scenes which tends to drag on sometimes, especially if it's not the first player through.  The firefights can get pretty exciting, but it comes to a complete halt when a programmed trigger is not activated.  This can be frustrating when the player doesn't know what would be causing the game not to continue with the story.  An example is when one of the scenes mission was to get to the building inside, the allies AI crowds around the door, but no one can get in.  Luckily, I've faced weird bugs such as these before in videogames and looked around the rest of the area and found one lone enemy hiding in cover facing the direction I came in from.  The game continued after I killed him.  This isn't a matter of realism, but a basis for game design and the flow of gameplay the player experiences.  I ran into these sort of problems several times during the game and it really killed the suspense when the game was building up tension.  There were many events throughout the campaign that were really pushing the player to be more alert and constantly participating in the action.  The story is told through several perspectives and really brings the player back around to the main characters.  I think there's a possibility that I liked the campaign of Medal of Honor a little more than Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty: Black Ops as MoH truly kept me on edge and holding my breath throughout the entire game.  The campaign can also be played on Tier 1 mode which I guess is a super hard difficulty challenge.  The game was hard enough on normal, I'm not sure if I can get through the whole game on Tier 1 mode.

Source: Youtube Channel medalofhonor

Multiplayer is a different experience from the singleplayer (of course) but has its own entertainment values.  Multiplayer is typical two sides versus matches with 4 game modes.  I've only played the capture point and death match modes as those are the most populated.  Players can choose from three different classes, each with their own loadouts and equipment choices: Assault, Special Ops, Sniper.  The capture points mode and other modes are dependent on team play and are such reliant on the type of players you get matched up with.  When you get on a good team, the experience can be quite exhilarating and satisfying with you and your team mates rushing the front, watching each other's backs, and deploying team specific perks.  The game can be a horrible experience too though with more reasons than one.  Having bad team mates can make for a one-sided fight since players will rush to their deaths on their own thinking they'll just respawn and kill some more like in Call of Duty (which is fine for deathmatch actually).  There's also the problem of how players spawn.  In capture points, enemy players that have played enough will know exactly where you and your team mates spawn and can literally camp in an area where they can kill you the second you spawn.  This can be behind your own base or in the fronts where they shoot in the general vicinity of where you will spawn.  Some of the maps also causes players to funnel through the same area which makes it easy to spray and pray on anyone through through that path.  If it's not a gunshot, players who were already spawn camping would have enough kills to call on mortar strikes on your team's spawn point and get a few good kills.  The weapons have to be unlocked by leveling the class you played through a match by earning the points.  So if you continually suffer and not play well, leveling will be a problem (wasn't too bad for me).  Even with items unlocked, weapons are limited and few.  The good thing is that there's not such thing as a useless weapon as all weapons are powerful (even pistols).  Problem with that is some of the weapons are overpowering, and sometimes I like it because of it.  Besides playing sniper (my favorite class), I would play special ops with a shotgun that can instantly kill anyone close OR mid-ranged.  The shotgun's reach is so ridiculous that I've gotten kills across the map with about 3-5 shots before.  I've gotten scores such as 32 Kills and 9 Deaths using a shotgun before because of how amazing the reach and power is (keep in mind that I play casually and am not very good at First-Person Shooters compared to most players online).  The game really can get exciting and fun when everyone is playing fairly.  But there are just too many design flaws, bugs, and exploits to deem it fair, consistently enjoyable, or even bearable when you're getting killed repeatedly from your spawn point.  Gameplay: 8/10 (it would've been a 7/10, but the incredible audio, awesome sniper class and overpowering shotgun convinced me to give an extra point).

Replay Value
This portion is debatable and can vary from player to player.  The game doesn't have that many modes, maps, or weapons, so the main experience is dependent on the people you play with (which usually turns out to be bad).  Some players might get bored after unlocking everything as their incentive to play was to unlock items.  Others might get turned off by the problems the game suffers from as described above.  Most players I see online range from about 2000-4000 points of experience with a select few at 1000 or 8000.  Those who have high experience points are often more than not ones who spawn camp racking up to 30-50 kills with 1-2 deaths.  And what happens when one person does it?  Their whole team joins in, making it difficult to near impossible to flank.  With the Playstation Network still down, it's very uncertain what the future of Medal of Honor's online play is going to be like.  The last few times I logged on, there was a max player count of about 1000-5000.  The singleplayer was fun, but I would mainly replay it through tier 1 mode to test my skills.  Even if I felt like playing multiplayer, it would be once in a while.  I usually play deathmatch now if I want to play since the team-based ones can be infuriating with bad team mates.  It's pretty difficult to recommend the game now for its multiplayer as its population is dwindling.  I'll probably still play the game once in a while, but it's difficult to make a decision to do so each time I get free time since I have a large backlog of games.  Replay Value: 7/10

Overall
If you can find the game for less than $20 and you enjoy military-themed FPS games, then I recommend playing through it for the experience.  No other FPS has such detail and quality in its audio and realism as Medal of Honor (2010) (thus far).  And if you're like me not liking previous Medal of Honor games as much, don't worry and give this game a chance as it's a huge difference from its older installments.  With an exciting single player campaign and a broken yet entertaining multiplayer, the game should be tried out by all FPS players at least once.  Overall: 8.75/10

GameLight Review - Battlefield: Bad Company 2

This week is going to be kind of like a GameOn event in that I'm going to be doing game reviews all week.  I finished through three games last week and wanted to review two others I finished a short while ago.  They are somewhat old, but still relevant now (meaning it's still worth picking up these games and playing them).  I have three First-Person Shooters (FPS) and two Action Role-Playing Games (ARPG) lined up for this week's game reviews.  Today, I'll be reviewing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 for PC.

Official Site: http://www.battlefieldbadcompany2.com/

Source: Youtube Channel Games

Developer: DICE
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Platforms: Playstation 3, Xbox 360 & PC
Release Date: March 2, 2010.
Genre: First-Person Shooter

Pros:
-Interesting Storyline with an entertaining Single-player Campaign
-Squad-based multiplayer distinguishes itself from other First-Person Shooters
-Class-based loadouts adds a special dynamic in team-play
-The game offers a lot in content, gameplay, and replay value

Cons:
-The experience in multiplayer relies heavily on the team you're on and playing against
-Lots of off-putting moments such as object contact lag, spawn killed, and dumb team mates
-The many things that you can't kill but can kill you (vehicles, rockets, grenadiers, snipers, etc.)

This review is long overdue with it being out for over a year and two months exactly now; however, it doesn't change the fact that Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is still an exciting game for anyone who like team-based action games to enjoy now with the Vietnam expansion and weapons DLC still offering gamers something new.  The first Bad Company may have gone under my radar when it was released, but I'm glad I had the chance to get the sequel during the Christmas holidays when I did.  With a full fledged Single-player campaign, an extensive multiplayer mode with four classes to choose from, various maps, and tons of unlockable items, the game is still worth picking up as we wait for the release of Battlefield 3.

Graphics
First and foremost, I have to say that the developers did an incredible job optimizing the graphics for the PC.  I have to put the graphics down in order to have a smooth gameplay experience, but not so much that it hindered on the beautiful landscapes and effects of the game's graphics.  The environment within the game is simply breath taking from the large background terrain to the tiny debris that flies off a door when breaking it down.  Though the developers go for a more realistic look to the art style, they kept the design for the game in mind and worked around the colors of the units, objects, and terrain.  The dynamics in color, lighting, and contrast worked really well and was comfortable to the eyes as well as distinguishing objects around the player from melding in together too much into a messy amalgamation.  The animation is nice for the most part, and the destructible environments worked really well with the graphics for the debris.  Smoke and debris does slow the game down for me once in a while, but I'm hoping to still be playing the game when I get a nicer computer (I play on a laptop currently).  My main complaint on the graphics would be more due to the network in how there is quite a bit of lag in bullet contact, distance, and hit-box sync with the models in multiplayer.  Graphics: 10/10

Audio
I found the music to be unfitting and awkward in many parts of the singleplayer as well as loading screens for multiplayer.  They're distinct, but not incredibly memorable.  For the most part, it was okay and kept scenes from being silent.  The sound effects were decent, but nothing that stood-out and blew me away.  I do have to make an exception to the reverb sound from an explosion.  It causes your character to go deaf for a few seconds before sound normalizes.  The programming is pretty good and very important when you're trying to flank on an opponent who's firing at your team mates.  The most satisfying sound to hear is the beeping of points whenever my med packs heal a group of my team mates.  Audio: 8/10

Gameplay
I didn't know that the game had a Single player mode.  Perhaps the first one had it, but I never heard of Bad Company in the Battlefield series until the sequel came out.  The single-player campaign feels very different from Call of Duty's gritty environment of war and chaos and takes the story a bit more lightly with humor, movie-like action scenes, and a cast of eccentric characters you team up with.  The single-player is pretty action packed, bringing the player from one spot to the next with fire fights, tank battles, and vehicle raids.  The single-player last much longer than I expected and delivered an entertaining experience, but there were a few missions that felt more like a chore when traversing from one place to another in long distances.  Multiplayer is a bit harder to describe as the experience can differ from time to time.  My first experience with multiplayer was really good.  I teamed up with a friend and worked as a small squad in capturing objective points.  I've mainly played medic and have unlocked all there is for that class.  I noticed that there's a great deal of lag in processing bullet contact, kills and such.  I've knifed players and had them stand there frozen for 3-5 seconds before showing that they have been killed.  I would shoot a whole clip of bullets into an opponent and they would sometimes survive with not a single hit landed on them.  Aside from that bit of annoyance (which doesn't happen all the time) is the team you play with.  Since I played with a friend, we were able to carry out objectives a lot more effectively and watch out for each other; however, I have play many times on my own with random players and they would kill the experience for me.  Medics run past my dead body while trying to kill someone with their Machine guns, assaults run off on their own to kill enemies while the team's bases gets armed and blown up, snipers just sit there waiting for an opponent to come by instead of throwing radar to keep an eye out for enemies, etc.  This video would be very useful to watch before playing for anyone on Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Souce: Youtube Channel GamerSpawn

It also explains a lot of the game mechanics in those short 9 minutes.  There can also be the infuriating events of constantly getting killed the second you spawn ANYwhere on the map, but I believe a lot of the problems I've mentioned is applicable to many other FPS games.  So there are, of course, good points about the game.  The squad-based gameplay forces players to cooperate with their team mates as trying to go at it on your own will likely result in a failure or excessive deaths.  The problem is that many players go into Bad Company 2 thinking that it's similar to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  By having players die a lot, it encourages them to stick with the squad.  The distinct classes adds a nice dynamic to the game since it does something similar with the squad-based teamwork by having players focus on what their classes excel at to fulfill the mission rather than rushing up the front lines to try to get some kills.  There is a lot to unlock for each class and thus a lot of items to mix and match which changes the type of position your character plays for the team.  I personally loved playing the medic, mainly due to the blaring fact that most people don't do their jobs as medics in most games let alone this one.  Being able to tag enemies was also a welcome function since maps were huge and players looked small from afar.  I'm constantly mashing on the "Q" key when I'm up against a huge group.  Put everything together, and the game can get pretty exciting when both teams work really well pushing the lines and working together.  The feeling of "belonging in a team" is similar to MAG on the PS3 in how it creates a special atmosphere for working with your team rather than running off on your own like in Call of Duty.  The game can be just as bad though when you have bad team mates and you're up against a solid team who are working cohesively together to get the job done.  I really like playing Battlefield: Bad Company 2, but sometimes I get turned off by uncooperative mates and bad matches.  Gameplay: 8/10

Replay Value
This is subjective since people all treat multiplayer differently in this game.  My friend started to play the game a lot less after unlocking most all of the items in the game.  I offered the idea of getting the expansion for extra unlockables and content, but even I questioned whether I wanted it or not at the moment.  I'm not quite sure how strong the replay value is, but I still have the urge to play more since I've unlocked all of the items for medic, but haven't touched the other three much yet.  I'm up to 22 hours of gameplay so far, and I think I might play later today since I haven't touched it in a while (been playing a lot of offline games).  While the maps do sort of get too familiar after a while, I feel there is a lot to offer players with the dynamics of the classes, items, people you get matched up with, etc.  After a while though, I do take a break from it as I can't stand the reliance on team work when I've lost 7 matches in a row due to team mates who don't want to stick together.  But for the price the game is selling for now (generally $20, I got it for $7), it's well worth the purchase and will last long enough for those waiting for Battlefield 3.  Replay Value: 9/10

Overall
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a unique experience that most FPS games don't offer and is well worth the purchase for those who are looking for a more team-based experience in their FPS games.  The game offers hours of gameplay experience with lot of items to work with, large maps with vehicles at your disposal, and a class-based system that is sure to change the way you play each time you log on.  Though the set-backs from lag, random explosion deaths, and infuriating team mates who don't know what they're doing can be frustrating, the addition of single-player mode, the joy of getting multiple kills in one spawn, and the major victory from a team effort of well coordinated players can be a satisfaction that no other FPS game can offer.  Overall: 8.75

GameOn - FPS Week starting with Medal of Honor (2010)

With tomorrow's launch of Call of Duty: Black Ops, I couldn't help but talk about some of the recent First-Person Shooters I've been playing recently.  This will be a 5-day event on the discussion of 5 different FPS games.

[Medal of Honor - Electronic Arts/DICE - PS3/Xbox 360/PC]


Source - Youtube Channel medalofhonor

I have to admit right now that I have not played the actual game.  I participated in the open beta on PC through the Steam program and am very glad I did.  Though it is not selling like hotcakes and has the multiplayer dynamics of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the game feels, sounds, and plays like no other FPS game before it.  The quality put into the audio is the most impressive aspect of the multiplayer beta I tested with a few other thousand players on Steam PC.  My laptop is not up to spec, and so I had to keep the resolution at a lower ratio.  Despite that fall back, the graphics were still breath taking and really added to the game experience.  I plan on buying this game in the future for possibly the PS3 as I want the full experience of no graphics lag, highest graphics capability, and a less likely chance to go into a online match with a hacker (I will explain that tomorrow on CoD:MW2).


Pros:
-Incredible, dynamic graphics.  I did not like the muddled, brown color schematics of the older MoH games.
-Superb, realistic audio.  I want this game mainly for the experience the audio gave me.  No other game delivers this type of excitement into my FPS experience.
-Encourages team play.  Most FPS games have players running off on their own, but this MoH forces the players to work in a line if they do not wish to have a bullet through their head each time they run forward.
-Immersive environment.  The explosions, weather, and bullets all have an impact on the experience because of how detailed the graphics are rendered and how well designed the audio travels.


Cons:
-Awkward level design (in the area the beta allowed us to play in) allows players to predict where their opponents spawn and essentially kill them the second they come in as well as having opponents funnel through 2-3 obvious paths.
-Multiplayer is dependent on team work, and so the experience of the game can change dramatically depending on the skill level of your comrades.  (I had the best experience the first time I played, and then I started to realize how bad it could be after playing a few round with people who were playing for the first time).
-Customization is extremely limited to about 24 different parts to change compared to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's extensive custom class aspect that has over 100+ different parts to swap out.

I encourage those who love FPS games to try this game at the very least before determining that Medal of Honor is not the game for them.  I understand that it released between Halo: Reach and tomorrow's release of Call of Duty: Black Ops; however, I believe that there is enough difference in the experience that each one delivers to buy all three and still find something enjoyable out of each one.