It's main claim to fame is wildly destructible environments, which is a press-release-like way of saying many of the actual buildings and structures in the game can be brought down by rockets, bombs, and other high-powered attacks.Ĭertainly that destruction mechanic was engaging enough to keep us roped into a single-player campaign that started off strong with a gripping WWII raid, but soon fell into shopworn cliche (and unlike the similarly cliched Modern Warfare 2, it lacked the frenetic energy to keep us from asking too many questions)-at least for a few hours.īut the main attraction is the online multiplayer, and on this count, the game both hits and misses. It has a collection of multiplayer games, a semi-throwaway single-player campaign, and the long-standing provenance that comes from being an offshoot of a well-liked classic game series.Īnd, in fact, this buzz-heavy shooter is very well-made and has much that catches our attention. Does it have a leg to stand on, or does it rely on too many elements that Modern Warfare 2 has seemingly perfected?Īs a potential rival to the juggernaut that is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the equally awkwardly named Battlefield: Bad Company 2 certainly looks the part. We've been playing Bad Company 2 for a while now and enjoy some things, but dislike others. We've seen attempts to capture the same experience before, but Battlefield: Bad Company seems to do the best job at tackling the genre with its own take on things.
Military-based action games have become the first-person-shooter staple thanks to franchises like Call of Duty.