Gamespot Review ... very nice

[DigiQ8]

9.3/10
woooohoooooooo

" Put simply, this is a thrilling and revolutionary game that just has to be played to be believed. "

Link

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Awesome

 

[satch919]

I just watched the video review. The guy doing the review could have used some more energy for such a high action title. Oh well. I knew this game would rock!!!!

 

[OCybrManO]

Whoa... whoa... whoa... I really like the game... but "revolutionary"? I don't think so. What, exactly, is original in BF2? It's Desert Combat with commanders (nope), squads (nope), voice communication (nope), ranked servers (nope), and a more advanced renderer (nope). Am I missing anything? Sure, it all adds up to a great game, but a revolutionary game is supposed to bring about fundamental changes... not a rehashing of a bunch of old ideas into a more polished product. That's normally called evolutionary. Correct me if I'm wrong... but, IMO, it missed being revolutionary by several years.

 

[Mad Dog]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but, IMO, it missed being revolutionary by several years.

You're wrong.

There's never been a game that's captured true teamwork the way BF2 does, period. I mean, sure, clanners with teamspeak have been running the table in FPS game for a while, but teamplay has never been so seemlessly integrated into a FPS UI before this. Strangers can, and do, team up on clan servers and show them who's house it is.

Kits are more geared towards squad-oriented teamplay, and the squad-commander dynamic is freaking genius. Vehicles have new functionality more conducive to teamwork, i.e. Heal/repair/rearm/functions, TV guided missiles/Laser guided bombs, ect. It's the kind of stuff that Tribes 2 promised, and is only now being delivered. It will catch on, it will be copied, it'll be standard. Is that revolutionary? IMO, it's revolutionary enough.

 

[Sparta]

You're wrong.

There's never been a game that's captured true teamwork the way BF2 does, period. I mean, sure, clanners with teamspeak have been running the table in FPS game for a while, but teamplay has never been so seemlessly integrated into a FPS UI before this. Strangers can, and do, team up on clan servers and show them who's house it is.

Kits are more geared towards squad-oriented teamplay, and the squad-commander dynamic is freaking genius. Vehicles have new functionality more conducive to teamwork, i.e. Heal/repair/rearm/functions, TV guided missiles/Laser guided bombs, ect. It's the kind of stuff that Tribes 2 promised, and is only now being delivered. It will catch on, it will be copied, it'll be standard. Is that revolutionary? IMO, it's revolutionary enough.

Um no, Revolutionary is doing something thats never been done before. Like 16 players on the same TV screen or computer at the same time, or something like that. This is not revolutionary. Its taken elements that have already been used in other games (Squads like Rainbow Six, voice-communication used in the same way as Halo 2) and combines them into this game. Its innovative but not revolutionary in anyway.

 

[AmishSlayer]

Good review. I'm surprised they complained about loading times. Only the shader optimization takes a long time and that's only when you change gfx options. Minor complaint, at least they didn't make a big deal of it.

 

[craig]

Hardly a suprising review from Gamespot there considering all the 'exclusivity' EA gave them.. this time IGN has been more honest with the review imo.

 

[Lucid]

[SARCASM]Bah! 9.3 is way too high, the least they could've done is give it a 9.1! bah! bah! baah![/SARCASM]
:angel:

 

[jimbo118]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24079

this one is the best so far imo.

 

[Sparta]

Thats the best written review so far.

 

[Sui]

You're wrong.

There's never been a game that's captured true teamwork the way BF2 does, period. I mean, sure, clanners with teamspeak have been running the table in FPS game for a while, but teamplay has never been so seemlessly integrated into a FPS UI before this. Strangers can, and do, team up on clan servers and show them who's house it is.

Kits are more geared towards squad-oriented teamplay, and the squad-commander dynamic is freaking genius. Vehicles have new functionality more conducive to teamwork, i.e. Heal/repair/rearm/functions, TV guided missiles/Laser guided bombs, ect. It's the kind of stuff that Tribes 2 promised, and is only now being delivered. It will catch on, it will be copied, it'll be standard. Is that revolutionary? IMO, it's revolutionary enough.

I agree with Mad Dog. Can't a game be revolutionary for setting a new standard? Surely the word "revolutionary" implies a major breakthrough that will change the way we look at things, and Battlefield 2 has definately done that for me. Battlefield 2 has inspired me to use proper teamwork in games like HL2DM, and encourages me not to just run around shooting people in CS. Teamwork is nothing new, but Battlefield 2 is almost just a demonstration; to say "yes, it can work well".

Maybe it's only revolutionary if you look at it in a certain light.

 

[DarkStar]

Gamespt rating a game HIGHER than IGN?

Hell hath frozen over.

 

[Axyon]

Whoa... whoa... whoa... I really like the game... but "revolutionary"? I don't think so. What, exactly, is original in BF2? It's Desert Combat with commanders (nope), squads (nope), voice communication (nope), ranked servers (nope), and a more advanced renderer (nope). Am I missing anything? Sure, it all adds up to a great game, but a revolutionary game is supposed to bring about fundamental changes... not a rehashing of a bunch of old ideas into a more polished product. That's normally called evolutionary. Correct me if I'm wrong... but, IMO, it missed being revolutionary by several years.

Why all the argument over this? It's fun, and that's all that bloody matters (to me, at least).

 

[craig]

Why all the argument over this? It's fun, and that's all that bloody matters (to me, at least).

He's making a valid point. This game isn't a revolutionary game. Half Life was a revolutionary game... Battlefield 2 isn't.

You guy's who like the game are entitled to your oppinions, but so are us guys who are more objective and can see this game for what it is.

 

[Axyon]

He's making a valid point. This game isn't a revolutionary game. Half Life was a revolutionary game... Battlefield 2 isn't.

You guy's who like the game are entitled to your oppinions, but so are us guys who are more objective and can see this game for what it is.

Yeah, but these 'points' seem to be intruding on a number of the threads in this forum. I just don't see why it's such a big deal.

 

[Sui]

Half Life was a revolutionary game.

Why? it introduced nothing new. You ran around shooting people.
Of course, you could be talking about the player's reaction to the game... and in that case, Battlefield 2 is revolutionary for the same reasons.

 

[Mad Dog]

rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rv-lsh-nr)
adj.

1.
a. often Revolutionary Relating to or being a revolution: revolutionary war; a museum of the Revolutionary era.
b. Bringing about or supporting a political or social revolution: revolutionary pamphlets.

2. Marked by or resulting in radical change: a revolutionary discovery.

IMO, and in the opinion of Gamespot's reviewer, BF2 radically changes the way players go about teamwork in video games. By definition, that's revolutionary. You can haggle about your perceived meaning of the word, but he's got the english language on his side.

 

[A True Canadian]

Why? it introduced nothing new. You ran around shooting people.
Of course, you could be talking about the player's reaction to the game... and in that case, Battlefield 2 is revolutionary for the same reasons.

I think he was talking about the first game. The inclusion of an evolving story, NPC's feeling more real, no cutscenes removing the player from the experience, contected level design to make it seem like one big level, and a multiplayer experience like no other.

Perhaps the best thing about Battlefield 2 is the unscripted events that occur in the game?

 

[OCybrManO]

IMO, and in the opinion of Gamespot's reviewer, BF2 radically changes the way players go about teamwork in video games. By definition, that's revolutionary. You can haggle about your perceived meaning of the word, but he's got the english language on his side.

First, he's not objective. Gamespot was practically their partner. In the trade-off Gamespot gets more business (like from people signing up for accounts to download the demo) in exchange for a glowing review. Companies don't go exclusive because they like each other. They do it because both sides make money.

Second, it doesn't revolutionize "the way players go about teamwork." It takes ideas already used in several other games and fine-tunes them. That's evolution. It's building off of previous knowledge. It's not taking things in a completely new direction that no one has thought of before.

Its gameplay is like Savage or NS in the setting of Desert Combat but where the commander can only command squads (leaving lone snipers with no instructions unless they go through the hassle of creating their own one-man-squad)... and the players have to form their own squads (like America's Army, but with less of an emphasis on having to join a squad). OMG, THAT'S REVOLUTIONARY THINKING! I'm sorry, but adding squads (old idea) and FPS/RTS features (old idea) to Desert Combat counts as being evolutionary... because it's no longer a radical change if something like it has been done several times before. If you desperately want to call something revolutionary you should look at the games BF2 stole its ideas from. Just because you seem to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist. Sure, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts... but just being an incredible game isn't enough to count it as revolutionary.

I say the same thing about Half-Life 2. It's a step up from Half-Life in almost every direction with a rehashed feature from an old game called Trespasser. It may be an incredible game but it's not revolutionary. It might have been if no one extensively used a physics engine before it... but, again, it missed being revolutionary by several years.

EDIT: I love BF2 and HL2... but you have to give credit where credit is due. They both designed their games around key features copied (although better implemented) from previous games.

 

[Sparta]

IMO, and in the opinion of Gamespot's reviewer, BF2 radically changes the way players go about teamwork in video games. By definition, that's revolutionary. You can haggle about your perceived meaning of the word, but he's got the english language on his side.

I think its more evolutionary then revolutionary, as it hasn't made any kind of radical change at all, its only made the teamwork a lot of fun.