BigWoopMagazine

@Khaoschick – yay thanks for the kudos!  I'm glad you enjoyed it, too bad we couldn't get a good connection to play together. hah, and that difficulty rating is funny, but true.  Easy plat, but lots of fun to get.

I honestly don't remember my last plat, but I think it was Burnout Paradise from when we were doing the platinum contest.  I think you all know the details on that one.

@Ratchet – thats pretty much what I always do.  You just seemed confused this time, I thought I'd spell it out for ya. 

@Mojo – We've kinda run this topic into the ground, but I'd like to note that not all games have this level of severity when it comes to glitches.  Just the multiplayer ones.  Most single player games lately have been pretty good about it – at  least, the ones I buy… and the glitches they do have aren't as in your face game breakingly close.  Games like Infamous, Dead Space (although theres an item duping glitch, but you have to look it up to do it), Red Faction Guerilla, Batman AA, Soul Calibur 4, Tekken 6, Little Big Planet, and God of War 3 (as far as I know).  Even the games we're talking about here, MW2 and BFBC2, if you stay offline theres virtually no glitches.  Same with Uncharted 2 (which while even that has had its glitches, seems to provide the most reliably good online games in the past year), and probably a few others I can't think of right now.  Anyway, my point is that regardless of how well made a game is, as soon as it gets users connecting to eachother, the potential for glitches rises exponentially.  I'm not saying that either game is made really well or really poorly, just that this is an inevitability for what they are trying to accomplish.

Ratchet525 said:

its so funny watching you guys get pissed.

You miss the point ratchet, entirely.  90% of your posts, like this one, contribute NOTHING to the discussion at hand.  You sit there wondering why we don't get your posts, when in reality, you are the one who does not get it.  We understand what “No” means.  We don't understand how that was supposed to contribute to what we are talking about.

@Mojo – okay, I like the picture.  Actually its pretty funny, cause its mostly accurate.  Theres definitely a few maps that don't follow that formula, and the ones that do tend to piss me off because of assloads of snipers watching the bottleneck.  Nonetheless, if you're saying “its a bunch of cod maps stitched together” well,,, at least they're 5 times bigger than COD maps.  The nice thing about them is that in different modes you play different areas, and really the bottlenecks are only a problem in rush mode.  In conquest and deathmatch its much less linear, and I don't really notice that issue.  I also enjoy that theres a consistent mix in the maps between urban and rural warfare – sure theres not buildings all the time, that'd be too easy, since you can blow them up.  The fact that there are sections you have to move up through where your only cover is the camoflauge of the foliage around you can be pretty fun, but also frustrating at times.  Overall they balance those elements well, and it works with the destructibility of the environments.

The Mario 64 glitch I was referring to is that theres a way to run THROUGH the train.  Not just ride the tracks.  Plus it was an example off the top of my head and not the best one.  I'd come up with more but you should get the idea – games have never been glitch free, and never will be.  Thanks to the internet, some of those glitches can be fixed post-release, which is a good thing for the most part – but I'm sure you're right that some developers take advantage of that.  I think IW definitely rode that train, but BFBC2 looks like they really tried to eliminate as many things as they could before release – as they should have, what with the claims of competing with MW2. 

As for the beta, I was not confused.  I was referring to the public ones.  I know, theres internal testing of course.  Hiring a team of people to do testing means paying people.  Lets say thats ~$35,000 per year per person.  Average COD game = 16 players (I think).  Do the math, thats some money right there.  Lets assume they had two full teams of people doing the testing.  Now do that versus having several thousand people do the testing for free.  Sure, the feedback isn't as professional (but I know nerds, they love to complain when something goes wrong), but with more people doing it you are definitely going to find way more glitches to fix – and it shows by the number there were on release day comparing the two games.  I reiterate, on day one of MW2, the servers didn't even work.  On day two, it was glitched to high hell.  On day now, it is still insanely glitched.  BFBC2 on day one had less glitches than MW2 has now.  If that doesn't do it for you, then heres a list of the things that were fixed during BFBC2's public beta:

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/365311.page

Sure its not everything, but damn thats a lot, and some of it is pretty significant.  Public betas are free mass testing, and are effective if the company makes good use of it.  I don't see why the wouldn't, and think it was a huge mistake on IW's part to have not done so.

:::ahhhh::: now that all of that is out there, I will say I stick to my opinion of BFBC2 being better for all the reasons originally cited.  Destructible buildings, Vehicles, Maps that shift to new locations as you play, Classes that encourage team work, the squad spawning system, and the actual potential for tactical warfare to occur.  I can tell a major difference when I play with friends who communicate in BFBC2, because we support each other and balance our classes.  In all CoD games, it has never made a difference in how we play or perform, I just have someone to bullshit with while shooting people.  I guess in the end its still all a matter of preference, and I've made mine incredibly apparent.

@mojo –

please imagine I am waving my hands erratically to display my frustration as I explain this…

so first.  No.  Games are WAY more complicated now that in the past.  WAAAAAAAAAAAY.  cannot stress this enough.  You have clearly never programmed squat if you disagree with this statement in any way.  good god I'm not even going to explain it but I'll give you a key word here: INTERNET.

okay.

so.

The fact that I need to cite actual game breaking glitches is ridiculous – due to the fact that in order to remain relevant to the current argument here game breaking glitches needs to refer to something multiplayer.  Why?  Because other wise it wasn't “game breaking”, it was nifty, or fun to goof off with, you weren't pissing any one else off and the only person you ruined the game for was yourself, not other people.  Internet on consoles is fairly new – but its been on PC for a while.  Any PC game worth talking about has been patched multiple times in order to fix… get this, glitches!  (OMG HES CRAZY, Glitches?! no way.)  Ahem… however, I will proceed to list some console games that were extremely popular despite their game breaking glitches.

NES – Tecmo Super Bowl – In a 2 player game, if a player ran the ball into his own end zone, it would score points for the other team.  By starting a tournament, pressing start on controller 2, and doing this, you could easily win the tourny with no effort.  BROKEN.

N64 – MarioKart64 – on the desert racer level, there is a glitch that will allow you to ride the train track and not get hit by the train – thus shortcutting every one else and winning the race easy.  Not game breaking, but pretty damn cheap, and breaks that level.

PS2 – GOD OF WAR – The harpy glitch.  Frickin google it.  Its even still in the remake – easy trophy!

Now with these games, its only game breaking if YOU use them.  Other people can't piss you off by using them (except mario kart, but they're next to you, so just punch them).  I could name tons and tons and tons, you can't argue that any game is perfect.  Its like arguing that you're the perfect person.  You can try, but you might as well fight Chuck Norris with a ball of tissue paper.  The advent of the internet in gaming makes everything 10 times more complicated… find a popular PC multiplayer game (since they've been doing it longer) that hasn't been patched at least once, and probably multiple times over.  The issues you've named in BFBC2 are not game breaking.  Shoot the damn UAV.  You should be guarding the box anyway.  Its annoying, but they're using a tactic, use tactics to stop them. As for the ticket trick – I have encountered teams using this.  They suck.  I still win.  It just takes forever, and yes, this needs to be fixed.  The game has been out a month.  They haven't even had a chance to create a patch and issue it.  MW2 has been out much longer, patched multiple times, still has game breaking glitches, and still has more issues and glitches than BFBC2, which is probably a result of, get this, bad programming and rushed patches.  And, for the record, BFBC2 was tested, it had this thing, we call it a beta.  MW2 however did not.  Numerous other games have had betas too and still been patched afterwards (Uncharted 2, MAG, ModNation [thats not out yet! but wait, there will be a patch!]).  Theres no possible way to find every single little bug in a multiplayer game in a month long beta, unless you are the most talented programmer in the freakin universe, and even then, its doubtful! Anyway, the real point is, no game is perfect, but you can tell how much effort was put into it.  BFBC2 has improved on its predecessor in every way possible.  MW2 is if anything glitchier (is that a real word now?) and completely imbalanced, making it in my opinion worse than its predecessor. 

My apologies for being fired up about this one, but after waiting as long as I did for MW2, and receiving such dissapointment, I find myself happy to have an addicting and refreshing experience like BFBC2.  I sincerely hope that Dice follows through and supports it by patching out the issues that do exist, but don't ignore the fact that they have fixed many things already.  You can find the list of issues fixed in the beta here:  http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/365311.page

dizzel22 said:

I spose it just depends on what you want MW2 is definatley the more tactical shooter (although most often not played that way) and BBC2 is more of a hectic game.

  Personally im loving BBC2 atm because of the action in it and so far i havent had a problem with Glitchers and Campers robbing me of my fun because they don't know how to play.

Are you on drugs?  The word “tactical” should never be associated with MW2.  Its a run and gun twitch shooter with tons of glitchers doing whatever they can to score higher than you rather than have fun with the game.  Its one of the most frustrating things in video gaming I've encountered in years.  I've never seen something released with so many flaws thats clearly riding on the success of its predecessors and still receive so much praise for innovation where there is none, for quality where there is none, and for fun where there is none.  Its impossible to have fun with this game when people are purposefully getting stuck in walls so you can't kill them, but they can kill you and end the round with a glitched nuke.  Its ridiculous to praise this absurd crap and then call it tactical.  THERE IS NO TACTICS HERE.  There is no balance in this game, no team work, its every man for himself and whoever shoots first wins.  Sorry for that rant, I realize you weren't offering praise for the game, just that comment annoyed the crap out of me.

Tactics – noun – a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.

In BFBC2 and MAG, if you want to win on a consistent basis, you need a plan and communication.  Such behavior is highly encouraged by squad organization, and receiving extra experience for working together and taking squad objectives.  Communicating what class type you will use and balancing a squad for multiple roles is rewarding.  Going non-tactical will result in getting squat done.  Going solo  will cause you to die.  I could go into a large amount of detail but won't – its fairly simple to see.  In BFBC2, all class types serve some sort of supportive role that is good for your TEAM – medics heal and resuscitate, recon motion detects and scopes enemies, assault resupplies with ammo, and engineers repair vehicles and dispose of enemy vehicles.  Planning how to use these abiliities in order to achieve victory is tactics.  I can tell a huge difference in both BFBC2 and MAG when I'm with a team who is working together and when I'm with one who's not – by who's ass gets wooped how hard.

@ratchet – because its just a viral site.  Its meant to be one of those things where you only find out by completing everything in the game or by word of mouth, and then start conversations like this one debating on what the deal is with it.  Its all the rage in marketing campaigns lately.  While it is possible that its associated with the number of platinums earned, any project that is being funded by any company is always on some sort of time line – therefore there is most likely a set date for the reveal, and they are just giving enough time for people to earn the platinum and look at the mysterious site before doing so.  What else would you expect?  They could just hand you the address before the game starts – “hey, before you even play, go check out our mysterious site that probably has something to do with any events occuring after the end of the game you haven't beaten yet”.  By revealing after earning a platinum, it ensures that you've seen everything (thereby giving you information with which to speculate about the site), and are probably one of the people who still wants more. 

“Who the F**k are the Arctic Monkeys?” by Arctic Monkeys