Battlefield: Bad Company

 Xbox 360
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 325 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 219 out of 325
  2. Mixed: 69 out of 325
  3. Negative: 37 out of 325
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. youlouz
    Mar 21, 2015
    4
    This game is a little bad, and isn't worth buying unless your a huge battlefield fan. Theses levels are too long as well!

    PROS
    -Humor
    -Combat

    CONS
    -Graphics
    -Story
    -Multiplayer
  2. ScumBag
    Jul 7, 2008
    0
    Holy crap! This is ultimate garbage. Hands down, gold rush is the worst multiplayer mode I have ever played for any game. I can't believe conquest, the mode that made the series, is an afterthought here. The single player may be good, but I wouldn't know because I only play multiplayer games. I am blown away by how bad this trash is, especially as a fan of other Battlefield Holy crap! This is ultimate garbage. Hands down, gold rush is the worst multiplayer mode I have ever played for any game. I can't believe conquest, the mode that made the series, is an afterthought here. The single player may be good, but I wouldn't know because I only play multiplayer games. I am blown away by how bad this trash is, especially as a fan of other Battlefield games. These idiots telling you this is better than COD have clearly never played COD. I cannot stress enough to you that this is total GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE.GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE.GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE.… Expand
  3. ChrisS.
    Jul 9, 2008
    2
    Online is not a fun experience. Disliked the fact that I couldn't talk to all my friends. Also has a steep learning curve and a lot of getting shot in the back. I will pass on this one.
  4. Toltec01
    Sep 4, 2008
    2
    You have to be kidding me, some of the people voting high here actually work for EA! This had to be one of the more poorly tuned fps games in a while! Very consistent with alot of games this year, the art was superior but the gameplay sucked. From the walk and run speed, what does the hero have a short leg? What's up with all the hobbling around? The run speed was far too slow. You have to be kidding me, some of the people voting high here actually work for EA! This had to be one of the more poorly tuned fps games in a while! Very consistent with alot of games this year, the art was superior but the gameplay sucked. From the walk and run speed, what does the hero have a short leg? What's up with all the hobbling around? The run speed was far too slow. Second the whole of idea of setting things up strategically goes out the window; for one when I set up a trap with vehicle blocades and the movie load wipes them out or better yet I fall in love with the russian mortar strike weapon and that gets wiped never be seen again, that sucks! Who thought that was going to be a great idea? COH4 is much more superior than this game, there is no way the too could ever be compared. Two last parting critiques, a) I am the player I am the first person camera, several times I was wondering who the 5th person in the movie was, um, it was me, I guess some junior decided that would be ok, its not, it takes me straight out the game. 2) The comedy was poorly timed and written, next time hire a comedian and not a pretensious "game writer." All in all, again the art on the xbox 360 is superior this year, but the games blow, from Turok to Bad Company, someone needs to step up and hire some experienced devs.… Expand
  5. BobD.
    Jun 25, 2008
    4
    Apparently some of you didn't play the same demo I did, because what I experienced was a cartoonish, somewhat clunky second-rate version of CoD4. The graphics aren't as good, the player movement is not realistic, especially the bobbing while walking and running, and the AI was horrible. NPC's would get stuck behind objects regularly. And the voiceovers are just straight Apparently some of you didn't play the same demo I did, because what I experienced was a cartoonish, somewhat clunky second-rate version of CoD4. The graphics aren't as good, the player movement is not realistic, especially the bobbing while walking and running, and the AI was horrible. NPC's would get stuck behind objects regularly. And the voiceovers are just straight cheesy. The one good thing is that the sound is really good, but other than that, back to CoD4 and awaiting Gears 2.… Expand
  6. benny
    Jun 27, 2008
    0
    How many more times can EA fool the gulable public. Ive lost count how many times they have repackaged Battlefield, i stopped counting when they hit version 7 of battlefield, same also goes for all other EA game like Command and conquer, Sims, Fifa, NBA, EA aint about new games they are about rehashing old games until mr stupid stops buying them. just hope Rockstar dont sell out to E.A orHow many more times can EA fool the gulable public. Ive lost count how many times they have repackaged Battlefield, i stopped counting when they hit version 7 of battlefield, same also goes for all other EA game like Command and conquer, Sims, Fifa, NBA, EA aint about new games they are about rehashing old games until mr stupid stops buying them. just hope Rockstar dont sell out to E.A or you can say goodby to GTA Series… Expand
  7. JonT
    Jul 2, 2008
    1
    Brutal experience. Not fun. Very awkward game. For those of you comparing it to Call of Duty 4, a very simple glance at the official review metascore reveals... Call of Duty 4 = 94 Battlefield BC = 84 End of Story.
  8. AlexH
    Oct 6, 2009
    3
    The single player is fun but gets repetitive. Achievements are stupid in that you will not get the achievement for beating a mission on normal if you played it on hard so you have to play through them twice to get them all. Multiplayer hit detection is awful and you will often be killed and not know how or from where. That doesn't make for a very fun experience and overall this game The single player is fun but gets repetitive. Achievements are stupid in that you will not get the achievement for beating a mission on normal if you played it on hard so you have to play through them twice to get them all. Multiplayer hit detection is awful and you will often be killed and not know how or from where. That doesn't make for a very fun experience and overall this game just doesn't cut it. Pass on this and get Call of Duty.… Expand
  9. JeffC.
    Jun 21, 2008
    1
    I think the game is awful. The vehicles control horrible. It is only one step above Fronlines fuels of war.
  10. ChaseMurata
    Jun 24, 2008
    0
    Okay, after a few days and a lot of hours with the demo, here is my seasoned critique. A critique, as my first-impressions (of primarily the single-player) were far too generous.

    I do not like how there are only two spawn points (team or base). Opponents can simply camp with tanks and kill you in succession. I was killed five times in a row switching off both spawn points. Every time I    Okay, after a few days and a lot of hours with the demo, here is my seasoned critique. A critique, as my first-impressions (of primarily the single-player) were far too generous.

    I do not like how there are only two spawn points (team or base). Opponents can simply camp with tanks and kill you in succession. I was killed five times in a row switching off both spawn points. Every time I respawned at our base some asshole would immediately - before I could take a step - fire tank bursts into the spawn area. Between the tank and the machine-that-acts-like-your-own-personal-Airstrike, my entire team was decimated every time we spawned at the base spawn point during that game.

    The imbalance between classes is infuriating. Snipers have the advantage in most games as the scope covers a great deal of the map, and considering Battlefield is a large-scale game, snipers can, literally, see you coming from miles away. I will say, though, that the aiming system is so imprecise that it will take a few shots for them to kill you - but they will kill you before you can fire back.

    Damage is a bit ridiculous, and the Medic class, or what-ever-name-they-gave-it, is not useful at all. Why did they include this class into the game? No one uses it. No one. I have only seen a handful of people use this class in my hours upon hours of gameplay. When I do see them, only few of them handed out health crates. Those who did hand out health crates amidst warfare were killed alongside those who tried to get health crates.

    This brings me to my next point: the damage is ridiculously high. It takes only three shots to kill someone with a pistol, and I    … Expand
  11. NickH.
    Jun 25, 2008
    1
    Frontlines is better and that is sad. Who wants a GAME that u die so fast because your cover gets blown up so fast.
  12. ChrisE
    Jun 26, 2008
    2
    So flimsy and narrow feeling. Graphics disappoint and the combined sensory response to playing the game is frustrated nausea. Avoid, for your own benefit.
  13. DaveR
    Jul 28, 2008
    4
    This game is not fun and carries a limited immersion factor. It's full of bells and whistles and lacks in substance. The multiplayer experience was ridden with clipping issues and vehicle control issues. The regular controls are extremely awkward compared to other similar titles. The graphics are impressive but simply cannot make up for the blemishes. It is worth a rental at best.
  14. RonH
    May 26, 2009
    4
    Overall this game is a huge disappointment and step down from Battlefield 2. Even though I bought it new for 15 bucks, I feel a little ripped off. First off, the single player campaign is quite terrible, for a couple of reasons. The missions quickly become very repetitive and the levels are boring and uninspired. There is not a single urban/city level, all of the levels take place Overall this game is a huge disappointment and step down from Battlefield 2. Even though I bought it new for 15 bucks, I feel a little ripped off. First off, the single player campaign is quite terrible, for a couple of reasons. The missions quickly become very repetitive and the levels are boring and uninspired. There is not a single urban/city level, all of the levels take place outdoors in open fields/sparse forests. This is also something I dislike about the multiplayer maps, the lack of true variety. The music, what little there is, is not up to the standard of Battlefield 2. The story and characters are ok, nothing too special, I have no complaints there. I don't expect anything too original from the stories of FPS games. The graphics are allright, nothing to complain about there, especially since the environments have a lot of destructible objects. The enemy AI is a huge letdown, as well as a cause of great frustration. I found this by far the biggest factor that ruined much of the potential fun of the single player campaign. This is one area where the single player campaign of Call of Duty 4 did a MUCH better job. The enemy seems to have perfect aim and can see through objects, effectively rendering any stealth based approach futile. If it weren't for the fact that any enemies you kill before dying stay dead when you respawn, the campaign would be pretty much unplayable from the get-go. Literally the second you are in a position where the enemies bullets can hit you, they will hit you, with near perfect accuracy every time. One great aspect of the single player campaign is the destructible environments, which is also the best feature of the multiplayer. The vehicles are ok, nothing special, and there isn't nearly as much variety as in Battlefield 2 (both in single player and multiplayer). The controls in the game are allright, they feel a little clunky at first, but I feel they are pretty good after getting used to them. The multiplayer is not much better than the single player, and personally I find it a huge disappointment. To me, the biggest problem is the lack of clan support, private rooms, and just in general the way you join games. You pretty much get placed randomly into a game, it might be the map you chose to play, it might not. But the quality of the game you get thrown into varies greatly due to many different factors. In short, the multiplayer could be so much better than it is, had the developers just implemented a better system for joining games, and fixed the severe issues that plague the gameplay. The multiplayer uses a squad system, where you are paired with 3 other team mates. You can only communicate with them, the rest of your team (the other squads) just go about doing whatever it is they're doing since you have no way of communicating together. This makes the gameplay chaotic and destroys any real sense of teamwork in most matches. In most matches there is a kind of "every man for himself" feeling, even though the gold rush mode (the main multiplayer mode) is supposed to be a team-based objective game. This can get annoying when people are just chasing after kills, rather than defending/attacking the objective. In many rounds on the gold rush mode, and for that matter the conquest as well (which has to be downloaded), people just play like it is a death match and try to get a good kill/death ratio. Sometimes if you invite friends to be in your squad, they still end up in another squad, or even on the other team! This is the least of the problems though. The online is chock-full of glitches and exploits which so many people use that it makes a lot of matches (if not most of them) far more frustrating than fun. For example there is an artillery glitch that allows people to keep firing an incredibly powerful artillery gun at the enemy base without the recharge period the developers intended it to have. But that raises the question if they intended the recharge period to be there why haven't they STILL fixed it? Knifing is completely broken, which is incredibly frustrating. To me this is one of the biggest flaws with the game. Often times it doesn't register when you try to do it, other times you get knifed from literally 20 feet away, and vice versa. It seems completely random as to what will happen when you or your enemy pulls out the knife. Sometimes when you plant C4 on a vehicle, even though you clearly see it got placed where it should, you get mysteriously blown up only to find that the C4 didn't get stuck to the vehicle after all, even though it clearly did. This is another glitch the developers STILL haven't fixed, although this is far less frustrating than the issues with the knife. Another huge issue with the multiplayer is that the weapons are completely imbalanced. Because of this many people will just spam the overpowered weapons, making the game less fun than it should be. The problem is that many guns are very weak and inaccurate, but a few are incredibly powerful and precise. The MP5, for example, is too powerful for what it is, and yet its the starting weapon for the specialist class. Its pretty much as powerful as an M16, and almost as accurate. One of the shotguns which can be unlocked, the NS2000, is by far the most powerful weapon in the game. It can kill in one shot from sometimes over 30 feet away, and you barely have to aim it, just point it in the general direction. Granted anyone can use it to get cheap kills after unlocking it, it simply isn't fun playing a game where people are camping with it near the gold crates/outposts. The other shotguns are completely underpowered by comparison, apart from the MCS, which is also a little overpowered, although nowhere near as ridiculously accurate as the NS2000. The support class machineguns are almost useless at close range, since they take what seems like 50-100 bullets to kill anyone, and maybe 10 shots to the head. The sniper rifles are ok, that and the assault weapons are the only weapons classes that are adequately balanced. Some of the maps are better designed than others. There is one map which is just ridiculously annoying to play, almost every time, if you are on the attacking side. I think its called Deconstruction. There are a few small spots you have to go through to get to the enemy base, which makes it way too easy for the enemy to just camp in their base and kill you over and over again. Often times in this map the round will end without a single crate having been destroyed. A lot of the other maps are better thought but there are a couple of other slightly frustrating ones. Other issues with the multiplayer include team killers/spawn campers. Unlike in past Battlefield titles, it seems no consideration went toward either of these issues. Some rounds are rife with people that have memorized spawn points, who just sit in their enemies base and knife/blow up/gun down people as they appear, before they can do anything. There is no penalty for doing this. Similarly sometimes people deliberately start team killing, and although this decreases their amount of points in the round, there is no real punishment/penalty for it either which is why it happens far more than it should. Basically you can do anything you want in a round and you won't get kicked out no matter what. If the developers thought the multiplayer could function on some sort of unspoken honor system, they were wrong. Another big problem with the multiplayer is that there seems to be no balancing system in place for the teams. Almost every round online consists of a hugely powerful team fighting against a far less powerful team. Often the more powerful team will even have more players than the weaker team, because people on the weaker team just leave the game after being frustrated, and understandably so. 99% of the time you will feel like your team is either completely owning/being owned. It is obvious there is no balancing going on. Some sort of balancing system, at least in between rounds, would really have made the multiplayer more enjoyable. A small, but nonetheless notable issue with the multiplayer is the helicopter controls. It takes a little getting used to, because for some reason they are completely different than in the single player, even though the helicopters are the same. But whats worse is that the manual doesn't mention this, in fact nowhere in the game does it mention the multiplayer helicopter controls. Because of this, people are left to figure it out for themselves through trial and error. Often times inexperienced players will rush to the helicopter, only to end up crashing it a few seconds later, much to the frustration of others, while wondering why the controls didn't do what they thought they should do. Another complaint I have about the multiplayer is regarding the maps in conquest mode. The maps are simply too small and poorly implemented for it. It feels nothing like the conquest mode of previous Battlefield titles. The one great thing about the multiplayer, as mentioned earlier, is the destructible environments. This aspect of the game works very well with only a few minor issues. Buildings and bridges, for example, cannot be completely destroyed. Nonetheless the destructible environments are one of the most fun and well implemented features of both the multiplayer and single player. It is very rewarding to see an enemy/enemies camping behind a wall, and to then blow up the wall and kill the enemy. The C4 also works quite well on buildings and ground, apart from the horrendous vehicle glitch mentioned earlier. Despite the flaws of the multiplayer there is still definitely some fun to be had. Its just that theres so much frustration getting in the way of it. Occasionally you find a good, balanced game, just through sheer luck, where the players aren't glitching/abusing exploits to win. Sometimes you even get a good squad where you all work together to defend/attack the objective or capture bases. The problem is, that often you will have to join about 15 games before you find a truly enjoyable one that isn't populated by people lag-knifing, spawn camping, artillery glitching, team killing, overusing the NS2000, etc. Although many of the flaws of the multiplayer can be blamed on the people who play the game (and choose to glitch/spawn camp/use unfair methods to win), the developers should really have put more effort into fixing the various iissues and balancing the game out, to prevent such flagrant abuses in the first place. I could understand somewhat if the flaws were there upon release, but the fact that they still havent been fixed a year after release is unforgivable. For this reason I am not going to buy Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 1943, unless I can see for sure that all these problems are fixed, especially the issues with the knife.… Expand
  15. GregoryW.
    Jun 29, 2008
    3
    Game was fun and unique, my low scoring is based on the controls. My issue is the fact there are NO options when it comes to controls. My friend a leftie, and I would at least appreciate the option of swapping l/r joysticks. I'm sorry, I really can't support that fac.
  16. TysonP
    Jul 21, 2008
    2
    This game's realism was a 5.3/10, the graphics was a 9.0, but the gameplay sucked, like how you have to empty a whole clip on an enemy to kill them. The part of the game that sucked the most, is that when playing online if you always get spawn killed by artillery.
  17. PizzatheHutt
    Jul 9, 2008
    3
    Rent before buying. This game is a disapointment to me considering how much I enjoyed BF:MC. The positives are: Sound (some of the best), graphics (sub par compaired to other games but overall nicely done), and battlefield destruction. The negatives are: Speed (feels like you are moving thru molassass), Halo like jumps (just doesn't fit), no prone (wha? are you kidding?), live speech Rent before buying. This game is a disapointment to me considering how much I enjoyed BF:MC. The positives are: Sound (some of the best), graphics (sub par compaired to other games but overall nicely done), and battlefield destruction. The negatives are: Speed (feels like you are moving thru molassass), Halo like jumps (just doesn't fit), no prone (wha? are you kidding?), live speech (you can only talk to 4 people, this is unforgivable). I'm glad I rented as I was about to buy it based off of the 1st game but I got lucky and found a copy to rent at BB and it saved me $60. I recommend you do the same.… Expand
  18. MichaelC.
    Jul 9, 2008
    1
    Couldn't fix the spawn camping? C'mon guys, learn from your mistakes. COD4 is still the king of FPS for now.
  19. StevenL.
    Jun 27, 2008
    1
    How in the world do games like this keep getting made? Doesn't anyone playtest them first, outside of the designers that is? Dialogue is horrible, the field of view seems smashed and flat, and the player's movement is not very realistic. This is no better than the previous Battlefields, although they did do their best to rip off Call of Duty. I also find it amusing that the How in the world do games like this keep getting made? Doesn't anyone playtest them first, outside of the designers that is? Dialogue is horrible, the field of view seems smashed and flat, and the player's movement is not very realistic. This is no better than the previous Battlefields, although they did do their best to rip off Call of Duty. I also find it amusing that the design team and associates are posting good reviews under various aliases here. Just read the highest-rated comments, and notice the similarities in grammar and writing style. Nice try boys.… Expand
  20. JosephM.
    Jun 28, 2008
    1
    I think this game deserves a 1 for trying. There are so many things wrong here. Lets start with the simple vehicle control. Why reinvent the wheel? Why not use the standard scheme that is used everywhere. I don't even want to talk about game play but here it is. You are the squad, your mates do nothing to keep the action rolling. You are the new guy but you do everything, they I think this game deserves a 1 for trying. There are so many things wrong here. Lets start with the simple vehicle control. Why reinvent the wheel? Why not use the standard scheme that is used everywhere. I don't even want to talk about game play but here it is. You are the squad, your mates do nothing to keep the action rolling. You are the new guy but you do everything, they don't so much as give you direction. Poor game but I expect that from this cookie cutter publisher. How much did they pay to get good reviews for this garbage?… Expand
  21. TravisL
    Sep 29, 2008
    3
    For a game that promised so much gameplay is truly aweful, I was in love with battlefield 2, until COD4 became my new passion and greatly looked forward to this release. Pretty graphics and explosions DON'T make up for shoddy unsatisfying, unrealistic gameplay. The game really has a 80's arcadey feeling to it with the silly rucksacks that pop up whenever you kill someone after For a game that promised so much gameplay is truly aweful, I was in love with battlefield 2, until COD4 became my new passion and greatly looked forward to this release. Pretty graphics and explosions DON'T make up for shoddy unsatisfying, unrealistic gameplay. The game really has a 80's arcadey feeling to it with the silly rucksacks that pop up whenever you kill someone after firing 30 bullets into him. The guns feel very unreal, with little to no recoil the little red dot thing that shows up signifying a "hit" is particularly unsatisfying when compared to COD4's gutsy thump as the bullet strikes home. No prone.. wtf.. ect. serious disappointment. It really is time EA went under, burn EA burn.… Expand
  22. Broyax
    Apr 13, 2017
    3
    Un humour potache digne d'une série B et un peu moins de scripts qu'un Call of Duty, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'on en mange pas jusqu'à l'ndigestion parfois ! Un poil plus réaliste aussi mais au détriment de la maniabilité, plus lourde.

    Bad Company malgré son côté plus décalé n'en reste pas moins typique du jeu de guerre couloir (la grandeur de l'environnement n'est pas ou peu    Un humour potache digne d'une série B et un peu moins de scripts qu'un Call of Duty, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'on en mange pas jusqu'à l'ndigestion parfois ! Un poil plus réaliste aussi mais au détriment de la maniabilité, plus lourde.

    Bad Company malgré son côté plus décalé n'en reste pas moins typique du jeu de guerre couloir (la grandeur de l'environnement n'est pas ou peu exploitée) où l'on fait comme d'habitude le chien-chien à sa mémère : va chercher, rapporte, assis, couché, donne la patte, ferme ta gueule !

    Un bon point pour les décors destructibles -même si ça reste anecdotique- et graphiquement le Frostbite fait du bon boulot. Globalement Bad Company demeure définitivement de fort mauvaise compagnie et on le quitte assez vite et sans regret.    … Expand
  23. canceRnya
    Oct 29, 2018
    4
    Ваще ни о чом. Скучная компания, унылый мультиплеер. Хотя разрушэния зданий, пускай и не так сильно, были вполне себе в диковинку, да.
  24. blimpsgo180
    Mar 27, 2023
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Less than one year after Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare changed what a modern military shooter is, Electronic Arts countered with the release of Battlefield: Bad Company. Unfortunately, this title was never released on PC, but the opportunity for a PC upgrade version feels as ripe now as ever. There’s comedy in the game. There’s great dialog between characters **** and Haggard, one brains and one brawn. Credit to EA for the timely release. I had a lot of fun playing this one.

    At the start of the game, you are told you are almost the hands-down most expendable team in the U.S. Army, hence the name, Bad Company. It’s a four-person squad. **** is brainy and good-natured, while Haggard is a strong-minded southerner with a thick accent. The squad is led by Redford, who’s pretty much by the books with procedures. Finally, you get to play as Preston Marlowe, who unfortunately lacks personality. Later in the game, you see him impersonating Redford in a way. There has long been a debate about silent protagonists in games, but boy does this one ever stick out.

    The guns are what you might expect. There’s a pistol, an assault rifle, a bomb thrower of some sort, and a sniper. There is more though. From time to time, you can operate a mortar, and later in the game, you can call for air-strikes. From what I’ve noticed, you can run and gun with the assault rifle, or take down enemies from afar with the sniper. Both these styles of play are acceptable. Unlike future first-person shooters, you must heal yourself, by stabbing yourself with some sort of stim-pack. It looks like Marlowe is taking insulin. The game isn’t hard once you’ve played for about half an hour.

    Bad Company deserves credit for a range of vehicles you can drive. You can drive a tank, but also a Jeep and a motorboat. You can even drive a golf cart on a thoroughly detailed golf course, or pilot a helicopter. These vehicle options aren’t in the sequel. For a game from 2008, it’s an impressive list, though it’s mostly linear rides from one location to the next.

    EA DICE, the developer, clearly sacrificed image-quality for better graphics. It was a dirty trick in the early days of HD games, and it’s much less noticeable in modern games. On your adventure, you constantly stumble upon boxes with bars of gold in them, and it’s Haggard’s idea to drop the association with the U.S. Army and come home rich men. Haggard actually opens fire in a “neutral” country, and when the Army finds out, they are not especially happy. The reason he did so was to claim a suitcase of gold.

    The game is as much a comedy about a rather dysfunctional team as it is a morality play about greed (taking as much gold as possible). I do like the sequel more. It proves that the “Bad Company” actually is a huge asset to the U.S. Military for preventing cyber-terrorism. This is an enjoyable game, but the most regrettable thing is that it does not run on PC, which could have sharpened the graphics that much more. That said, it appears the game made it on Xbox One’s backwards compatibility list, and Microsoft has been known to spruce up old games after enabling the port. It might run at true 1080p, but I might be wrong. There is a multiplayer component, but Bad Company 2 was much, much, much more popular with multiplayer. I had fun with Battlefield: Bad Company.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

30
#30 Best Xbox 360 Game of 2008
14
#14 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2008
30
#30 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2008

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 70 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 61 out of 70
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 70
  3. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. NTSC-uk
    70
    While not a complete success, Battlefield: Bad Company has many plus points, and provides a limited but fun single-player campaign that, while not wholly original, does have some memorable moments.
    Read full review
  2. Game Informer
    93
    The extreme polish evident in the final product makes it all worthwhile. Both single- and multiplayer shine - at long last redeeming DICE for the crappy bot-fests offline players had to endure in previous games in the series. [July 2008, p.82]
    Read full review
  3. Gameplanet
    90
    It may lack the finesse in the single-player that some similar titles have, but it does a great job of making you feel the part as you roll into combat with guns blazing, your squad hooting and bellowing behind you. Add to this the multiplayer which is well rounded and realistic, yet big on the fun, and you have a great experience which could ultimately have you playing for months and months.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »