Ok, I have watched this review many times, from different points of view, and it is hard not to get frustrated. You feel like you want to go and tell Eric or whatever that he is [i]wrong[/i], and needs to view the game objectively, instead of from a MW2 fanboy perspective. [url=http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/107/1072632p1.html]IGN Bad Company 2 Review[/url] Once you've watched the video and read the review, how can you not almost laugh at the things he is saying? "Matches ending abruptly when you win..."? What -blam!-ing game doesn't "abruptly end" when you win? That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in a review. "DICE seems to have taken a que from MW2 and tried for a large cinematic scope...". WHAT? MW2 has a cinematic feel to it, but nothing about it really feels "large". It always feels like you are being herded through straight paths towards the terrorists, Sgt. Foley shouting "RAMIREZ, CALL IN THE NUKE!" And if the nonstop action "hurts the cinematic feel they are trying to go for", how do you know they are going for a cinematic feel? What if they just want to make the campaign an epic action experience, with a coolish story tied in? Very contradictory IMO... And then it is the stupid thing, "you are a super rambo soldier who can activate any vehicle". Eric, STOP PLAYING THE SNOWMOBILE SECQUENCE FROM MW2, AND REALIZE THAT HALF OF THIS GAME IS ABOUT VEHICLES! What is DICE supposed to do? Make you go through training every time you spot a new vehicle? Just get your mind around the fact that this game is vehicle oriented, and stop complaining on "how is my soldier supposed to know how to drive all of these things?" And then, the complaining comes to the "shortness" of the campaign. "6 hours" in Eric's personal opinion is much too short, where he, being the MW2 expert he is, could probably blow through the MW2 campaign on normal from 3 1/2 - 4 hours. If you mark off for a "short" campaign, than shouldn't MW2 be hammered by an objective review for it's extremely short campaign? Guess not. He keeps comparing the two, so why does he throw in the "short" blast... And another thing, campaign really is just an extra part of this game, but what everybody will be doing is the multiplayer. So why spend so much time on the campaign which is somewhat irrelevant to the game, yet so little on the epic multiplayer experience at hand. Also, you [i]know[/i] this guys is a CoD fanatic when he mentions SPECIALIZATIONS as "PERKs". And they work "similar to that of in CoD"? Right, because realistic specializations (i.e. lightweight clothing/grenade vest) work a lot like "OMGZ I CAN RUN 25 MPH AND LUNGE THE LENGHT OF THE FOOTBALL FIELD, AND I TAKE A SPECIAL PILL SO I CAN EAT BULLETS FOR BREAKFAST NAM NAM NAM" *facepalm* Now, it is hard to look at this review objectively for me because I am a huge fan of the Battlefield franchise, but it just disappointing me when a site as acclaimed as IGN puts out a review that is simply, biased. And the fact that Bad Company's 2 sound got a 9/10 is just the end of the line. If the fake and computer generated sounds of MW2 gets a 10, and the HDR audio system used by DICE in this game gets a 9, then I don't know what to say to IGN. /rant Thoughts? ~RoKKeR~