Battlefield Bad Company 2 V's COD MW2

SickenedOnYou

I was surprised I couldnt find a thread debating which of these two games is better for the xbox.

I have played both games and personally I prefer Battlefield due to the realism of the destructabe environment and the sounds. I am not a big fan of all the killstreak rewards in MW2. But I'm sure some people will argue MW2 is more exciting.

I'd love to hear the view of everyone on boards. Hopefully we'll get a debate a bit more civilised than those on all the youtube videos.

nevaeh-2die-4

Battlefield is ****, can’t stand it, love mw2 but am sick if all the boosting and all the bollix.

Slugs

SickenedOnYou wrote:

civilised than those on all the youtube

Those two words shouldn't be used in the same sentence...

I think BFBC2 requires more teamwork to be succesful, and if there's no teamwork, there's no win. MW2 allows you more freedom to do the lone wolf, and also many more gametypes. It's also a lot easier to play than BF.

SickenedOnYou

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

Battlefield is ****, can’t stand it.

Fair enough I respect that point of view, but why? what do you dislike about the game?

Slugs wrote: »

Those two words shouldn't be used in the same sentence...

That is very true, youtube is no place for discussion (and yes I know youtube and discussion shouldnt be used in the same sentence either)!! Battlefield would have been perfect with a few more game types and a multiplayer splitscreen mode.

Smoggy

BFBC2 should be played with a squad of mates using team work and strategy.
It wins hands down in my opinion.

cycocycle

Having played COD4 I couldnt wait for MW2. First impresions were good but I soon grew to hate the camping,boosting,cheating and abusive types that it seemed to attract. If one person on a "team" was particularly good they could win the match on their own. Killstreaks were another beef of mine. Wheres the skill of sitting in a dark corner while a chopper is racking up kills? Didnt stop me playing it regularly though. Just more of a "lone wolf" type game.
On the flip side haing played BFBC I didnt know what to expect from BFBC2. What a difference. The craic is great on this team based game. Four different classes with each having strengths an weaknesses but all having a vital role in achieving victory. The maps are huge and with fully destructible environments the landscape changes as the game goes on. Its more realistic as it doesnt have perks like cold-blooded or marathon. Only your own skill and that of you team mates wil keep you alive.
Im not bashing MW2 I just dont enjoy it as much as BFBC2. In fact I traded it in last week as I havent played it since BFBC2 came out.
We have a clan on Boards that regularly meet up online for friendly/abusive games that are a great laugh.Check it out. All welcome.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055851540

Sterling Archer

I've played both and personally i now prefer BC2, even tho, i'm still fairly crap at it, i find it much more enjoyable to play, there are those sweet moments where everything is going perfectly, then all of a sudden your on the back foot,

In contrast in MW2 once your ahead your killstreaks alone can win the game for you, it's a much easier game to play, and is feels far less realistic than BC2, also the little kids that you meet online really annoy me.

BC2 is a lot harder to play, i really don't think you can be a lone wolf, because you always have the other team distracted by your team mates, like flanking a tank while two teammates draw its fire then firing rpgs at it, blowing the crap out of buildings is a hell of a lot of fun, especially when some enemy are still inside , and the 4 different classes are a nice touch, each with his own perk.

Just my 2c, theres bound to be a few people here who think differently, now i'm off to find my tags, has anyone seen them :rolleyes:

BrenosBolts91

BFBC2 wins hands down. When MW2 I thought it was the best thing ever. Soon got sick of it after 2 months and went back to BFBC1.

I know this is about the two games on Xbox, but does anybody have a Ps3?

stopusingoil

But more people play MW2... because more money was spent on marketing and advertising for this game... it HAS to be better... </sarcasm>

Dubhthamlacht

Well both games are good. I presume the OP started the thread in relation to the on line multiplayer elements to both games? MW2 when it first came out had a great fast paced action to it. Kill Streaks, weapons, perks added up to be a fun game. It definetly is more of a "lone wolf" game as others have pointed out. You're looking after yourself and that's it. The maps are generally very good and detailed. Graphics I found especially good. The variety of game modes is great.

The main downside is the huge number of ass-hats that play the game. That can really diminish the enjoyment. Lack of vehicles. And the inevitable flood of people playing one of a couple of set-ups. Team play is a bit of a joke.

BFBC2 - I hadn't played any in the BF series before so approached with an open mind. Initially I thought graphics were not as good as MW2 and was a little bit lost in the action and huge size of the maps! However over time I've come to regards BFBC2 as the better game. The team play is terrific, more tactical and more rewarding. Maps , while not as varied as MW2, still provide a decent amount of variety. Destructable scenery is a huge plus. It's hard to underestimate how it changes what goes on in multiplayer games. And of course the vehicles which are so much fun. The action when trying to cap a point in Rush mode can be furious with multiple vehicles, mortar strikes, and small arms fire going off all around the place. The 4 classes all had something special and all are enjoyable. I also found the controls for BFBC2 to be more intuitive.

The downsides would be not the range of maps or number of them and also the lack of game modes.

cycocycle

I totally agree on the map and game mode variety. Not enough of either. With the maps however the destructible scenery means that the map is not exactly the same every time. for instance a building that is a good sniping spot might be levelled by a mortar strike meaning you need to move on. Places that are not accessible at the start of a match may open up as walls trees etc are knocked as the game goes on.
We play mostly Rush with the occasional Squad DM on hardcore. Both of these game types are excellent. I would like to see Team DM and Free for All DM.
Overall excellent online game though it needs more new maps.

Biologic

BFBC2- realistic, team based, requires more skill, larger and more complex environments, WAY more scope for specialisation. Bad points- skill rating system is all over the place, 1 or 2 bad maps, kniving is hit and miss (more than it should be).
MW2- totally unrealistic (killstreaks, regeneration etc), full of idiots, small maps. Good fun short term but it gets boring to anyone who actually knows FPS games.
If the two games were compared to newspapers, MW2 is The Sun (without the boobs) and BFBC is The Times.

Martron

a poll will give a better representation instead of reading a lot of posts

Korvanica

Martron wrote: »

a poll will give a better representation instead of reading a lot of posts

i was think that exact same thing....

After playing both games I have to say i prefer Bad COmpany, its just more fun and even if you're losing badly, you can still turn it around really quickly and win. Unlike in MW where if you're losing badly, the guys who are winning get given Harriers and choppers... Great...

BC is more team based which i like also, i am not a lone wolf and almost never play free for all games,

The Freeman

bfbc2 for me, no camping and much more of an even experience overall.
more fun imo.

both great games though.

TheMooseInNam

I think the previous posts have pretty much hit the nail on the head, so I'll try not to repeat too much. I will also assume we are talking about the multiplayer experiences of both games.

I think the main difference between the two games is the type of player that it attracts. Of course there's going to be plenty of cross-over of players on both games but each game rewards the player differently.

If you're looking for a quick fix, adrenaline fuelled experience and not necessarily concerned about more than just pointing and shooting, then MW2 really is an exceptionally good game. As has been stated before, it's a lonewolf experience. There's nothing wrong with that. Nearly all FPS genre games have been modelled on this same formula. It's what appeals to the masses and is commercially viable. Almost anyone can pick up a controller and be immersed into it's world within minutes.

BFBC2, although similar in that it's a FPS shooter and thus falls into the same genre, demands a lot more from the player than simply good hand to eye co-ordination. As a member of a squad, you must play your role within that squad to benefit most from the experience. I'm sure casual gamers would enjoy this game, don't get me wrong but the squad dynamic must be exploited to the maximum and this is best done with your friends. I suppose in BFBC2, you are constantly looking at the bigger picture of the conflict and not just what's around the next corner. This game provides a unique twist on the genre which is a breath of fresh air for all us weary old FPS gamers.

In short, both titles deserve to be in your collection. They both have their own merits. As for which is better, each to their own. You may as well ask "do you prefer Ferraris or Lamborghinis?"

Raze_them_all

TheMooseInNam wrote: »

I think the previous posts have pretty much hit the nail on the head, so I'll try not to repeat too much. I will also assume we are talking about the multiplayer experiences of both games.

I think the main difference between the two games is the type of player that it attracts. Of course there's going to be plenty of cross-over of players on both games but each game rewards the player differently.

If you're looking for a quick fix, adrenaline fuelled experience and not necessarily concerned about more than just pointing and shooting, then MW2 really is an exceptionally good game. As has been stated before, it's a lonewolf experience. There's nothing wrong with that. Nearly all FPS genre games have been modelled on this same formula. It's what appeals to the masses and is commercially viable. Almost anyone can pick up a controller and be immersed into it's world within minutes.

BFBC2, although similar in that it's a FPS shooter and thus falls into the same genre, demands a lot more from the player than simply good hand to eye co-ordination. As a member of a squad, you must play your role within that squad to benefit most from the experience. I'm sure casual gamers would enjoy this game, don't get me wrong but the squad dynamic must be exploited to the maximum and this is best done with your friends. I suppose in BFBC2, you are constantly looking at the bigger picture of the conflict and not just what's around the next corner. This game provides a unique twist on the genre which is a breath of fresh air for all us weary old FPS gamers.

In short, both titles deserve to be in your collection. They both have their own merits. As for which is better, each to their own. You may as well ask "do you prefer Ferraris or Lamborghinis?"

Lambo's. I think battlefield is better. Nobody can start screaming noob down your headset. That alone makes it better

TheMooseInNam

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Lambo's. I think battlefield is better. Nobody can start screaming noob down your headset. That alone makes it better

Well, I do agree with you that you find way more disruptive behaviour practiced by MW2 players. I can't remember that last time I muted someone on Battlefield and I seem to have to do that every time I play MW2.

Again, it's down to the type of player that the game attracts, I think. Perhaps it's that Battlefield players seem to have a more mature mindset or maybe it just benefits from having only four people in your squad so the chances of having disruptive behaviour is reduced. Either way, I find Battlefield a more pleasant environment to do my killing in

So you're a Lambo man, eh Raze... personnally, I'd take the third alternative, the gentleman's choice... Aston Martin... you lot and you're flashy yellow and reds (sorry for going off topic, mods)

theUbiq

I traded in MW2 but play BFBC2 regularly... enough said.

:eek:

TetraxShard

What's the player base, in terms of numbers, for BC2? Like how easy is it to get a game near full capacity? And is it worth getting when Reach is so close?

TheMooseInNam

TetraxShard wrote: »

What's the player base, in terms of numbers, for BC2? Like how easy is it to get a game near full capacity? And is it worth getting when Reach is so close?

On www.bfbcs.com it says there's around 2 million. It's got a strong following.

TetraxShard

Fair enough, would like to see the split across the regions though.

I really enjoyed some of the older Battlefields, 2142 in particular I wasted an age on. Maybe I'll give it a try.

HATCHET IRL

recons are a nightmare in bc2, i played one game where there was at least 8 bush wookies hidin around the map, no interest in winning. Sounds like a good thing, easy win but da kd ratio suffers

Korvanica

HATCHET IRL wrote: »

recons are a nightmare in bc2, i played one game where there was at least 8 bush wookies hidin around the map, no interest in winning. Sounds like a good thing, easy win but da kd ratio suffers

its still better than being stabbed from 5 meters away by a guy using commando pro

Raze_them_all

HATCHET IRL wrote: »

recons are a nightmare in bc2, i played one game where there was at least 8 bush wookies hidin around the map, no interest in winning. Sounds like a good thing, easy win but da kd ratio suffers

Wookies are easy enough to take out in battlefield tbh as 90% of them all stik to the one spot! Whenever I'm playing I always snipe 2-3 places where you'll always find them.

TheMooseInNam

HATCHET IRL wrote: »

recons are a nightmare in bc2, i played one game where there was at least 8 bush wookies hidin around the map, no interest in winning. Sounds like a good thing, easy win but da kd ratio suffers

It's all about having a positive mental attitude. Where some see wookies as a pain in the ass, I see them as a new resting place for my knife

TechnoPool

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Lambo's. I think battlefield is better. Nobody can start screaming noob down your headset. That alone makes it better

i can do it in party chat next time if u want

TheMooseInNam

TechnoPool wrote: »

i can do it in party chat next time if u want

garv123

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Lambo's. I think battlefield is better. Nobody can start screaming noob down your headset. That alone makes it better

im pretty sure you do 90% of the screaming on battlefield :p


mw2 was redicilious for screaming 5 year olds though
if you check out any of the top players videos on youtube you'll see them showing their score but also you'l see every other player is muted from the start of the game.

Predator_

BC2 is for nerds who are crap at mw2;)

Raze_them_all

garv123 wrote: »

im pretty sure you do 90% of the screaming on battlefield :p

Ha probably true but it's in a party chat with regulars who all give each other a good slagging, except for you, you're just crap!