considering i've only played the demo for BC2, i'd have to go with MW2, but i'm buying BC2 this weekend so that could change.
I was new to Battlefield when i bought this. Having been playing Source games exclusively for around 6 years, the jump was pretty big you know what i'm sayin'. I thought fuck this shit, i don't like it. I thought i'd give it a chance so by doing that, now it is pretty much my favourite.
[QUOTE=imadaman;20914293]BC2 has "longer than three hour" campaign.[/QUOTE]
Not really, I actually finished the BC2 campaign faster.
BC2 because of better online and more realistic game play.
I voted for BC2, because we know DICE spent a lot of time on this, and they released a beta, unlike Infinity Ward who released a buggy game.
There's no way anyone can disagree with me because you all know it, MW2 was buggy from the start.
Morons will say Call of Duty is the only good shooter to ever exist.
Elitists will say Battlefield is the only good shooter to ever exist
In reality, they're both great games.
I've been battlefield person since the release of 'ol 1942.
[QUOTE='[GMOB] Luke;20923487']I voted for BC2, because we know DICE spent a lot of time on this, and they released a beta, unlike Infinity Ward who released a buggy game.
There's no way anyone can disagree with me because you all know it, MW2 was buggy from the start.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, the server browser of BC2 and Punkbuster are definitely flawless. :downs:
you're posting this on a forum that's inherently biased towards anything remotely mainstream. nice job.
27 to 217, I believe the answer is quite clear.
Mw2 is fun on singleplayer/co-op but the same as Mw in multiplayer.
BC2 is awesome on singleplayer, and completely epic on multiplayer.
[QUOTE=Owner3;20923846]you're posting this on a forum that's inherently biased towards anything remotely mainstream. nice job.[/QUOTE]
Bad Company 2 was pretty mainstream honestly.
[QUOTE=Dyson6;20924927]Bad Company 2 was pretty mainstream honestly.[/QUOTE]
Well which is more mainstream? The "Battlefield" series (not limited to BC2) or The "Call Of Duty" series (not limited to MW2).
[QUOTE=SA Spyder;20923743]Oh yeah, the server browser of BC2 and Punkbuster are definitely flawless. :downs:[/QUOTE]
Better than the VAC thing, it doesn't really detect hackers for MW2, and IWNet fucks up most of the time, so even though BC2 multiplayer can be buggy, MW2 multiplayer wins "Buggiest Multiplayer of The Year!"
Why am I never allowed to stay on the fence for BC2 vs MW2?
Why do I have to take sides, I pick both
Both were fun, both had their flaws, both had brief but good campaigns, both had good multiplayer
Why am I not allowed to say both are just as good
I'm either an elitist if I go for BC2 or an idiot if I go for MW2
I've never (really, never) had a problem with MW2's multiplayer (as in lag, cheaters etc), I can't say the same about BC2. BC2 crashes often and without a warning, so you don't know what the hell you did that made the game crash. MW2 has never crashed/closed down in the middle of a game session for me, so atleast I've been able to play it for some time. I still voted for BC2 though, because I feel I have more control over the game than I have in MW2 (can't adjust FOV, I can't choose the map I want to play etc).
MW2 is a laggy clusterfuck of killstreaks. I think I'll go with BC2.
[QUOTE='[GMOB] Luke;20932876']Better than the VAC thing, it doesn't really detect hackers for MW2, and IWNet fucks up most of the time, so even though BC2 multiplayer can be buggy, MW2 multiplayer wins "Buggiest Multiplayer of The Year!"[/QUOTE]
Let me get this straight: a game in which you meet hackers every once in a while is worse than a game that has a server browser that takes 10 minutes to give a full server list, doesn't let you join 70% of the time, features the worst anti-cheat system in history that not only allows hackers, but kicks you out all the time for no reason, and that features whiny admins that remove critical game components such as spotting?
Who are you kidding?
EA Online by itself needs to die in a fiery hell.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;20915594]Despite the fact that the Battlefield series had unlocks and ranks long before MW ever came out.[/QUOTE]
The console fags who typically play these games wouldn't know that Modern Warfare was, infact, IW's attempt at Battlefield 2 gameplay, to which Dice responded with Bad Company and BC2.
Battlefield 2 is really the better game out of all of them, but since the piece of shit won't run on my machine, I play BC2. I do own MW2 though, and it sucks ass. I thought it was going to be mediocre, but it wasn't even that... it was just straight up bad. BC2 had a shitty singleplayer but the MP is a lot of fun.
But dear god, both MW2 and BC2 share one thing in common: retarded method of getting into a server. MW2 has no dedicated servers AT ALL (wtf were they thinking...) while BC2 has one of the worst server browsers I have ever seen, and I have played early versions of Battle.net with Warcraft 2 and Diablo... and that was pretty fucking terrible, so I know what I'm talking about when I say this.
And let's not even get started on Punkbuster...
[QUOTE=Detective P;20903327]MW2 is an epic [B]6 hour[/B] singleplayer and [B]glitchy[/B] multiplayer.
Reverse for BC2.
They're both brilliant, and not very comparable. The gameplay is completely different, regardless of the type of game.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
In Modern Warfare 2, I can run as fast as the Flash and lunge at people while stabbing them to death, only to do it to the next guy.
In Bad Company 2, I can hop out of a helicopter, whip out my power drill, land on top of a tank, and drill the sucker to death.
Either way, I'm having a good time, so I like both.
MW2 is clearly superior to battlefield, its funner and has better multiplayer teamplay
Hard to compare but not impossible.
Modern Warfare 2 is arcade like, nothing more to be said, it relies completely on points and numeric values (killstreaks, etc.) but does nothing to promote team/squad play and has a terrible community, full of hackers, modders, and 12 year olds in general. The maps promote camping which is one of the major annoyances I had with this game. That being said it had a pretty fantastic campaign, it was more like an action movie than a sandbox game but that was okay.
Bad Company 2 is..... well its different, points/kills take second hand to actually capturing/destroying objectives and playing as a sqaud/team. Personally I found this game a lot more fun and a lot less exploitable, but even if it was, unlocking everything and actually playing the game right is far too fun to actually make anyone want to hack. It lacks some of the basic "party game" features that MW2 had, like split screen, system link, and private matches are limited to 8 people or more. Campaign was meh, but I thoroughly enjoyed it, just when it came down to it, it wasn't as good, and they got rid of the sandbox feel that had so much appeal in Bad Company, to make it like MW2 and ended up failing.
I voted BC2, MW2, despite having a rather shitty multiplayer, failed to appeal to me, because it was way too competitive and it made gaming almost like a sport, which is stupid, even my friends argued daily about who could beat who. BC2 is just more fun to play and revolves around working as a team instead of trying to score higher than your team or being the best.
[QUOTE=SA Spyder;20942618]Let me get this straight: a game in which you meet hackers every once in a while is worse than a game that has a server browser that takes 10 minutes to give a full server list, doesn't let you join 70% of the time, features the worst anti-cheat system in history that not only allows hackers, but kicks you out all the time for no reason, and that features whiny admins that remove critical game components such as spotting?
Who are you kidding?
EA Online by itself needs to die in a fiery hell.[/QUOTE]
Server list and punkbuster problems have been fixed.
There's also a shitload of servers so if you don't like spotting being removed you can go find another. Also, I've never encountered a hacker in 57 hours of online gameplay.
[QUOTE=Linkage;20950387]Server list and punkbuster problems have been fixed.
There's also a shitload of servers so if you don't like spotting being removed you can go find another. Also, I've never encountered a hacker in 57 hours of online gameplay.[/QUOTE]
Look at the leaderboard.
And no, server list and punkbuster problems are far from fixed. They haven't even fixed the really simple shit yet, like the text malfunction in the scoreboard that reads MP_KILLS_DEATHS. How fucking lazy do you have to be?
Oh, and the global pings of >250 and lack of said pings to be shown in the server browser, etc. The problems keep stacking up and they don't do shit. I'm confident they'll fix it, but not for a long time. Not until 1.5. :v:
[QUOTE=SA Spyder;20950441]Look at the leaderboard.
And no, server list and punkbuster problems are far from fixed. They haven't even fixed the really simple shit yet, like the text malfunction in the scoreboard that reads MP_KILLS_DEATHS. How fucking lazy do you have to be?
Oh, and the global pings of >250 and lack of said pings to be shown in the server browser, etc. The problems keep stacking up and they don't do shit. I'm confident they'll fix it, but not for a long time. Not until 1.5. :v:[/QUOTE]
Well my scoreboard is fixed, got the latest update yet? It no longer has MP_KILLS etc.
I believe it has K/D Ping Score now.
The current scoreboard
[IMG]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/Linkage01/Leaderboard.jpg[/IMG]
You also misread my post, I didn't say there weren't hackers, only that I've never encountered one. Still haven't. Odds on finding them must be slim or that there aren't many on the Australian servers.
Ping in the picture is high because I joined an empty Swiss server to take the screen.
ok so i like mw2 but having played red faction and being promised destructable buildings in BC2 i found the demo a disapointment, (havent voted) but is the full game better for destructables?
[QUOTE=thecubanpimp;20953893]ok so i like mw2 but having played red faction and being promised destructable buildings in BC2 i found the demo a disapointment, (havent voted) but is the full game better for destructables?[/QUOTE]
This isn't Red Factoion where all the fags in multiplayer are like "lol who needs to kill when i can just destroy every building" so then they spend the rest of the match seeing how fast they can take out the buildings.
i agree with that but what i mean is it would be nice if they took more effort when it came to destroying buildings,
[QUOTE=thecubanpimp;20953984]i agree with that but what i mean is it would be nice if they took more effort when it came to destroying buildings,[/QUOTE]
You shoot buildings enough and they collapse, what more could you possibly want? This isn't Red Faction.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
