COD enthusiast thinking of trying BFBC2

G

Gigantism

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
585
Hello,

Long time PC FPSer (since Quake/UT/CS days).

Never been a fan of COD franchise up until COD4 which I thought was fantastic.

Played MW2 only a little since MP was garbage due to lack of DS.

Enjoying Black Ops a lot.

Tried BFBC2 SP at a friend's place, and was fairly unimpressed.

Now that the game is cheap (less than $20 at most places) I'm thinking of giving it a try.

Will I enjoy this game and why? Please note that I have never played any other BF game.

Thank you!
 
If you already played it and was unimpressed why ask us about it?

Anyway, I played a lot of COD4 and a bit of WAW and I think BFBC2 is a good game. Better? Well that all depends on perspective, they're *different* games, which one you think is better is up to you. Personally I preferred BFBC2 because the game is more involved. The tactics go a bit beyond out twitching the guy around the next corner. But I also enjoyed COD4 and WAW. Didn't get into MW2 because when I played it, it just felt like another COD4 but with smaller maps and player counts and no dedicated servers.

I think with FPS games its just whichever feels better and more natural to you. Admittedly BFBC2 took me longer to get into because it took longer before I was competitive and got a feel for the game though (where as COD4 I had a KDR above 1 from the moment I started playing, it was about 20 hours into BFBC2 before I started to actually be a useful player).
 
i'm an avid COD player and i without-a-doubt recommend BC2. like Tudz touched on, focus more on teamplay and less of the traditional "how is my KDR?" train of thought. you'll have a blast playing it.
 
BFBC2 is an exercise in patience. Mainly due to getting sniped across the map by medics carrying M60's (WTF?) and Recon guys with bolt-action .50BMG rifles. Also nothing beats emptying a magazine into a guy only for him to run up and knife you, or blow you away in two shots with his gun. Oh yeah, the Carl Gustov anti-tank weapon kind of sucks for shooting tanks but makes a great sniper rifle which kills in one hit. :rolleyes: Hit detection sucks, weapon balance, class balance are all pathetic. The game is good in concept, and I love the destructible environments, but there are things that really prevent me from enjoying it as much as Call of Duty games. Another thing that sucks are the weapon models. Not only are they bad, but they are huge. They seem to take up nearly a quarter of your viewable area unless you run a multi-monitor setup.

There is a hell of a learning curve to it. Especially for us "twitch" players. So be prepared for that. I'm always in the top 3 or 4 spots, often number 1 or 2 in Call of Duty. In Battlefield I'm smack in the middle. my K/D ratio is almost never positive. I have to play the game in hardcore mode just to be able to stand it. At least it doesn't take an entire magazine to "maybe" kill someone. I was really good at BF2 and even BF2142. I enjoyed those games immensely despite the poor portrayal of weapons in the BF2.
 
Dan_D said:
At least it doesn't take an entire magazine to "maybe" kill someone.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to get frustrated with BC2 starting out. You simply can't freak out and unload entire clips at people. Instead do short, controlled bursts (unless it's point blank or you are a medic). There's just more depth to the game, you need to find out which guns and class suits your style.
 
Tudz said:
If you already played it and was unimpressed why ask us about it?Anyway, I played a lot of COD4 and a bit of WAW and I think BFBC2 is a good game. Better? Well that all depends on perspective, they're *different* games, which one you think is better is up to you. Personally I preferred BFBC2 because the game is more involved. The tactics go a bit beyond out twitching the guy around the next corner. But I also enjoyed COD4 and WAW. Didn't get into MW2 because when I played it, it just felt like another COD4 but with smaller maps and player counts and no dedicated servers.

I think with FPS games its just whichever feels better and more natural to you. Admittedly BFBC2 took me longer to get into because it took longer before I was competitive and got a feel for the game though (where as COD4 I had a KDR above 1 from the moment I started playing, it was about 20 hours into BFBC2 before I started to actually be a useful player).
Click to expand...

I only tried the SP and was actually wondering about owning the game, for long(ish) term play (i.e. MP).
I should have been more specific...

Thank you guys replying...

So it only comes down to COD = mindless run & gun and
BFBC2 = tactical teamplay?

How about starting the game now that it has been out for a while? will I get owned nonstop until I put 20 hours into the game myself?
 
GishForever said:
It's very easy to get frustrated with BC2 starting out. You simply can't freak out and unload entire clips at people. Instead do short, controlled bursts (unless it's point blank or you are a medic). There's just more depth to the game, you need to find out which guns and class suits your style.
Click to expand...

I've got about 44 hours into it. Trust me, I'm not just starting out. I know to use shorter bursts. Some of the weapons work well enough for me, but the game's play style just doesn't suit me all that well. This is why I don't play it nearly as much as CoD. I also can't stand dying and waiting 9 years to respawn. The game play is just slower than I care for and worse yet, the team aspect of it is lost on people. I enjoy the game well enough when I'm on a server with a good group, but that seems more and more rare as time goes on.
 
Basically forget about kill streaks or any of that Unreal Tournament/counter-strike arena type play.

BC2 is at its heart a tactical shooter. If you jump up and down in chat/mic about how many kills you have you can fuck right off because no one cares and you might even get kicked.

Now if you get your jollies off planting a bomb knowing full well youll get killed because the entire team will run straight for you while your buddies are blowing up the other MCOM then I highly recommend it.

It's for people that actually give a shit how game goes and not their personal stats. No one cares how many knife kills you have or or level you are. That baby crap is essentially over at lv28. The rest is just nice reminders that youre doing a good job.

Expect to get 40 hours out of it. Anything more and you'd have to really really like the game.
 
piscian18 said:
Basically forget about kill streaks or any of that Unreal Tournament/counter-strike arena type play.

BC2 is at its heart a tactical shooter. If you jump up and down in chat/mic about how many kills you have you can fuck right off because no one cares and you might even get kicked.

Now if you get your jollies off planting a bomb knowing full well youll get killed because the entire team will run straight for you while your buddies are blowing up the other MCOM then I highly recommend it.

It's for people that actually give a shit how game goes and not their personal stats. No one cares how many knife kills you have or or level you are. That baby crap is essentially over at lv28. The rest is just nice reminders that youre doing a good job.

Expect to get 40 hours out of it. Anything more and you'd have to really really like the game.
Click to expand...

And I got a solid 40 hours out of it and therefore my money's worth. I simply grew tired of the type of people on it and the same flawed game mechanics. (Medics with M60's, poor class balance, etc.) I'm just trying to let a fellow CoD'er know what to expect going into it compared to a game I know the OP likes.
 
Hardcore Squad Deathmatch re-sparked my love with BC2.

Also, BC2 lacks Class Customization if that was in the game it would do way better imo. Even if it wasn't in depth, if I could pick my primary/secondary weapons across ALL KITS and have like a specialization (repair = engy, heal = medic, ammo = assault) I would be in heaven.
 
Roliath said:
Hardcore Squad Deathmatch re-sparked my love with BC2.
Click to expand...

That's actually what I played the most during the last 20 or so hours of BFBC2 I played. I just wish that game mode allowed for larger groups to be on the server at once.
 
Dan_D said:
That's actually what I played the most during the last 20 or so hours of BFBC2 I played. I just wish that game mode allowed for larger groups to be on the server at once.
Click to expand...
I've been playing on 4v4 servers on the PC, unfortunately I can't get a group of 4 guys to team up and play this the "right" way. But this is exactly the gameplay I've been waiting for. I found a nice urban only server which I stick to now, but I need to get another two guys or so to get some team action going. Most everyone splits up and plays it like cod (lone wolf type) and it pisses me off.
 
Aaight, so I suppose I can relate to what you guys are saying, as I used to love the slow paced, tactical feel that CS had in the old days.

However, I must say that although I enjoy COD games a lot, the lack of inherent “work as a team or die” was disappointing.
On the other hand, knowing that my enjoying the game didn’t depend on the rest of the team is nice, as in COD games I can do well and have fun all by myself if the rest of the team sucks or decides to do the lone wolf thing (expect for objective based games, and even then...).

I guess I just wish I could give BFBC2 MP a try, as opposed to buy it, and either have fun or find it to be meh and regret the purchase :(
 
this doesn't particularly help you now, but you could have 'tried' it for $6.79 during the steam holiday sale. regarding tactical, team-oriented gameplay: the nice thing about COD is i've never expected anyone to play as a team because historically nobody ever has in COD. and even though i strictly play objective-based gametypes in COD, i don't go in with the expectation that my team will work together. when i first started playing BC2 i did expect them to work together because of my experience with BF2, 2142. so for the first week or so it was frustrating. once i ditched that expectation, the game became much more enjoyable. you have to manage your expectations when it comes to BC2 and take it for what it is - an FPS that can be extremely fun when your team works together, and still pretty damn fun when they don't...as long as you manage your expectations.
 
Dan_D said:
And I got a solid 40 hours out of it and therefore my money's worth.
Click to expand...

I love this argument.

I was debating with this guy about Fallout 3, a title which I loved and he absolutely detested. It transpired that he had finished Fallout 3 and had unlocked every achievement (something I never came close to doing), and also that he had bought and played every single expansion pack (he hated every one of them). LOL! He had spent well over a hundred hours playing the game, and here he was saying how much he hated it.

I tried to argue with him that the game must have been pretty good for it to have gripped him for a hundred hours - if he really, really hated it, then surely he would have stopped playing? He wrote back angrily saying that a person could only truly be critical of a game if he had played through the entire thing. I don't know too many people around here who would spend 100 plus hours playing something they absolutely hated in order to be critical of the entire game.

Yeah, I think that if you get 40 hours out of one of these titles - especially considering that a move night out with your friends is going to cost you nearly the same amount of money, especially if dinner is involved - then you really have nothing to complain about. It doesn't mean you loved the game to death, per say, but you have to admit, at least, that you got your money's worth.

It's worth keeping in mind for this forum. The next time a person says they hated something, just ask them how much time they spent playing it. :)
 
We, my gaming group, all alternate between BC2 and CODBO. For us we play CoDBO when it's time for just some run and gun and mostly twitch shooting. When we feel like slowing it down and playing as a squad we swap over to BC2. The teamwork in BC2, again in my opinion, allows more freedom for groups to cooperate. In CoDBO a good player can mostly carry a team. In BC2 this is impossible. Also, the squad deathmatch in BC2 is a blast if you have a group of 4 people. Even 3 like we had last night.

In particular the one map, I forget the name, snowy and very suburban. Over the course of the match the houses slowly become more and more damaged really making it feel like a city fight.
 
WabeWalker said:
I love this argument.

I was debating with this guy about Fallout 3, a title which I loved and he absolutely detested. It transpired that he had finished Fallout 3 and had unlocked every achievement (something I never came close to doing), and also that he had bought and played every single expansion pack (he hated every one of them). LOL! He had spent well over a hundred hours playing the game, and here he was saying how much he hated it.

I tried to argue with him that the game must have been pretty good for it to have gripped him for a hundred hours - if he really, really hated it, then surely he would have stopped playing? He wrote back angrily saying that a person could only truly be critical of a game if he had played through the entire thing. I don't know too many people around here who would spend 100 plus hours playing something they absolutely hated in order to be critical of the entire game.

Yeah, I think that if you get 40 hours out of one of these titles - especially considering that a move night out with your friends is going to cost you nearly the same amount of money, especially if dinner is involved - then you really have nothing to complain about. It doesn't mean you loved the game to death, per say, but you have to admit, at least, that you got your money's worth.

It's worth keeping in mind for this forum. The next time a person says they hated something, just ask them how much time they spent playing it. :)
Click to expand...

I never said that I hated BFBC2. Far from it. I'm just saying there are some negatives to it which in total had me putting more hours in Call of Duty than in Battlefield.
 
i would recommend looking up hit detection tweaks. by default the game averages for 100ms players. i mostly played on 20-30 ms ping servers i set my ping compensation to 27 and instantly noticed 50% better hit detection and my K/D went from 1:1 to 2:1 because actually hit things. also use the ping from the server browser not in game for your baseline.

since it is a team game, getting 3 friends online to fill a squad makes the game 20x more fun. the game needs some changes like the rocket snipers are so lame, shotguns has no bullet fall so shot gun with slugs, are like one shot kills across the map. far to many tricks and hiding spots for me to enjoy it long term but, it is a good game. i just see a good game that could have been great with some better balance.
 
Dan_D said:
BFBC2 is an exercise in patience. Mainly due to getting sniped across the map by medics carrying M60's (WTF?) and Recon guys with bolt-action .50BMG rifles. Also nothing beats emptying a magazine into a guy only for him to run up and knife you, or blow you away in two shots with his gun. Oh yeah, the Carl Gustov anti-tank weapon kind of sucks for shooting tanks but makes a great sniper rifle which kills in one hit. :rolleyes: Hit detection sucks, weapon balance, class balance are all pathetic. The game is good in concept, and I love the destructible environments, but there are things that really prevent me from enjoying it as much as Call of Duty games. Another thing that sucks are the weapon models. Not only are they bad, but they are huge. They seem to take up nearly a quarter of your viewable area unless you run a multi-monitor setup.

There is a hell of a learning curve to it. Especially for us "twitch" players. So be prepared for that. I'm always in the top 3 or 4 spots, often number 1 or 2 in Call of Duty. In Battlefield I'm smack in the middle. my K/D ratio is almost never positive. I have to play the game in hardcore mode just to be able to stand it. At least it doesn't take an entire magazine to "maybe" kill someone. I was really good at BF2 and even BF2142. I enjoyed those games immensely despite the poor portrayal of weapons in the BF2.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this BC2 you need Patience. Its not your typical Run & Gun like COD. There are many times were I am ready to throw my Mouse across the room because im used to COD & I run out like an idiot and im dead. I played ALOT of COD on the 360 so im used to it.

Battlefield BC2 is a Great game ONLY IF you give it a chance. (COD games are what I like to Call No Skill Shooters)
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
And I got a solid 40 hours out of it and therefore my money's worth. I simply grew tired of the type of people on it and the same flawed game mechanics. (Medics with M60's, poor class balance, etc.) I'm just trying to let a fellow CoD'er know what to expect going into it compared to a game I know the OP likes.
Click to expand...

Looks like I was at around 97 hours when I quit several months ago to focus on cleaning up my backlog, but I concur after that point you really gotta either find a good group of people to play with or find very very well managed pubs. I ended up refusing to play on any server other than the "Beer" servers and maybe J0Kers. I guess those are a couple larger better run clan servers.

On a sidenote and I'm prepared for flaming, BC2 Vietnam was a waste of $5. If anyone actually paid $15 for that mappack I feel for you. I played for maybe a hour or so and found nothing more enjoyable than BC2 Vanilla.
 
Dan_D said:
I have to play the game in hardcore mode just to be able to stand it. At least it doesn't take an entire magazine to "maybe" kill someone.
Click to expand...

I have to play HC in Black Ops as well since it seems to take an entire magazine to kill someone, and then if they have Last Stand, they seem to headshot me from across the map with the pistol.

I played BF2 and 2142 and only started playing COD last year with MW2.

I prefer Bad Company 2 over Black Ops since the games can last longer, it's more strategic, and there are vehicles.

Black Ops is more like an arcade shooter, fast paced and easy. I seem to be in the top 3 whenever I play.
 
Lets just put it this way, as I cycle through which games I want installed on my compuater, most come then eventually go. No matter, because regardless of it all BFBC2 is always installed.

It is my de facto modern military shooter on any platform, its the best there is currently. That is until BF3 comes out.
 
Gigantism said:
Hello,

Long time PC FPSer (since Quake/UT/CS days).

Never been a fan of COD franchise up until COD4 which I thought was fantastic.

Played MW2 only a little since MP was garbage due to lack of DS.

Enjoying Black Ops a lot.

Tried BFBC2 SP at a friend's place, and was fairly unimpressed.

Now that the game is cheap (less than at most places) I'm thinking of giving it a try.

Will I enjoy this game and why? Please note that I have never played any other BF game.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

If you didn't like any of the CoD games until CoD 4 you won't like any good FPS games.
 
4LC4PON3 said:
I have to agree with this BC2 you need Patience. Its not your typical Run & Gun like COD. There are many times were I am ready to throw my Mouse across the room because im used to COD & I run out like an idiot and im dead. I played ALOT of COD on the 360 so im used to it.

Battlefield BC2 is a Great game ONLY IF you give it a chance. (COD games are what I like to Call No Skill Shooters)
Click to expand...

Let's not get into that argument. It requires skill. The player with the most skill tends to be the guy on top. With that said the game requires a very narrow skill set. Basically the guy who shoots the fastest and most accurately tends to be the winner in any confrontation. You can dominate simply by running and gunning. Everything on the maps is designed to create choke points which force heated and fast paced confrontations. Battlefield combines traditional shooter skills with vehicle, and team skills. Sadly most people are in short supply of those which is part of why the game is so maddening at times. It emphasizes tactics, strategy and team work over simple twitch skills.

The kill streaks are often thought of as something which is a plus for less skilled players but really kill streaks are often only used by the better players. The maddening thing about that is those kill streaks only further their lead over the other players. If a good player is down on his luck though, it can give him a shot at equalizing things and pulling out a win at the last minute. That is assuming he can make everything go his way when he needs to.

piscian18 said:
Looks like I was at around 97 hours when I quit several months ago to focus on cleaning up my backlog, but I concur after that point you really gotta either find a good group of people to play with or find very very well managed pubs. I ended up refusing to play on any server other than the "Beer" servers and maybe J0Kers. I guess those are a couple larger better run clan servers.

On a sidenote and I'm prepared for flaming, BC2 Vietnam was a waste of $5. If anyone actually paid $15 for that mappack I feel for you. I played for maybe a hour or so and found nothing more enjoyable than BC2 Vanilla.
Click to expand...

So far Vietnam wasn't stable enough for me to actually play it. All I experienced the two times it ran for me was getting sniped across the map by god knows what.

Zepher said:
I have to play HC in Black Ops as well since it seems to take an entire magazine to kill someone, and then if they have Last Stand, they seem to headshot me from across the map with the pistol.

I played BF2 and 2142 and only started playing COD last year with MW2.

I prefer Bad Company 2 over Black Ops since the games can last longer, it's more strategic, and there are vehicles.

Black Ops is more like an arcade shooter, fast paced and easy. I seem to be in the top 3 whenever I play.
Click to expand...

I can play Black Ops in either softcore or hardcore modes. The results tend to be the same for me. Top 3 or 4, often better. It does take too much to kill someone depending on the weapons. Though the weapons don't ever feel as useless as some of them in BFBC2 do. As for last stand, do a better job killing and that won't happen to you. In 50 hours of game play I've probably been killed about 10 times by someone using last stand.
 
work the flanks in BC2 and you will shit kills.

it's usually not very difficult to manage to get past the other team if you play it carefully. all of a sudden your squad is capping their point and they can either get pincer attacked or spawn back at home base.


it's not a realistic game by any means so don't be dumb and pretend you're a navy seal and crouch everywhere / line up your sniper shots for 20 minutes. it's fast paced, but playing smart is probably more important than raw aiming most of the time.
 
Dan_D said:
I never said that I hated BFBC2. Far from it. I'm just saying there are some negatives to it which in total had me putting more hours in Call of Duty than in Battlefield.
Click to expand...

I realize that. I was just complimenting you on your logic. :)
 
Jellylesg said:
If you didn't like any of the CoD games until CoD 4 you won't like any good FPS games.
Click to expand...

I actually played them all, but didn't like them due to the fact that I don't enjoy non-modern era games. That's why I never enjoyed Cod1, 2, and 5 (don't remember a COD3 for some reason)...
I like fully automatic weapons with laser sights and semtex grenades etc...you know what I mean ;)
 
@Dan_D

Maybe the PC is a bit different then on the 360 but When I played MW2 or even the earlier CODs on Console I found the game not challenging at all. It was very easy to run & gun it almost required no skill & on the 360 it was so easy to get Nukes off that it became almost boring.

I havent played COD on the PC so maybe its just the consoles that lack talent & the PC has the hardcore users. Sorry but thats my opinion :) & hope no one if offended
 
Don't expect it to perform the same as a real FPS such as COD, Quake, CS, etc. It's not. The main concept being an all around war game. Basically, what I'm trying to say is it's not something you would term "competitive play", and not the type of game that ever would be, as most FPS players switching to other games tend to find out and become disappointed. It's good that it's pretty much in a class of it's own, and lots of fun just going around blowing stuff up.
 
GishForever said:
It's very easy to get frustrated with BC2 starting out. You simply can't freak out and unload entire clips at people. Instead do short, controlled bursts (unless it's point blank or you are a medic). There's just more depth to the game, you need to find out which guns and class suits your style.
Click to expand...

It takes a whole 30-round mag to kill somebody in dodgy servers or if you're lagging - 10 rounds to hit and hurt/kill, 10 rounds to inexplicably miss or not register, and 10 rounds to hit, cause blood to fly from your target and still not register.

It seems BFBC2 is a lot more sensitive to lag than other FPS when it comes to hit detection. If I'm in a good server that I don't lag much to, I take down targets in just a few shots.
 
4LC4PON3 said:
@Dan_D

Maybe the PC is a bit different then on the 360 but When I played MW2 or even the earlier CODs on Console I found the game not challenging at all. It was very easy to run & gun it almost required no skill & on the 360 it was so easy to get Nukes off that it became almost boring.

I havent played COD on the PC so maybe its just the consoles that lack talent & the PC has the hardcore users. Sorry but thats my opinion :) & hope no one if offended
Click to expand...

I think this whole "x game doesn't require skill" thing is bullshit to be honest.

The two games require a different skill. Either game you play there are top players who get high scores and high KDR, and crap players with a low score. If the game required no skill everyone would balance out and be at an equal score.

The nature of COD is if you are a good player its easier to get a high KDR, because it only takes a couple of bullets, combats tend to be closer range with less bullets and time required to kill and a single magazine/clip can bring down more enemies before you have to reload. That just means your good players get more kills and a higher KDR, and your crap players still get a few kills. BFBC2 on the other hand, you still have a gap between good and bad players, but its harder to rack up big KDRs and kill counts by nature of how the game plays... but its not like its "more" skill, just a different type of skill.

Its no doubt BFBC2 requires a bit more thinking, more teamwork (for the better or for the worse) and time in order to get kills, score well and win the match. But its not like COD doesn't require any skill, its just the fruits of skill is shown in high KDR and points.
 
I love BFBC2, and I paid full price for it. Got about 60 hours in multiplayer right now. It's good fun. I also own COD:BO, and I have only put a couple of hours into it. It's fun, but I enjoy BFBC2 for a few reasons:

1- Map design, it's larger and more open
2- Gameplay modes, I really like Rush and Conquest, rather than just straight team deathmatch or w/e which is what I typically was playing in COD
3- Visuals. The game looks a lot better than COD. And the gunfire sounds are much better.
4- Physics - destructable buildings are amazing.

Personally, COD just feels outdated in comparison. BFBC2 looks, sounds and plays better than COD.

Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. But it's so cheap now, it'd be a shame to not even try it.
 
Dan_D said:
BFBC2 is an exercise in patience. Mainly due to getting sniped across the map by medics carrying M60's (WTF?) and Recon guys with bolt-action .50BMG rifles. Also nothing beats emptying a magazine into a guy only for him to run up and knife you, or blow you away in two shots with his gun. Oh yeah, the Carl Gustov anti-tank weapon kind of sucks for shooting tanks but makes a great sniper rifle which kills in one hit. :rolleyes: Hit detection sucks, weapon balance, class balance are all pathetic. The game is good in concept, and I love the destructible environments, but there are things that really prevent me from enjoying it as much as Call of Duty games. Another thing that sucks are the weapon models. Not only are they bad, but they are huge. They seem to take up nearly a quarter of your viewable area unless you run a multi-monitor setup.

There is a hell of a learning curve to it. Especially for us "twitch" players. So be prepared for that. I'm always in the top 3 or 4 spots, often number 1 or 2 in Call of Duty. In Battlefield I'm smack in the middle. my K/D ratio is almost never positive. I have to play the game in hardcore mode just to be able to stand it. At least it doesn't take an entire magazine to "maybe" kill someone. I was really good at BF2 and even BF2142. I enjoyed those games immensely despite the poor portrayal of weapons in the BF2.
Click to expand...


not sure how long its been since you played but 1, the CG's been buffed and owns the shit out of tanks now, and second almost no one uses the M60 anymore, can't remember the last time i've seen some one use the M60 but it was well before the last update. as far as the gun size being and issue i've never really noticed it, might be the fact that i put almost a 1000 hours into ETQW which has far larger weapons that take up a crap load of the screen.

i'll agree the hit detection sucks hard core now due to them using the MoH hit boxes and the knife animation annoys the shit out of me since it ignores any shots fired while the animation is being played out so you're dead either way. but even with all the issues i find the game to be a hell of a lot better then COD. cant stand the rambo run and gun game style were all the weapons are insanely to accurate even when being fired from across the map.
 
The destructible environments in BC2 take the Battlefield series way past and beyond the best CoD multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong, I had fun with both both - but Battlefield has longevity the CoD series can't touch.
 
The amount you guys drop on pc parts etc I find it amusing some of you are apprehensive about spending $9.99-$19.99 on a game you may not find yourself mesmerised by.

For heavens sake, break open your piggy banks and go buy a copy and find out for yourself the normal way. If you don't like it then you have my permission to sit up all night crying into your pillow over the whoooole 20bucks you've wasted.
 
spicey said:
The destructible environments in BC2 take the Battlefield series way past and beyond the best CoD multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong, I had fun with both both - but Battlefield has longevity the CoD series can't touch.
Click to expand...

There's little incentive to provide any longevity, considering there is a new COD every year. Come to think of it, longevity is probably a bad thing to Activision...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top