All i'm gonna say is at least CoD doesnt lag you out every 20 minutes, it wont send you back to the main menu for no reason, and at least cod doesnt have shi*ty servers.
MW2.
Enough said.
And how many people play bad company 2 now-a-days? so many people that i get matched up wtih the same people OVER AND OVER AGAIN
1. It has dedicated, which will end with the same results most probably.
2. That's a good thing, because you don't get entire d!ckwads who talk to you like an idiot because they won't see you again - nor does Battlefield have such bad community in comparison.
The game quality sucks because their are like 8 maps and 4 for each game mode IF you didnt have the VIP code. which is RIDICOULUS.
Meanwhile preordering it was £25, which is just 1/4 more than getting what? 8 Incredibly small maps for MW2?
Not to mention there are differing versions of the same map dependent on game mode and they are incredibly larger, featuring a multitude of different gameplay styles.
Sure, i'll agree CoD is way easier than bad company 2, but at least it's way funner, and Treyarch can come out with a better game mode than onslaught mode, and how it has more than 4 game type variables. face it, in terms of quality, BAD COMPANY 2 GETS OWNED.
Onslaught mode I've never played, but giving the better and less predictible AI, I'd imagine its very hard.
And if they have Classes on Onslaught mode, I would imagine it automatically wins.
Also funniness in zombie mode pales in comparison to the mere adrenline rush you can gather from a lightly armored vehicle charging through your cover nearly running you over. Or its 50. cal bullets piercing the wooden palisade your team has assembled on, dodging them barely.
Yeah. It's happened to me on multiple occasions.
CoD is a more fast-paced fps game compared to battlefields slower game play. so destroying buildings really isn;t for CoD.
And this is one of the reasons I prefer not debating either of these games against eachother. You, in a way, contradicted yourself.
They're entirely different, but I find Battlefield takes more finesse and skill to overcome enemies than MW2 will ever have.
Why?
1. Teamwork is required.
2. Classes are big decisions.
3. Vehicles are abundant and very dangerous.
4. Put 1, 2 and 3 together.
5. Bullet travel.
6. Destructible ground, eliminating that so called 'noob' style of camping.
7. Grenade Launchers aren't all that powerful.
8. It's much more basic without trying to achieve a fancy nature, but still adapting their usual playstyles to an equal fun factor. This alone wins the argument.
That's eight reasons.
does battlefield have NAZI ZOMBIES? i dont think so. u lose, CoD wins. W00T!
Sounds like you value it too much.
I can't necessarily argue against this as I've never endured a game on Nazi Zombies. However because of your general attitude on this thread it gives me the instinct that your opinion isn't exactly... Favorable.
In the end, I believe that if Battlefield Bad Company 2 implemented more fluent perks and attachments, much like a Call of Duty game, it wouldn't do anything for it simply because Call of Duty spends a major amount of its funding on publicity and not exactly fine-tuning the weapons themselves.
I've never experienced a Treyarch game so I will avoid saying the same for this particular company. I will test Black Ops, for Wager Modes (and taking advantage of previously mentioned bad community), theater mode (which should have come to the PC much... much earlier), and of course the new 'mercenary' system where you pay for a variety of things using this fake currency.
Also, extra customization.
I will NOT, however buy the expansion to BFBC2, why? They don't seem to introduce anything new, except something that comes with every game (aka Weapons, attachments and maps). This is the weak point in which I believe CoD wins, where as even though it didn't introduce a major amount to the CoD Multiplayer series on a gameplay score (Perk 1 appearances will prove useful in gameplay, other gameplay is wager mode and of course some new, overrated in my opinion, weapons), that isn't its focus.
The problem with FPS games is what CoD is slowly fixing, simply the personalization within the game itself.
Facepaints aren't all that much, however buyable camos (with much more variety) and of course a worthy (depending on creativity) insignia on your weapon seems very nice.
Especially with the more 'mood' feel being introduced in sights, where you can now change the colors and shapes of a sight.
The problem with this extra customization is simple - what about the amount of classes? I definately don't want to prestige 20 times to get 10 more classes. I would like to put the currency to maximum usage where you are enabled a class by simply buying it.
Or. They could simply make a system where you specific class will keep its weapons, perks, etc. But will change camo's, insignias (emblems and writing on weapons) and facepaint depending on the maps you assign to it. This will give a significantly better 'blending' feel and will put the new customization features to the max.
Anyway. Walls of text aren't healthy. Good bye
- H
