http://dfgaming.blogspot.com/2010/02/5-reasons-bfbc2-is-better-than-mw2.html
i agree especially with the destructibel enviroments
http://dfgaming.blogspot.com/2010/02/5-reasons-bfbc2-is-better-than-mw2.html
i agree especially with the destructibel enviroments
I want a mw2/bfbc2 hybrid. Then I would be in gaming heaven.
That is obviously very biased. The writing is pretty terrible too.
I'm a filmmaker, writer, and gamer. Add me on Xbox Live or message me!
XBL Gamertag: StraitupBeastin
He criticizes the engine? Thats so stupid. They both play differently. IW obv wanted a smaller and more tactical based gaming experience which is why the player count is on the smaller side. If this is his reasoning then Resistance 2 takes the cake on online shooters and by god i didn't enjoy Resistance 2 competative online
Xelloss said: I think it was lazy, there are a heck of a lot more reasons than 5 for why BF:BC2 is better than MW2. MW2 has a slightly better perk/unlock system imo, that really acts like the cheese in a mouse-maze. Otherwise, BF:BC2 crushes it hands down in every other category. |
BF:BC2 doesn't crush it hands down in every category. the tanks/helicopters and the destructable enviroments are the only things that BF:BC2 has over MW2. That's the only reason I'm getting the game. MW2 does everything else better,hands down in every category.
oldschoolfool said:
|
COD and BF are two different types of shooters. The sound effects in BF is more enthralling and captures the feeling of war far more then MW2..but IMO BF has done with this since 1942. The perk and leveling system in COD is awesome..but we'll have to see how BF is.
I really dont see what COD beats "hands down"...minus that stupid tatical nuke...
oldschoolfool said:
|
Negative.
MW2 is an OK game, with a really addictive perk/level system.
BF plays better, is deeper, and dont get me started on the technical aspects... and REALLY dont get me started on the multiplayer network features. BF Beta on PS3 played smoother, more reliably and with much lower latency than MW2 retail could dream of. BF uses dedicated servers, MW2 is epic lazyness and most time I play, you spend 30% or more of your time lagging on shit hosts, migrating hosts, or looking for new games because you had so many concurrent failhosts your lobby died. I am not talking about the PC deal here, where MW2 failed even harder - I am comparing ps3 to ps3.
MW2 is a FUN game, but IW games in general rely on the leveling/perk deal. They found a really good formula for getting people addicted, and yes MW2 was fun. But IW games cannot begin to touch DICE games in terms of overall quality or technical soundness.
Xelloss said:
Negative. MW2 is an OK game, with a really addictive perk/level system. BF plays better, is deeper, and dont get me started on the technical aspects... and REALLY dont get me started on the multiplayer network features. BF Beta on PS3 played smoother, more reliably and with much lower latency than MW2 retail could dream of. BF uses dedicated servers, MW2 is epic lazyness and most time I play, you spend 30% or more of your time lagging on shit hosts, migrating hosts, or looking for new games because you had so many concurrent failhosts your lobby died. I am not talking about the PC deal here, where MW2 failed even harder - I am comparing ps3 to ps3. MW2 is a FUN game, but IW games in general rely on the leveling/perk deal. They found a really good formula for getting people addicted, and yes MW2 was fun. But IW games cannot begin to touch DICE games in terms of overall quality or technical soundness. |
This ^ for sure
PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB