Slimebeast said:
About multiplayer, I dont think Bad company 1 had mp (xcept on PC?), and anyways Akvod said "Im sad Bad Company 2 wont have more players than 1" - whatever that actually means. |
Errr Bad Company had multiplayer, and I don't think it's even on PC, and if it was, it's only after the initial release on consoles. Gold Rush was really fun, but when Conquest came out, I never turned back. What I meant by the green text is that Bad Company 2 will still feature 24 players like Bad Company 1, and I'm a supporter for Bigger Maps and Bigger Player Capacities. As long as the two are in proportion, it won't get overcrowded (the only thing I'll worry about are snipers, and that question will be answered in the experiment that'll be MAG).
Didn't Modern Combat feature 50+ players (I don't have a good PC so I can't say)? So a PC Battlefield fan should be dissapointed about 43, unless they do MASSIVE changes for the PC version (that means more classes, bigger maps, etc).
Let me make this point clear. 1943 is more in line with the console Battlefields (Modern Combat for the PS2/Xbox, and Battlefield Bad Company 1 and 2), than the PC Battlefields (1942, MC, 2142), and IMHO I think that 1943 is inferior to the Bad Company series, and is incomparable to the PC Battleifleds. It's only 15 dollars, but I think that strictly looking at its contents, that it is undeserving of all the hype it's getting, when it's sister games have more content and revolutionized all the hyped contents first (Destructible environments).
