By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Domicinator on 18 February 2010
Edit Thread

Some of you guys misinterpreted something here:

I meant in the GRAPHICS department that BFBC2 was the worst game of the three. I don't think the engine looks much better than BFBC1. There are a lot of jaggies, the vegetation looks grainy, it's just not very good. In MAG the graphics are more plain jane, but at least they're clean and crisp. And graphics are the least of my problems really--if the game is fun, I don't care if it's not a graphics power house.

I'm just saying that I don't think BFBC2 is going to topple MW2 as EA is claiming. If anything, it's COPYING MW2. It's definitely catering more to that kind of player, which is why I think I'm probably going to skip BC2 and get Battlefield 3 for PC. If I want true BF-like gameplay, I'm going to play MAG for the time being. If I want MW, I'll play MW. If some of you guys had played some of the classic BF titles on the PC, you would know why I'm a little disappointed here. EA knows that CoD games sell, so they're trying to emulate them. If they do that with BF3, I will not be buying that game either.