Viruzzo said:
Basically put down: Battlefield games are strategic and rely less on the "skill" of the single player. If you play in a decently organized and coherent team, you will obtain incomparably better results, while in MW2 (and most other non-class-based) FPSs it's more about being able to shoot people better than they can shoot you.
As all games that privilege skill over teamwork (in loose terms), it caters more to those who strive to achieve mere superiority over their peers, to achieve a sort of "alpha status", that is, the "fratboy" kind of people.
Well, pardon me if I completely disagree.
See when I played BF:BC2, I played as a soldier at first, because I figured it would be good for medium range combat (Assault rifle, after all). And I got my ass handed to me again and again by every other class. So I switched to an engineer, since they seemed to have much better luck at killing me then everyone else. And guess what? I slaughtered everything. I was taking out tanks, helicopters, people, and blowing up crates left right and center.
You would think that, in a class based game, the guy who is made for anti-vehicle combat, and vehicle repair, would be less effective in straight up infantry combat then the guy who is only good for infantry combat. But no, the soldier class is useless.
But let's say that I just didn't use the soldier class effectively. Let's just say that my play-style isn't suited to the soldier class, and someone else can use the soldier class to great and proper effect.
The problem with your argument is that you assume that since BF:BC2 has set classes, that teamwork will automatically play more of a role then in MW2. Well after months of playing the first Bad Company online, and months of playing CoD:4 and MW2 online (And years of playing FPS games online since Quake), allow me to respectfully disagree.
I'll disagree because nobody in my time playing either Bad Company 1 or the demo for Bad Company 2 played as a team. I don't really know how you could anyways, since you can only talk to up to 3 people because of the 'wonderful' squad system, but nobody played as a team. Sure, everyone was going for the crates, but that's hardly playing as a team. Everyone in every other FPS is going to kill the other team, but that doesn't mean you're 'playing as a team'. It means you share goals. Even IF you share goals, since on multiple occasions I saw guys just driving vehicles in circles, or hovering around the spawn-point for a vehicle in order to get the 'good' tank or helicopter first.
Yeah, fantastic team work.
And before you say 'well you have to get the right people', then let me say right now that you can do the same thing in MW2. Teamwork gets you far in any points-based, team game (FPS or not). Yeah, MW2 is faster paced, with tighter maps, no vehicles, and no set class system,. but I have a group of guys that I play with in MW2 who work as a team, and we slaughter a team of randoms. Why? Teamwork.
There is nothing about Battlefield that makes it to more prone to teamwork then MW2, or any other FPS for that matter. Nothing. Working together? You'll do better. Not working together? Then you're only as good as your best player. There is only one FPS I've ever played that forces team-work on people, and that's Left 4 Dead. Otherwise, this idea that Battlefield is the pinnacle of team-based FPS games is a farce.
