Poll: Which Battlefield was better? Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2?

[Gorilla Gunk]

I had a huge list of Pros and Cons for each game but there was a problem when I tried to create the thread and it all got lost but what it basically said was that although I like and play BF3 I enjoyed BC2 a hell of a lot more because of it's lighter tone and for having seemingly more destruction than BF3.

So you know where I stand. Now tell me why I'm wrong.

EDIT: Apparently my first attempt did get posted and this is all turning into a nightmare. Here's what I wrote in that thread:

BF3 Pros:
-Looks nice I guess (PS3 version here)
-Custom servers
-I play it a lot so that has to count for something
-That one Rush map where you have to parachute off a cliff

BF3 Cons
-24 players in maps designed for 64
-Annoyingly serious tone
-Boring campaign
-Seemingly less destruction
-LENS FLARE! BLOOM! BRIGHT LIGHTS!
-Expensive DLC
-It's basically doing a bad Call of Duty impression
-Why did I just unlock a sniper scope for my shotgun?

______________________________________________________

BC2 Pros:
-Better, more balanced maps
-A lighter tone
-Seemingly more destruction
-Better campaign (Nothing in BF3's campaign has come close to the opening of BC2's)
-More reasonably priced DLC
-Actually looks better than BF3 in my opinion

BC2 Cons:
-I never actually finished the campaign
-Most of the DLC is just the same maps unlocked for different game modes
-Probably not a lot of people still play (On PS3) so little point in buying it again
-Can't go prone (Although that might be a Pro too)
-No custom servers

 

[Korten12]

Honestly there was just something about BC2 that made it so much better then BF3... I played BC2 for many hours, but the same effect was lost for BF3.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

Battlefield Bad Company 2 was just awful. I could have understood players issues with BF3 pre-patch but it has continuously gotten better to the point that I want to be playing it and it is making me crazy because I had to leave my PC to go home for the summer.

BC2 by comparison to pretty much any other BF game was awful. It has had the fastest turnover rate from playing to not playing for me of any BF game. Maps were terrible, easily as bad as most vanilla BF3 maps, magnum and body armor destroyed any semblance of weapon balance, ruined the Sniper rifles, EXPL Mk II, gustav, Semi-shotties, awful class balance, choke point filled maps, circle strafing,

Pretty much all my issues with BF3 are leftovers from BC2: chokepoint maps, simplified Conquest(B2K to the rescue), killcam, auto secondaries, etc.

Its definitely not a case of console hate. I LOVED BC1 to death, great class and weapon balancing, great maps(even the demo map was amazing and BC2 couldn't do that right), flawed but open and enjoyable single player. Had BC2 kept the exact same classes and equipment plus BC2's smoothing aim and ADS for all weapon I would have liked it much more even to spite the awful maps.

If we are talking all time favorite than I have to go with 2142 because it is just as balanced if not more so than BF3 with better maps, and the Recon class is totally useful.

My biggest issue with BF3? WHERE THE FUCK IS RECON'S C4? Other than that I am much happier with BF3 than BC2. The sad thing is that the BF community expanded greatly under BC2 so you have a bunch of idiots proclaiming it to be TEH Best BF EVAR because they don't know any better. Its very depressing as my first big Multiplayer series was 1942. Just sad.

/rant

 

[Windcaler]

Personally I had more fun with Bad company 2 then I have with BF3. Most of this has to do with map design and weapon balancing but to be fair BC2 has had more time to balance everything then BF3.

My issue with BF3 maps is often the smaller scale. There are 5 maps where there is perfectly good cover to use while moving along the side to flank objectives but they fall into the no mans land so you cant really use them. If they were extended out just 5-10 feet it would be great but instead you cant use that advantage.

My other issue with BF3 is jets and helicopters and how after using their Anti-air countermeasure being able to just fly off till it recharges. Really good pilots will be next to impossible to kill because of that

Then there's the spawns in BF3, which can be just horrible. Kharg island is probably the worst case but wake island can be pretty bad too when the attack helicopter hovers over the spawn.

Then Im still annoyed with some of the class changes that came with BF3. I miss my motion balls and the grenade launcher that assaults got as part of their class rather then having to give up a med kit for it right now. The T-ugs just doesnt cut it for a motion ball replacement since you have to be on that position to use it. On top of that you have 2 classes that have virtually no anti-vehicle weaponry in maps where destroying vehicles as quickly and effeciently as possible is required to win. Would it be to much to ask to let the assault trade out its defib for C4? or recon to take off the radio for C4?

Yeah, IMO BC2 is just a lot better but I still play BF3. Mainly because my BC2 copy is for Xbox and the Xbox multiplayer for the game is dead. However the PC BF3 community is huge

 

[k7avenger]

Well BF3 has the issue of dying behind cover or being one shot by a pistol for just about every death. BF2 had hit boxes that lagged behind the player model by 10 feet or so, and BC2 had bullets that you would watch excavate your enemies' skull and yet do 0 damage.

...

My vote goes for BC2. At least for the most part you could always shoot more bullets.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well when it's a triple A price then for me it needs a solid SP which is what BC2 had, and I really liked that silly A-Team theme they went for, obviously the package wasn't $60 worth but a solid package none the less, amazingly also comes with a menu system unlike others...

 

[Gardenia]

Bc2, hands down. I don't like the twitch gameplay of Bf3. BC2 Vietnam was as close to perfection as the series have ever been.
[sub][sub][sub]BC2's campaign was nowhere NEAR good, even though it might be better than BF3's[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I preferred Bad Company 2 in just about every way. Battlefield 3 annoys me even further because it took 90% of the population of BC2 with it. Now you basically have a choice of 1-2 servers, if that. Especially if you aren't playing during peak hours, which I often am.

 

[hutchy27]

I absolutely loved Bad Company 2, lent it off a friend and in about a week had most of the achievements, was a decent level and completed campaign. That's why I bought Battlefield 3, expecting the same however I was disappointed, only did a fraction of the campaign and play a few days on multiplayer.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Can I say Battlefront? I'm gonna say Battlefront.

 

[Kathinka]

battlefield 2, accept no substitutes. so many great elements were taken out to make it playable on consoles, it's just not really battlefield anymore.

commander? squad leader? map interface to give orders and set waypoints? 2 seater jets? six man squads? big maps (even caspian 64 is not really that big compared)

generally every element that promoted strategy and teamplay instead of appeasing the cod crowd and whoring points to improve ones own stats got thrown under the bus. as well as every element that was too complex to be handled with four buttons and a wobbly thumb stick. and i'm not even going to talk about the technical limitations that the game suffers from so it can run on outdated console hardware.

it's still a great game, don't get me wrong. but it's not really what battlefield is about, it's dumbed down and consolized through and through now.

 

[The White Hunter]

BF3 Pros:
-Looks nice I guess (PS3 version here)
-Custom servers
-I play it a lot so that has to count for something
-That one Rush map where you have to parachute off a cliff

BF3 Cons
-24 players in maps designed for 64
-Annoyingly serious tone
-Boring campaign
-Seemingly less destruction
-LENS FLARE! BLOOM! BRIGHT LIGHTS!
-Expensive DLC
-It's basically doing a bad Call of Duty impression
-Why did I just unlock a sniper scope for my shotgun?

______________________________________________________

BC2 Pros:
-Better, more balanced maps
-A lighter tone
-Seemingly more destruction
-Better campaign (Nothing in BF3's campaign has come close to the opening of BC2's)
-More reasonably priced DLC
-Actually looks better than BF3 in my opinion

BC2 Cons:
-I never actually finished the campaign
-Most of the DLC is just the same maps unlocked for different game modes
-Probably not a lot of people still play (On PS3) so little point in buying it again
-Can't go prone (Although that might be a Pro too)
-No custom servers

I'd like to adress some of these, for the record I'll say Bad Company 2, and alot of people do still play it, though a lot of those have played too much by now.

BF3 sure as hell has less destruction, the maps are designed worse, the flare and lighting is very nice but lends little to enjoyment of the game, there are a lot of balancing issues in the multiplayer, the dlc is very overpriced I'm glad I got it free.

I personally got very bored of BF3 after unlocking everything, it just couldn't hold my interest because it was always the same stuff going down on the map, and that's something I hate in shooters, it's why I stopped playing KIllzone 3 (the looping DLC maps and nothing else issue that plagued it for months).

Bad Company 2 is much better balanced, the maps are better, the destruction was alot more fun, vehicles were alot better, helicopters controlled much better and actually had value (nop jets to rip you apart instantly and no lock on rockets without the tracer made rpg'ing one a challenge). The inclusion of turrets and AA guns was really good and gave you more options. The weapons were better, the unlocking stuff by class was better than unlocking stuff by kills (attachments and such).

BC2 did have alot more dlc, the first few packs wqere, admittedly, maps reworked for other modes, but in that situation they did add to the maps. Also, if you bought new, or paid £7 for a pass you got all that DLC for free. Specact was a bit pointless as dlc, as was the co-op mode (but fun while it lasted, couldve done with more maps imo). The Vietnam expansion was genius and amazing fun.

The lack of prone in BC2 is fine by me because the maps don't require proning, there's no nonsense scope sway and breath holding, bullet drop seemed more managable and predictable in BC2. Because you can't prone you're much less likely to have bottlenecking by LMG and significantly less camping.

And no USAS-12 frags, I rest my case. Though I can easily pick off a sniper at 500 metres with an 870 and slugs....

Oh and as for custom servers on BF3, very nice. It's a shame you have to PAY FOR THEM, and it's also a shame that as a result of them it's incredibly hard to just jump into a normal game with normal rules without some self important little shit stain banning me for using a shotgun in close quarters.

/end rant.

Sorry if that's a bit disjointed but yeah, BC2 is vastly superior. I'd say definately pick it up again alot of people do still play, hell I'll play with you sometime. There's a reason Bad Company 2 became one of my favourite games of all time.

 

[F'Angus]

Battlefield 2... I sucked at it but it was helluvah fun.

 

[James Crook]

I adored Bad Company for its light-heartedness (no blood, funny dialogue, cliché elements just for fun) and thoroughly enjoyed Bad Company 2 for keeping the light tone, and the matches being a frantic clusterfuck with buildings and vehicles blowing up all around. Battlefield 3 was just too serious, too gritty, too restrained ; it lacked the funky feeling from the two previous games, which separated them from other, regular brown shooters.

 

[The White Hunter]

I like COD, but Battlefield should not be trying to emulate it

Thats a great summary of what ruined BF3. I too like COD and Battlefield, I've been loving MW3 for the last few weeks. But COD and Battlefield should be very different things and I like them for different reasons.

The new BF3 dlc, the close quarters one. It's gonna suck. It's indoors, very close combat, with no real cover (it's all glass and wood seperators, so no hard cover). It's deliberately trying to besst COD at what COD does best.

 

[The White Hunter]

I adored Bad Company for its light-heartedness (no blood, funny dialogue, cliché elements just for fun) and thoroughly enjoyed Bad Company 2 for keeping the light tone, and the matches being a frantic clusterfuck with buildings and vehicles blowing up all around. Battlefield 3 was just too serious, too gritty, too restrained ; it lacked the funky feeling from the two previous games, which separated them from other, regular brown shooters.

Here here. Lets hope for BC3 and them not ruining it...

I'm gonna leave this thread now or I'll be here all day agreeing with people on the awesome of bad company 2.

 

[Kathinka]

Bad Company 2 was more fun.

I don't know why they made away with mass destruction, destroying buildings was so much fun.

BC2 was also a lot more frantic. You would run through buildings while entire walls disappeared around you and you could hear bullets whizz past your head. Battlefield 3 doesn't do that too well imo.

in the alpha version destruction was absolutely fantastic, even better than bc2. you could make trenches with c4 and disassemble buildings bit by bit, it was breathtaking.

then, at arround 50% completion, developement focus was switched from PC to console. all of the sudden the devs were confronted with the problem that the destruction was way, way too demanding for console hardware to work. so it got reduced to almost nothing, exept little andscape details like fences and the odd building segment or other.

i have nothing against consoles or console players, but it makes me a sad camper when the glorious pc gaming master race has to suffer because of limitations of unrelated systems. they should have finished the version they had for pc, released that, and then dumped it down for consoles until it would have worked. but no, everyone has to be held back -.-