Poll: Which Battlefield was better? Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2?
- Thread starter Gorilla Gunk
- Start date
Can anybody tell me if a lot of people still play BC2 on PS3?
All this BC2 love is making me want to pick the game up again and since you can get it for like $10 new most places I just might.
And was the Vietnam expansion worth it? Do people still play that? I passed it up when it came out because for some reason I thought it was a single-player only add-on.
All this BC2 love is making me want to pick the game up again and since you can get it for like $10 new most places I just might.
And was the Vietnam expansion worth it? Do people still play that? I passed it up when it came out because for some reason I thought it was a single-player only add-on.
I love them both to death. But I have to say Bad Company 2.
Its really the only game that uses the Destructo physics properly, BF3 goes "Oh you can flatten buildings and walls crumble over time" But in reality, we only got to see that action on like 2 maps before Back to Karkand came out.
Also, I liked how I could get shot and still manage to turn around the game with my skill. Though Battlefield 3 has fixed its issues where I can almost do the same thing on it.
Though I also loved Battlefield 1942, being the original and I still remember the map that was a big U in a canyon. In fact, 1942 and Bad Company 2 are #9 on my top 10 games list.
Its really the only game that uses the Destructo physics properly, BF3 goes "Oh you can flatten buildings and walls crumble over time" But in reality, we only got to see that action on like 2 maps before Back to Karkand came out.
Also, I liked how I could get shot and still manage to turn around the game with my skill. Though Battlefield 3 has fixed its issues where I can almost do the same thing on it.
Though I also loved Battlefield 1942, being the original and I still remember the map that was a big U in a canyon. In fact, 1942 and Bad Company 2 are #9 on my top 10 games list.
BC2 I played Bf3 on the pc even compared to my BC2 on xbox and still I like BC2 more. It was semi realistic but still had that comical awesomeness that let you do extremely stupid things, and still be good.
Since that god awful patch that completely ruined BF3 for me a few weeks ago, definitely BC2. Seriously, BF3 was my go to online shooter for months, then they introduce a patch that for me completely changed and broke the game.
And while BC2 campaign was mediocre, BF3 SP was a complete and utter let down after it's first reveal trailer.
And while BC2 campaign was mediocre, BF3 SP was a complete and utter let down after it's first reveal trailer.
I still to this day have no idea how BF:V semi-flopped. It was so awesome flying around in helicopters on Operation Hastings and listening to some great 60s music.LookingGlass said:
OT: BF2 beats both. Commander mode brought a whole new level of tactics to the game and the maps were awesome. Although BC2 had some great maps, the only good BF3 maps are the BF2 ones from Back to Karkand.
I'd say Bad Company 2 definitely had a more enjoyable campaign. When it comes to multiplayer, on the surface of things I should say Battlefield 3. But for some reason I haven't found myself playing it as much as I did BC2.
BF3 cannot compete with BC2 in my mind because BC2 absolutely blew my mind when I first played it. The huge maps, completely destructible terrain, tons of vehicles; as a veteran of Counterstrike and Call of Duty, I had never seen anything like that. I went on to play over 800 hours of BC2 online. BF3 was underwhelming by comparison; I was particularly disappointed at the diminished destructibility of the environment compared to BC2.
I agree, but I could hardly find any players in matches, not to mention you had to get that expansion to play online. Of course, being younger at the time and no source of my own money, I couldn't get it. So it kinda sucked. But I did at least play one Titan match and it was epic. I think it was on a friends computer.tendaji said:
Single player wise it has to be Bad company 2, the characters were a bit cliche but it was funny and entertaining.
Multi player I don't actually care because I don't play BF multi player at all.
So BC2 it is for me.
Multi player I don't actually care because I don't play BF multi player at all.
So BC2 it is for me.
BFBC2 was made for consoles, while BF3 was made for PC. I'm not surprised you dislike BF3 maps and think the BC2 maps were better. I, however, love the BF3 maps because I like playing 64 player conquest.
I have the Karkand DLC and I think that was totally worth it, actually. Haven't got the close quarters DLC as I've finally stopped playing the game (70+ hours later), but I think it's probably really good too. At least I was anticipating it.
I have the Karkand DLC and I think that was totally worth it, actually. Haven't got the close quarters DLC as I've finally stopped playing the game (70+ hours later), but I think it's probably really good too. At least I was anticipating it.
Like I said, the maps are just one of many reasons why I prefer BC2 over BF3 and didn't DICE say over and over again during BC2's development that the PC was the lead platform to make up for the first game not being a console exclusive? I don't really see how BC2's lighter tone or anything else has anything to do with consoles. In fact, player count aside, BF3 feels more like it was made for consoles than BC2 what with the decreased emphasis on destruction and more urban, CoD-ish levels.Wolfram23 said:
And I'm also surprised by the voting results. I was readying my flame shield because I thought I'd get a tidal wave of people telling me how wrong I was and how amazing BF3 is.
Both were pretty fun games, if you had a squad that could communicate with you it was fun to do spec ops bullshit.
That said, none of them were really Battlefield games in the sense that you weren't really rewarded or encouraged to do teamwork. In BF3 a single kill is worth just as much as repairing 20% of a tank (roughly, haven't played in a while), even though repairing that tank is probably worth a lot more than a single bloody kill since it can go on to have more kills. Another problem, and one that really ruined the both of them, is that people actively went for kills rather than objective, which happened rarely in pre-BC games. I saw that dice actually tried to make BF3 conducive to teamwork in a few ways, but they made getting kills too rewarding in general. You need them to get guns, get upgrades, and since they give you the highest xp rate, to get to a higher rank the fastest.
So yeah, end of fanboy rant. Sorry for going offtopic there.
That said, none of them were really Battlefield games in the sense that you weren't really rewarded or encouraged to do teamwork. In BF3 a single kill is worth just as much as repairing 20% of a tank (roughly, haven't played in a while), even though repairing that tank is probably worth a lot more than a single bloody kill since it can go on to have more kills. Another problem, and one that really ruined the both of them, is that people actively went for kills rather than objective, which happened rarely in pre-BC games. I saw that dice actually tried to make BF3 conducive to teamwork in a few ways, but they made getting kills too rewarding in general. You need them to get guns, get upgrades, and since they give you the highest xp rate, to get to a higher rank the fastest.
So yeah, end of fanboy rant. Sorry for going offtopic there.
Battlefield 3; Flashlight warfare?
Coming from a guy who was actually very good at BC2 to the point of where I say I was in the top ten percent of players, I actually think BF3 is the better game.
I think BC2 is a little bit more focused on the fun side of gaming... but BF3 is just better... if that makes any sense.
Also, the controls on the BC2 console version were notoriously terrible. Oh, and I hated BC2 and Battlefield 3's campaign just as much as each other. The funny aspect from the first Bad Company completely vanished.
Oh, and Battlefield 3 I think managed to blend the arcadey style of Call of Duty, and the realism together almost perfectly.
Though I will say that I agree with the 24 player thing on some maps on Console. Being a predominantly Conquest player, it really sometimes just doesn't work. Had they boosted it up to 32 players, I think it would have been perfect.
Coming from a guy who was actually very good at BC2 to the point of where I say I was in the top ten percent of players, I actually think BF3 is the better game.
I think BC2 is a little bit more focused on the fun side of gaming... but BF3 is just better... if that makes any sense.
Also, the controls on the BC2 console version were notoriously terrible. Oh, and I hated BC2 and Battlefield 3's campaign just as much as each other. The funny aspect from the first Bad Company completely vanished.
Oh, and Battlefield 3 I think managed to blend the arcadey style of Call of Duty, and the realism together almost perfectly.
Though I will say that I agree with the 24 player thing on some maps on Console. Being a predominantly Conquest player, it really sometimes just doesn't work. Had they boosted it up to 32 players, I think it would have been perfect.