Bad Company 2 vs Modern Warfare 2

[SHOOTER_175]

Well, BC2 is more realistic and is the least cheap fps i've played on PS3. I'd say BC2 kills mw2.

[Dangelos]

Bad company 2 is a War like fps MW 2 is a paintball like fps

 

Played both games bad company 2 is epic

MW 2 is BORING after 2 days

[AliasTheory]

Bad Company 2. It really depends on your style of play. MW2 is more arcade-y shooter if you know what I mean. Although DICE's has its own take on modern warfare, it is very different.

Bad Company is more focused on the team rather than sense of self and encourages you to communicate and do other things besides kill. Battlefield...you can fix stuff, drive vehicles around, call out locations. Much more. MW2 encourages you to huddle up in a corner and get all giddy in your seat as you rain death outdoors.

 

BC2 also is just amazing in so many more ways.

 

-The characters feel more alive compared to MW2, which is an entirely different style campaign. We have a four man squad who are really just your average soldiers versus a spec ops team that means business all the time.

-AMAZING SOUND. Oh my god, where do I begin. Fire the M95 indoors with War Tapes on. Go on Youtube and look up War Tapes in this game. Far greater and more realistic sound effects than any in MW2.

-More rewarding gameplay. Bullet drop. 'Nuff said for me.

-BC2 uses guns that would be more realistic for a modern day war rather than MW2. We do have some old WW2 guns for novelty purposes, but other than that...yes. I mean, Cheytec Intervention? WA2000? 1887s? Seriously. No.

 

Overall, DICE has created a game that actually resembles war compared to MW2.

[Vindekarr]

Well put. But I must first fanrage at you a little :laugh:

 

That chetec may not be realistic, but hot damn it's a nice gun in MW2. One of the nicest sniepr rifles I've used in any game thank-you-very-much. :)

 

Now I've got that off my chest...

 

...I'm a former hardcore MW 2 player, and I say BC2 hands down.

 

MW 2 is all about elament of surprise. Whomever gets their hand on the trigger first wins, that simple. As a sniper, that was usualy me. If you could remain hidden, you had excellent chances. if not, you'd wish you'd just stayed home.

 

In the early days it was excellent fun-I really enjoy sniping, so a game with ghillie suits, customisable sniper rifles, and the ability to get my loadout "just right" really gave iot potential. Especialy since it had the guts to make sniper rifles the one shot kills they are.

 

But the community ruined it. Especialy the hackers, the whiners, the constant profanity.

 

And the fact that no matter how aweful a shot you were, what really mattered was having that grenade launcher and the reflexes to use it. I mean, I cut a swathe online with my .44 and my Intervention(no Barret for me, I can actualy land a killshot first time :) ) but because I could score headshots with a holographic sight being my only technologic aid, I became so unpopular I could hardly find a match.

 

Kids dont like losing. Kids using hacks who think they are invincible, who have RPGs, hate losing to non-hackers wielding pistols, admitedly, mighty .44 pistols firing FMJ rounds, but pistol nonetheless.

[AliasTheory]

OK...I'm going to lie but yeah. I do like the Intervention a lot too. Even if the gun sound is unrealistic, as well as its usage. It feels so satisfying...like the way Halo's sniper rifle is. Heck, that's why I've mod toxa's Intervention in Fallout 3 to resemble the CoD one.

 

I find it really annoying how you have be be PRO to play. OMG gotta quick scope, no thermal, no explosives and all that crap. That is the way the game was meant to be played, fools. Funny thing: my brother is really good at MW2 and he puts a lot of people in their places. He goes around playing with his pimped out Barrett and some guy rages at him. So he goes, "OK, I'll play how you wanna play." Guy says that he has to use Intervention FMJ, SoH, Stopping Power and Steady Aim. My bro quick scopes him across the whole map first thing, guy quits. LOL.

[MonsterHunterMaster]

DefiNately Modern Warfare 2.

It rocks.

Add me on steam.

WE can have a game together:

I played both of them and MW2 is the better game imo.

[McclaudEagle]

I have played both games, and in my opinion, Bad Company 2 is better.

 

The following points are my own opinions. Some will disagree, but that is because of their opinions

 

Modern Warfare 2

 

Good:

 

1. Graphics are awesome

2. Choice of weapons are good

3. Easy to level up

4. The "movie" feel to the game's campaign

5. Detail in the vehicles, soldiers, etc

6. Fun Ops, my favorite being the one with the AC-130 Spectre Gunship

 

Bad:

 

1. The campaign is unrealistic, as many of the events would never happen, even if the US and Russia were at war.

2. The size of the multiplayer maps mean re-playability is very limited, and gets boring after a short time

3. The mission, "No Russian" in my opinion should never have been put into the final release.

4. Lack of vehicle usage

 

Bad Company 2

 

Good:

 

1. Awesome entry mission set in 1940's

2. Good graphics

3. Destructible environments

4. Large multiplayer maps mean new tactics can be tried all the time.

5. Use of vehicles in multiplayer adds more fun.

6. Detailed environments

 

Bad:

 

1. Limited choice of weapons

2. Levelling is extremely slow

3. Just like MW2, the campaign is OTT

4. Not enough "easier" close-quarter maps for deathmatches.

 

Overall, I prefer B:BC2, but Modern Warfare 2 was fun while it lasted.

 

I also personally don't mind people camping and "noobchubing?", because all they are doing is utilizing what the game gives them. I'll admit it, I do a lot of camping, the reason being is:

 

1. It's a realistic tactic used by forces all over the world.

 

2. My K/D ratio is a lot better, though I don't care much about it.

 

3. It's a better approach to running out and shooting someone, only to have a bullet put into you as well, making that kill worthless.

[Stargazer09]

I've played all the COD games on PC from the first up to MW2. The only BF game I've played (not counting BF Heroes) is BFBC2.

I prefer the multiplayer gameplay of BC2. MW2 is purely run & gun and usually the person with the faster reflexes will win the duel. Team work does not seem to exist. Plus the maps seem to be getting smaller and smaller - I was watching someone play Black Ops on multiplayer recently and the maps are tiny!

The good point about BC2 is that it rewards team play. It's not about just getting kills, those who are twitch-challenged can also find a meaningful role by reviving fallen comrades, throwing motion senors, repairing stuff. The ability of your squad to spawn on you gives a tactical aspect to the game. I once turned a rush game around by managing to sneak into the MCOM location (most of the enemy was deployed at a choke point further up). I waited for the rest to the squad to spawn on me before we armed & destroyed the 2 stations. I got KIA'd in the process, but the sense of satisfaction I got from helping to win the game was immense. The COD games never did that for me.

[DarkVVolfV]

Bad company, much better than mw2 every day of the week.

 

first off: not a forced steam game (tends to laag games, restrict)

combat system is very well done

buildings collapsing is very nice!

Vehicles

 

Cod seems too arcady now, if your into that type of thing, thats ok but Bad company 2 seems to have superior game play and playability

[Yoshh]

Delete this post please. [Forums are acting up :<] Edited June 12, 2011 by Aellyth