CoD MW/MW2 vs BF2

Howdy dooders,

Just wondering if I'm alone in this, but when the first MW came out, I played the single player on PC and felt it was nothing really all too special. I had played the original CoD and a little bit of CoD 2, but after having played stuff like Battlefield 2 on the PC (online, of course), I thought CoD MW 1 was very scripted, closed, and sort of held your hand throughout the game. I've heard good things about the multi-player, but I never thought it would be much compared to BF2's open-ended, 'military-sandbox' style gameplay.

Maybe I'm making the wrong comparison? Maybe I should be comparing MW or MW2's online with something like CS:S?

Hmmm yeah... I think the MW games compares better to CS then to BF2. Thier scope and gameflow are just too far apart to be considered in the same group online.

the MW series does not fit entirely into the same box as CS, but it hits closer to home.

The truth is that the BF series is about teamplay and tactics, and MW is more of a twitch shooter, and killstreak game (which makes it more akin to games like UT)

Must be noted that I do not think the MW is bad, Im just not in the target audience.

Yer BF2 is by far the multiplayer winner , only becuase it is open ended with vehicles and lots of players ,i only really bought the cod games for their single player aspect. im not too big on small multiplayer maps or indoor maps

I didnt like CoD4 multiplayer . I loved BF2 for few months , but got bored very fast and went back to bf 1942 ( im playing it for many years) . So yea BF is rly better (for me personally . dont attack me cod fanboys) but not BF2 . For me there is only one true king of multiplayer : BF 1942 .

I think MW2's multiplayer plays a lot like an infantry BF2 server. It's pretty hectic and you die pretty fast, but both are fun :)

The shooting and the feel of the game are exactly like BF2 to me because it doesn't feel like you're carrying any weight and the guns don't pack a punch. I dunno it just feels light and floaty it's weird and when you kill someone you don't get thatsatisfying feeling. The main differences though is BF2 has vehicles and giant open maps and MW2 has small tightly packed maps and has the whole leveling up and perk system. Also to note that MW2 can only go upto 9 v 9 and most of the modes are only 6 v 6 where as COD 4 could go upto 64 and so can BF2. Also MW2 doesn't have dedicated servers so getting into a good game takes longer and you'll often have lag and the host dropping out. Once a games over you have to go through the process all over again and it's just a pain. If you play console you'll be used to it but I'm a PC guy and I prefer dedicated servers that COD 4 and BF2 offer.

I have to say though that Valve are the only ones who create the BEST Multiplayer FPS experience because they get the feel of the guns right, they feel heavy and like they're doing damage. When you kill someone in TF2 or CS you get that feedback each time a bullet hits your enemy, just feels satisfying like you're punching a chunk of meat. You just don't get that feeling in a MW2 or BF2 where the only indication you killed someone is it telling you on screen where as TF2 and CS you just know without it even telling you.

I can't wait for Bad Company 2 though, that'll be fun.

I say get COD 4 + BF2 it'll probably cost the same price as MW2 and wait until they fix the PC issues with MW2 but I see no reason to play it over COD 4.

However my personal opinion is just get the Valve complete pack.

The main advantage in gameplay of BF 2 was the squad system: it means that you can build a squad of 6 players, one of them in the role of leader, that works as a "mobile respawn point". It improves a lot the game in two ways: makes the players to fight more cohesively and they reach any possible target much faster, since the group is always on the way to the next target, and and the same time encourages the squad to supporting their comrades, since a squad can heal, revive or support with ammunition their mates in a much efficient way than a lone wolf players. Also, 6 players firing towards the sames targets at time makes the game faster and deadlier.

The handling of the vehicles is also superb, but vehicles in BF2 aren't a big deal in the game because chopters and jets are absolutely overpowered, so some other fps as Quake Wars, BF 2142 or UT onslaught had better balance in terms of infantry vs vehicles.

Thanks for the responses. Yeah, I have had BF2 for quite some time, and its an amazing game (although I hadn't played it in about a year, and I recently updated it and tried to play and it told me I had an invalid CD key...so I have yet to sit down and talk to EA to get it sorted out...what a hassle).

I guess I'm just wondering if I'll enjoy MW2, and I'm sure I'm the only one that would know that. I guess I'll give it a shot. Next question would be PC or PS3 version. I'm really apprehensive about trying to learn to play with the controller, it just seems so clumsy (and I used to actually be GOOD at the original Halo, back in the day). Also, if I opt for the PC version, a 8800GT and Quad-core 6600 w/ 4GB ram should cut it?

I like to play BF2 or BC when I'm feeling competitive or want to call up a few friends for a social game against some other clans. MW and MW2 are for those days when I feel like Rambo and want to go kick some @$$ by myself and vent all my rage at the same time.

You're right about the single player. Muliplayer is fairly fast-paced arcadey style. It's supposedly slower than the first MW game, but I only played the first one very briefly on a PS3. If you've played any of the other CoD games online, MW2 is pretty much the same pace and style as those. It's how I remember the first game online anyway.

Howdy dooders,

Just wondering if I'm alone in this, but when the first MW came out, I played the single player on PC and felt it was nothing really all too special. I had played the original CoD and a little bit of CoD 2, but after having played stuff like Battlefield 2 on the PC (online, of course), I thought CoD MW 1 was very scripted, closed, and sort of held your hand throughout the game. I've heard good things about the multi-player, but I never thought it would be much compared to BF2's open-ended, 'military-sandbox' style gameplay.

Maybe I'm making the wrong comparison? Maybe I should be comparing MW or MW2's online with something like CS:S?

eXXeSpAiN

YES! I totally understand and agree! Ever since playing CoD 1 and the expansion, i've felt that all the CoD games (hell, just add in all the other generic shooters) are very scripted and straightforward. all you do is move, point, shoot. the weapons are all the same, they just look a little different and fire at different rates. I thought modern warfare was VERY boring. i played the multiplayer, and it was just single player but with smarter and sometimes not so smart but very exploitive enemies. I cannot get into any straight up shooter anymore, not halo 3 even (i loved halo on pc though).

However, i loved BF2, i played that game a lot before. It wasnt any more special than CoD, but it was way more open ended and it had a different feel, something that most other games of the same genre dont have. In other words, there are way too many shooters like CoD and i have become bored of them. on the other hand, there arent as much open ended ones like battlefield but at the same time, it isnt anything TOO special.

this is the reason why i can be playing Team fortress 2 after 2 years but cant live past 10 hours of CoD or 50 hours of Battlefield 2.