Worth getting Bad Company 2 if you already have BF3??

Just as the topic says. I was just looking up the sales going on on Origin right now and saw Bad Company 2 Digital Deluxe Edition going on there. But, I already have BF3 from the humble bundle. So, is it worth getting Bad Company 2 or just skip it?

In BC2 you can't take a prone position.:(

Eh I'd say no. Though it depends on how much it is. Might be worth it for the campaign which was solid.Twisted14

In BC2 you can't take a prone position.:(

Ser_Charles

Are environments destructible in BF3 like in Bad Company?sethman410

Are environments destructible in BF3 like in Bad Company?sethman410

[QUOTE="Ser_Charles"]

In BC2 you can't take a prone position.:(

SSgt_Edward

Yes, the campaign is pretty decent, and the multiplayer experience is better then BF3 imo.

no. while the MP was good, it's not better than BF3.

Yes, the campaign is pretty decent, and the multiplayer experience is better then BF3 imo.

JangoWuzHere

This, the campaign is actually fun to play, unlike BF3s.

And I think that edition includes BC2: Vietnam as well so definitely get it for that. Vietnam is just great !

[QUOTE="Twisted14"]Eh I'd say no. Though it depends on how much it is. Might be worth it for the campaign which was solid.sethman410

Definitely not for the campaign. Battlefield games are all about the multiplayer. BC2's campaign was decent but i would never buy it for that... But yeah, get it for the multiplayer and Vietnam is great.  

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Yes, the campaign is pretty decent, and the multiplayer experience is better then BF3 imo.

R4gn4r0k

This, the campaign is actually fun to play, unlike BF3s.

And I think that edition includes BC2: Vietnam as well so definitely get it for that. Vietnam is just great !

well, yeah, if you for some reason like to buy a Battlefield game for a campaign, then sure, BC2 is better. i would still never recommend BF for people who like to play singleplayer campaign. there are better shooters for that.

well, yeah, if you for some reason like to buy a Battlefield game for a campaign, then sure, BC2 is better. i would still never recommend BF for people who like to play singleplayer campaign. there are better shooters for that.

groowagon

Whats wrong with enjoying a good singleplayer on top of a great multiplayer ?

And no, I don't think BF games need an SP either, but if you are going to include one you better make it worthwhile like the 2 Bad Company campaigns and not suck like the BF3 campaign.

[QUOTE="groowagon"]

well, yeah, if you for some reason like to buy a Battlefield game for a campaign, then sure, BC2 is better. i would still never recommend BF for people who like to play singleplayer campaign. there are better shooters for that.

R4gn4r0k

Whats wrong with enjoying a good singleplayer on top of a great multiplayer ?

And no, I don't think BF games need an SP either, but if you are going to include one you better make it worthwhile like the 2 Bad Company campaigns and not suck like the BF3 campaign.

nothing wrong with that, but it's just that they are rarely good. even if the campaign in BC2 was better than BF3's, i think it still sucked when comparing to actually good singleplayer shooters like Crysis, Bioshock and Far Cry.

let's think about it this way; a few million dollars gets you decent campaign (think of something like BC2) and any less money (=time) spent on it would make it abysmal. should they bother making it at all, since by making a half-assed campaign they only risk compromising the review scores (like in the case of BF3)? is it worth spending even more money on a great campaign, if the game is multiplayer focused anyway?

e: my point being, that i agree with you about the fact that they wouldn't need campaign. i think it's always just a waste of money. campaigns of CoD and BF have always been more or less tedious and generic.

nothing wrong with that, but it's just that they are rarely good. even if the campaign in BC2 was better than BF3's, i think it still sucked when comparing to actually good singleplayer shooters like Crysis, Bioshock and Far Cry.

let's think about it this way; a few million dollars gets you decent campaign (think of something like BC2) and any less money (=time) spent on it would make it abysmal. should they bother making it at all, since by making a half-assed campaign they only risk compromising the review scores (like in the case of BF3)? is it worth spending even more money on a great campaign, if the game is multiplayer focused anyway?

e: my point being, that i agree with you about the fact that they wouldn't need campaign. i think it's always just a waste of money. campaigns of CoD and BF have always been more or less tedious and generic.

groowagon

I do agree with you. I have no problem with buying a game like BF just for the multiplayer and a game like the upcoming Wolfenstein that only has a singleplayer.

But I did enjoy BC2s campaign and a lot of COD campaigns so should they get rid of them completely ? No, I think if they put effort in it, effort that is not taken away from MP development, than yeah. If they are going to half ass it, than no.

BC2 had a fun singleplayer, and even if it didn't come close to the likes of Bioshock, Cyrsis, Half Life, etc... I still think it should be included because they clearly didn't take effort away from MP development.

In Far Cry 3s case I thought the MP wasn't necessary, but it was made by a different team than the SP so it doesn't matter that it was there.

But I did enjoy BC2s campaign and a lot of COD campaigns so should they get rid of them completely ? No, I think if they put effort in it, effort that is not taken away from MP development, than yeah. If they are going to half ass it, than no.

R4gn4r0k

fair enough. i can agree with that.

I find BF3 superior to BC2 in many ways - except where Rush mode is concerned. Rush in BF3 feels haphazard, mostly because the maps place the MCOMs in places where the action doesn't flow as well. The Rush mode maps in BC2 were more linear, so at least the action was concentrated around certain vital chokepoints... But in BF3, the action was everywhere, and it's often hard to position yourself well enough so that you could take out the MCOM or defend it. 

BC2 infantry only is pretty damn sweet, I cannot deny that.  And I had a whooooooole lot of fun with it.

But BF3 is out, so I say stick with that, or try something else.

If its possible get BC1, the campaign is hilarious. But for multiplayer stick with bf3

Community is too small now, shame because it's more fun than BF3.