MW2 v. BF:BC2 v. MAG (an intelligent discussion)

Let me preface this post by saying that I am well aware there are numerous discussions comparing these three games, however I would like to see some intelligent intercourse between individuals that have played numerous games in this genre.Although I did not participate in the Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Beta, I do own Battlefield 1943. Further, I partook in the MAG Beta, and I own Modern Warfare 2.

I have owned a number of the major first-person shooter titles since the respective releases of the Xbox 360 and the PS3. I recall purchasing Call of Duty 2 at the launch of the Xbox 360 and marveling at the game's graphics, and when Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter debuted, I was equally impressed.

I picked up Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare the day it was released, and praised it for its fantastic multiplayer gameplay. I did not purchase Modern Warfare 2 until a few weeks ago because, long story shot, I sold both my Xbox 360 and PS3 before I started law school. I only lasted a year without a video game console, and I picked up a PS3 Slim on Black Friday. I think Modern Warfare 2 is a great game. Actually, I'm pretty addicted to the multiplayer portion of the game. I have always been good at "twitch" first-person shooters such as Halo. I was ranked in the top 100 of both Halo 2 and Halo 3 for the time period in which I played those games. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that I love Modern Warfare 2. Sure, there is some strategy, and knowing the maps is very important, but what the game boils down to is who sees who first and who reacts more quickly.

The graphics of Modern Warfare 2 are good, not great. Killzone 2 is unrivaled aesthetically, and it shows when compared to Modern Warfare 2. The graphics Battlefield: Bad Company 2 look outstanding. Not only are all of the buildings destructible, but the guns look cleaner, the trees move and sway in the wind, and the soldiers look more realistic. I find it slightly annoying in Modern Warfare 2 when I throw a semtex grenade or shoot a grenade launcher, aim just a bit too low, and be shot to death because the semtex/grenade blew up against the wall and did not injure my opponent at all. Not only is it unrealistic, but it is annoying. Imagine if you could kill anyone in any structure using the predator missile killstreak bonus. Pretty realistic, huh?Furthermore, in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, you can use tanks, fly helicopters, and control UAVs. I think that is pretty cool, and I really enjoy using tanks, planes and jeeps in Battlefield 1943. Ultimately, I believe that Battlefield: Bad Company 2 will bring some healthy competition to the genre. Will we ultimately be able to compare the two games? Yes. They are not that different. It appears that Bad Company 2 will be a more polished game than Modern Warfare 2.

The MAG Beta really opened my eyes to the game's potential, or more specifically, it's lack thereof. I pre-ordered MAG because I loved the thought of 256-person online multiplayer. In addition, I liked how the developers set up the troop leader system. However, in practice, I am of the opinion that the troop leader system will fail. Why, you ask? Play Modern Warfare 2 online for an hour, try to get more than one other person to work with you, and see how that goes. Plus, in the 64 person games in the MAG Beta, you are only really playing 12 v. 12 games. The maps are so massive, and because each troop has its own objective, you really aren't playing 64 v. 64. Furthermore, it is an online only game. If the servers or your internet go down for whatever reason, you will not be able to play the game. There is no single-player campaign. Additionally, the graphics are sub-par, and the weapons customization (and weapon choice, for that matter) is anemic. Yes, the graphics need to be toned down to accommodate 256 players, and that is fine. I still see it as a negative, however. Another thing that bothers me about MAG is the the animation when a grenade is thrown. It looks like the puppet arm of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. Ultimately, I cancelled my pre-order of MAG. If people really adhere to the troop leader system, and the game becomes a massive success, then I will reconsider purchasing the game. However, until that time, serious server problem with the Beta will keep me from purchasing MAG (along with the above-mentioned reasons). I, instead, pre-ordered Battlefield: Bad Company 2 because I plan on keeping Modern Warfare 2.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Weigh in!

Battlefield Bad Company 2>MAG>Modern Warfare 2

Just my opinion.

• I'm done with Modern Warfare 2.
• I'll be playing MAG because I enjoyed the beta.
• I wasn't in the Battlefield BC beta and I didn't play the last game so I don't have much to say about it. It looks fine , but MAG is the now.

I like MW2, I kinda like BF: BC2 and I dislike MAG.

I have MAG pre ordered and I plan on adding players to my friends list who use their mics are are going to play the game the way it's meant to be played. I don't care too much for MW2 online because it doesn't feel like multiplayer (just a bunch of individuals running around playing on their own). I know I will love MAG, and have no complaints against BC2, the beta was fun. To each his own. I think MAG is a huge leap forward in terms of FPS games and I plan on supporting it.nightshade869

well, , imo they're all good, but have some critical differences

MW2 is your COD fix, great arcade type shooter, jut run and gun at your hearts content, without having to think much while doing it, not many tactical decisions involved, it's the more casual of the three.

BF:BC2 is kinda in the middle in terms of how casual it is, it's still an arcadeish shooter of sorts, you don't have to worry that much about cover, flanking and stuff and I think the way that some of the MP modes work means that you have to work as a team more the you would in MW, so it's a more hardcore experience, also it adds lots of vehicular combat and some environmental destruction, which leads to epic battles.

MAG is undoubtely the most hardcore of the three, you just have to work as a team otherwise you will lose period, you die with a few shots 3 to 5 tops and you're dead, considering they don't hit you in the head of course, running and gunning in this game is a no go.

so there you go, imo you can't really compare them, MW is you vanilla FPS, BF is your vehicular mayhem and MAG is your team work centered tactical shooter.

I had very low expectations with mw2 and was pretty hooked on UC2 when mw2 was released. I've since gone back since one of my buddies was shocked i dont play very much at all, and it's a solid solid game.

I participated in both mag and bc2 beta and I thought bc2 was very much>>mag but to be honest, between killzone 2 and mw2 I really don't care about the new fps'. I will check out bc2 when it;s released as long as it's not a complete flop though.

I'm the type who is always waiting for the next bigger, better, badder game but often, when it gets released, you realize how much better some of your classics are by comparison

[QUOTE="nightshade869"]I have MAG pre ordered and I plan on adding players to my friends list who use their mics are are going to play the game the way it's meant to be played. I don't care too much for MW2 online because it doesn't feel like multiplayer (just a bunch of individuals running around playing on their own). I know I will love MAG, and have no complaints against BC2, the beta was fun. To each his own. I think MAG is a huge leap forward in terms of FPS games and I plan on supporting it.muller39

First of all let me say good luck to you in Law School.

It seems that your comparison has actually showed why each game is fun in it's own way and why people should not put these games in the same box, when deciding on what to purchase. Call Of Duty has the twitch factor you pointed out. Battlefield has a great idea with the destructible environments. Mag is impressive by the magnitude by the number of people playing cooperatively. Thus, I feel it depends on what you are looking to play.

I do however, have a problem with your criticisms of MAG. I understand the graphics and lack of single player could scare off the average player from $60, but as far as you thinking most people will play it as COD I think you are totally wrong. Sure that may have been the case during the open free beta, but you have to realize it is a FREE BETA. Anyone can play it. Meaning more than likely you will not see people buy MAG, who intend to play it like a loner. If anything they will buy it expecting to do that out of ignorance, but sell it and call the game garbage, which will in turn help the MAG community.

I for one will be picking up the game at midnight tonight and look forward to getting my command skills up. Hopefully, you change your mind and join S.V.E.R. because it seems like your Halo skills would be greatly needed.

First of all let me say good luck to you in Law School.

It seems that your comparison has actually showed why each game is fun in it's own way and why people should not put these games in the same box, when deciding on what to purchase. Call Of Duty has the twitch factor you pointed out. Battlefield has a great idea with the destructible environments. Mag is impressive by the magnitude by the number of people playing cooperatively. Thus, I feel it depends on what you are looking to play.

I do however, have a problem with your criticisms of MAG. I understand the graphics and lack of single player could scare off the average player from $60, but as far as you thinking most people will play it as COD I think you are totally wrong. Sure that may have been the case during the open free beta, but you have to realize it is a FREE BETA. Anyone can play it. Meaning more than likely you will not see people buy MAG, who intend to play it like a loner. If anything they will buy it expecting to do that out of ignorance, but sell it and call the game garbage, which will in turn help the MAG community.

I for one will be picking up the game at midnight tonight and look forward to getting my command skills up. Hopefully, you change your mind and join S.V.E.R. because it seems like your Halo skills would be greatly needed.

baller72

just to many players on one field. i think anything thing more than 12 v 12 is just a huge mess.FreshDimSum

i was in the mag beta(most recent) and was also in the bad company beta; but i do not own modern warfare.

i do not like the way activision games play; so further comments can be judged based on the bias of actihate.

the bad company 2 beta was good but it did have issues; the anti aliasing was horrible, sometimes the graphics and pop ins catch the eye and make you think its an enemy. the hit detection was not on par with mag but the overall shooter elements were better.

mag was ok; it was neither awesome in the veins of killzone nor was it bad in the way of w@W(the last activision fps i have purchased); the issues with mag were the striped shooter elements, so much that you do that you would expect would have an impact on your shooting does not take place in mag, it is very precise in a rbotic type fashion, while i enjoyed the large scale battles, the comprehension of what is expected takes away from the game when there is not a focus on the simulation of just shooting a weapon.it did not have any glaring faults.

i avoided modern warfare two like a hooker in church(uc2 quote); there's only so much tithe money ill let go around before i realize the pastor is in bed with "her".the last activision games i purchased new and not used were prototype and w@w, and i felt like a fool playing them, like it was my fault the game was designed to look good and not to play that way.

i have bad company preordered; im passing n mag and never am i going to add to the cess pool that is activision; i am also getting bioshock2 on release and its an arena shooter(multiplayer) with the peoples behind unreal tournament doing the multiplayer.i think it will be a good game that is also fps that will be overlooked.

I agree with you mostly, except for the MAG part. I played until level 10 on the beta to try out the 256 player matches, and let me tell you something. Each match I played with 256 player I felt a sense of nationalism with my faction, I wanted to win, and not get the highest K/D ratio. That alone convince me to buy it, since I believe there are many more people feeling nationalism to there faction for bragging rights :P. The matches did not feel little 12vs12, it felt like a massive 128 vs 128 match. Single Player is not needed, look at MW2, sure it has a great campaign, but most people just play the online majority of the time, so it makes sense for MAG to focus on multiplayer then a single player campaign if most people will be playing online.idk761

to be honest i dont care much for any of these games lol i liked MW2 for the first few weeks i had it but its boring to me now, i really didnt like the BF BC2 beta and the MAG beta was fun but seems like it would get old pretty fast. I i had to choose one of these though i guess id go with MW2. Killzone 2 blows all these games out of the water tho IMO

Battlefield: Bad Company 2> Modern Warfare 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAG

well, , imo they're all good, but have some critical differences

MW2 is your COD fix, great arcade type shooter, jut run and gun at your hearts content, without having to think much while doing it, not many tactical decisions involved, it's the more casual of the three.

BF:BC2 is kinda in the middle in terms of how casual it is, it's still an arcadeish shooter of sorts, you don't have to worry that much about cover, flanking and stuff and I think the way that some of the MP modes work means that you have to work as a team more the you would in MW, so it's a more hardcore experience, also it adds lots of vehicular combat and some environmental destruction, which leads to epic battles.

MAG is undoubtely the most hardcore of the three, you just have to work as a team otherwise you will lose period, you die with a few shots 3 to 5 tops and you're dead, considering they don't hit you in the head of course, running and gunning in this game is a no go.

so there you go, imo you can't really compare them, MW is you vanilla FPS, BF is your vehicular mayhem and MAG is your team work centered tactical shooter.

damnet

Although I do agree in theory that they are all different, they are, however, all first-person shooters. Some of us cannot afford to spend $180 purchasing all three games (aka poor law students cough, cough), so it is important to draw comparisons.

First of all let me say good luck to you in Law School.

It seems that your comparison has actually showed why each game is fun in it's own way and why people should not put these games in the same box, when deciding on what to purchase. Call Of Duty has the twitch factor you pointed out. Battlefield has a great idea with the destructible environments. Mag is impressive by the magnitude by the number of people playing cooperatively. Thus, I feel it depends on what you are looking to play.

I do however, have a problem with your criticisms of MAG. I understand the graphics and lack of single player could scare off the average player from $60, but as far as you thinking most people will play it as COD I think you are totally wrong. Sure that may have been the case during the open free beta, but you have to realize it is a FREE BETA. Anyone can play it. Meaning more than likely you will not see people buy MAG, who intend to play it like a loner. If anything they will buy it expecting to do that out of ignorance, but sell it and call the game garbage, which will in turn help the MAG community.

I for one will be picking up the game at midnight tonight and look forward to getting my command skills up. Hopefully, you change your mind and join S.V.E.R. because it seems like your Halo skills would be greatly needed.

baller72

Thank you for your kind wishes! School just started up again last week, but I had a long month off - plenty of time to break in my second PS3!

I agree that I may have been overly critical of MAG, and that I was probably overly critical. My criticism, however, stems from the impression I got from the Beta. I agree in theory with your argument that the Beta was free, and the cost of the game will drive away individuals that don't want to work as a team. However, keep in mind that the price of the PS3 has dropped to $299. With that in mind, also consider that not everyone has a bluetooth headset. They are still relatively expensive (at minimum $30, which is half the price of a game). There are certainly going to be people out there that purchase the game and treat it like a Modern Warfare 2, as well as people that want to try and work as a team but don't have a headset. Let's assume there are two people on your team that want to play like it's Modern Warfare 2, and you are on the offensive. Even in a 12 v. 12 matchup, those two people are going to screw over your chances of blowing up the satellites, or whatever your objective is. Even if there are two of those same people on the other team – on defense – it won't have as big of an impact. Similarly, trying to work as a team with someone without a headset will be equally difficult. Therefore, even if a majority of people play as a team, a few bad eggs can potentially ruin everything. Therefore, as far as MAG is concerned, I am sure I will ultimately purchase it, however I may wait a few months, therefore letting all of the Modern Warfare 2 adopters weed themselves out.

Did anyone catch my Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog comment? Has anyone ever seen him on Conan with that fake paw holding the microphone? The one thing that bothers me about MAG (a very minor thing that obviously would not get in the way of purchasing the game) is how poor the grenade throwing animation is. I just had to point it out haha.

Bad Company 2 > every shooter this year announced so far. Pretty much. GodofBigMacs

That is a pretty contradictory statement.

It does look extremely good, however.

My PSN ID is kpozan

I'll be on MW2 every day for a while, as well as NHL 10, FIFA 10 and NCAA Football 10.

[QUOTE="baller72"]

First of all let me say good luck to you in Law School.

It seems that your comparison has actually showed why each game is fun in it's own way and why people should not put these games in the same box, when deciding on what to purchase. Call Of Duty has the twitch factor you pointed out. Battlefield has a great idea with the destructible environments. Mag is impressive by the magnitude by the number of people playing cooperatively. Thus, I feel it depends on what you are looking to play.

I do however, have a problem with your criticisms of MAG. I understand the graphics and lack of single player could scare off the average player from $60, but as far as you thinking most people will play it as COD I think you are totally wrong. Sure that may have been the case during the open free beta, but you have to realize it is a FREE BETA. Anyone can play it. Meaning more than likely you will not see people buy MAG, who intend to play it like a loner. If anything they will buy it expecting to do that out of ignorance, but sell it and call the game garbage, which will in turn help the MAG community.

I for one will be picking up the game at midnight tonight and look forward to getting my command skills up. Hopefully, you change your mind and join S.V.E.R. because it seems like your Halo skills would be greatly needed.

kpozan

Thank you for your kind wishes! School just started up again last week, but I had a long month off - plenty of time to break in my second PS3!

I agree that I may have been overly critical of MAG, and that I was probably overly critical. My criticism, however, stems from the impression I got from the Beta. I agree in theory with your argument that the Beta was free, and the cost of the game will drive away individuals that don't want to work as a team. However, keep in mind that the price of the PS3 has dropped to $299. With that in mind, also consider that not everyone has a bluetooth headset. They are still relatively expensive (at minimum $30, which is half the price of a game). There are certainly going to be people out there that purchase the game and treat it like a Modern Warfare 2, as well as people that want to try and work as a team but don't have a headset. Let's assume there are two people on your team that want to play like it's Modern Warfare 2, and you are on the offensive. Even in a 12 v. 12 matchup, those two people are going to screw over your chances of blowing up the satellites, or whatever your objective is. Even if there are two of those same people on the other team – on defense – it won't have as big of an impact. Similarly, trying to work as a team with someone without a headset will be equally difficult. Therefore, even if a majority of people play as a team, a few bad eggs can potentially ruin everything. Therefore, as far as MAG is concerned, I am sure I will ultimately purchase it, however I may wait a few months, therefore letting all of the Modern Warfare 2 adopters weed themselves out.

Did anyone catch my Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog comment? Has anyone ever seen him on Conan with that fake paw holding the microphone? The one thing that bothers me about MAG (a very minor thing that obviously would not get in the way of purchasing the game) is how poor the grenade throwing animation is. I just had to point it out haha.

If you ever get the game just look me up. My I.D. is Tonysmoove. Oh and no problem on the Law School respect. I just came out of school for Computer Science aka the Binary Hole and Lawyers are the only people I think are crazier to do what they do :P

No disrespect to any other proffessions like Doctors, Engineers, Presidents, and game reviewers :P

BC2>MW2>a bunch of other shooters>MAG

Bad Company 2 looks to be the shooter that makes me spend hour upon hour in the depths of the early morning drinking Coke and eating chips just waiting to unlock the new attachment or gun.

Modern Warfare 2 just frustrates me and is a prime example of what happens when a game is casualized to no extent.

MAG? Well ........................ that's just not for me :P

I can't compare MAG to BF and MW as it is a totally different feel and such a innovative game. I will say BF is twienty times better than MW

Dislike COD, but i'll be picking up MAG and Bad Company 2. If you get MAG and join Raven, add me kraken2109 if you use a mic and teamwork. I may even let some good peeps in my clan.

Battlefield Bad Company 2>MAG>Modern Warfare 2

Just my opinion.

muller39

Battlefield Bad Company 2 has the most freedom among the three. Yes, it does. You win with a great variety of toys. Classes, customization (which is not as robust as MW2), vehicles from ATVs to UAVs to Helicopters which are all drivable. Not to mention the destruction, it really makes the battlefield feel dynamic (even if that's not truly the case). Not to mention the new Teamwork based game modes like Squad Deathmatch

Modern Warfare 2: Is a fun Counterstrike type of game from my personal experience. Maps are smaller and intense as gunfire spreads around and everyone is always on the move making hiding spots, well, found? Staying alive becomes a thrill rather than a priority gaining momentum while play feels exhilarating online which is why you are awarded with Kill streak skills. There is a good amount of customization in weapons and character as well.

MAG is...well, the worst among the three but is not necessarily a bad game. It's one big chaotic all out warfare but the flow of gameplay, personally, sucks. It's much more repetitive because objectives are very linear and 128 vs 128 direct confrontations are never in the game because battles are split into four sections of the entire map. So when the team losses, it's not necessarily because the entire team sucks but rather because only ONE platoon lost. There is a sense of customization and satisfaction upon leveling but the gameplay itself isn't particularly great. But fun is to be had with the game, the flow may suck but I do find myself enjoying the game as I play.

BFBC2>BFBC1>BF1943>MW2>MW1>MAG

Battlefield game just add so much more to MP and the single campaign is the best out of these games. MAG has potential but with no SP and subpar graphics, it should be a PSN release for $20/30, not a $60 game.

Battlefield Bad Company 2>MAG>Modern Warfare 2

Just my opinion.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 has the most freedom among the three. Yes, it does. You win with a great variety of toys. Classes, customization (which is not as robust as MW2), vehicles from ATVs to UAVs to Helicopters which are all drivable. Not to mention the destruction, it really makes the battlefield feel dynamic (even if that's not truly the case). Not to mention the new Teamwork based game modes like Squad Deathmatch

Modern Warfare 2: Is a fun Counterstrike type of game from my personal experience. Maps are smaller and intense as gunfire spreads around and everyone is always on the move making hiding spots, well, found? Staying alive becomes a thrill rather than a priority gaining momentum while play feels exhilarating online which is why you are awarded with Kill streak skills. There is a good amount of customization in weapons and character as well.

MAG is...well, the worst among the three but is not necessarily a bad game. It's one big chaotic all out warfare but the flow of gameplay, personally, sucks. It's much more repetitive because objectives are very linear and 128 vs 128 direct confrontations are never in the game because battles are split into four sections of the entire map. So when the team losses, it's not necessarily because the entire team sucks but rather because only ONE platoon lost. There is a sense of customization and satisfaction upon leveling but the gameplay itself isn't particularly great. But fun is to be had with the game, the flow may suck but I do find myself enjoying the game as I play.

Rhen_Var

I agree with what you are saying about Modern Warfare 2. It is a thrill to stay alive and keep moving! However, I am really looking forward to Bad Company 2. It looks like customization is on the same level as Modern Warfare 2, and maybe even a bit more.

MW2 >>>>>> BF:BC2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MAG

Thats about right.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2> Modern Warfare 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAG

brickdoctor

Looks like there will be another beta for the PS3 in two weeks.

well, , imo they're all good, but have some critical differences

MW2 is your COD fix, great arcade type shooter, jut run and gun at your hearts content, without having to think much while doing it, not many tactical decisions involved, it's the more casual of the three.

BF:BC2 is kinda in the middle in terms of how casual it is, it's still an arcadeish shooter of sorts, you don't have to worry that much about cover, flanking and stuff and I think the way that some of the MP modes work means that you have to work as a team more the you would in MW, so it's a more hardcore experience, also it adds lots of vehicular combat and some environmental destruction, which leads to epic battles.

MAG is undoubtely the most hardcore of the three, you just have to work as a team otherwise you will lose period, you die with a few shots 3 to 5 tops and you're dead, considering they don't hit you in the head of course, running and gunning in this game is a no go.

so there you go, imo you can't really compare them, MW is you vanilla FPS, BF is your vehicular mayhem and MAG is your team work centered tactical shooter.

damnet

Battlefield BC2 literally destroys both MW2 and MAG in every single area of the game. Worst moment was when the beta closed, it was the only game I played everyday for that month. If I was that obsessed with it when it was only one level.... well you know how insane it will be march 2. Alien vs Predator will be amazing too so im thankful I only got 2 weeks before i can get it goin again. Main thing is I hope alot of people realize that BC is unbelievable so the next COD that comes out will suffer at least a small bit. COD is like Madden in terms of they know everyone will get it no matter what... so why improve anything?

Looks like there will be another beta for the PS3 in two weeks.kpozan

[color=lemonchiffon]Huh? No, there won't be. There is however, a demo (like the X360 is experiencing right now) coming this 4FEB.[/color]

[QUOTE="damnet"]

well, , imo they're all good, but have some critical differences

MW2 is your COD fix, great arcade type shooter, jut run and gun at your hearts content, without having to think much while doing it, not many tactical decisions involved, it's the more casual of the three.

BF:BC2 is kinda in the middle in terms of how casual it is, it's still an arcadeish shooter of sorts, you don't have to worry that much about cover, flanking and stuff and I think the way that some of the MP modes work means that you have to work as a team more the you would in MW, so it's a more hardcore experience, also it adds lots of vehicular combat and some environmental destruction, which leads to epic battles.

MAG is undoubtely the most hardcore of the three, you just have to work as a team otherwise you will lose period, you die with a few shots 3 to 5 tops and you're dead, considering they don't hit you in the head of course, running and gunning in this game is a no go.

so there you go, imo you can't really compare them, MW is you vanilla FPS, BF is your vehicular mayhem and MAG is your team work centered tactical shooter.

TheWiikestLink

Your playing a mode that I consider to be a poor mans Socom. If you think your tactical then bring it to socom. Oh yea you won't have that predator to do the work for you.

Also on subject, what kills BFbc2 for me is its only 12vs12 unless they've changed that, there is way to much down time when looking for a enemy sometimes. But the squad mode 4vs4 I see alot of fun to be had there espeically if you already got some good clan members to run with.

As for MAG, I also wish it was as opened up as bfbc, but love how the team work works out.

You might like BFBC2 on PC then. Player count is 16V16.

Didn't like MAG too much, it was fun but i enjoyed MW2 more.

I had a ton more fun playing BCBF2 Beta on one map with one game type than i have with my couple of months on MW2. Once BFBC2 is out, i may trade in MW2 or may just keep both but as of now this is how it ranks for me.

BF:BC2>>>>>>MW2>MAG

Modern warfare 2 is my favorite. I hated MAG, thought it was complete garbage. I played BF: Bad Company and thought it was okay. It didn't really have the right feel and just didn't feel as fun as Call of Duty. MW2 is my favorite but its far from perfect. It has a lot of flaws too, mainly the servers are trash.

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

Battlefield: Bad Company 2> Modern Warfare 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAG

lafiro93

How? Because he knows that MAG is bad and you don't!!

Modern warfare 2 is my favorite. I hated MAG, thought it was complete garbage. I played BF: Bad Company and thought it was okay. It didn't really have the right feel and just didn't feel as fun as Call of Duty. MW2 is my favorite but its far from perfect. It has a lot of flaws too, mainly the servers are trash.

alien100000

Yes, P2P is garbage compared to the dedicated servers in both MAG and BFBC2.