both have their good and bad points, but im gonna have to wait till i play the full version of BF:BC to really assess which one is better, ive been a long time fan of the BF series but ive got 13 days logged into COD4 and still am not the least bit tired of it.
First of all, only the demo is out for bad company. 2nd these games are of different elements of shooters and therefore, should not be compared directly.
My opinion is simply that, yes call of duty 4 had greater levels of detail graphically, but it takes more than graphics to keep me entertained. Call of Duty 4's multiplayer was fun at first but quickly became repetitive. Battlefield has an ever changing factor to its gameplay that keeps the game interesting for a long time, and the large scale on which battle is done opens a realm of possibilities that call of duty cannot offer.
RESISTANCE 2:lol: but besides that seeing that BF:BC full game hasnt hit stores yet it has to be COD4 all the way. May change after the actual game is out.
BF PWNS all COD4 did for consoles what Counter Strike did for pc, give fast strategic combat, so COD4 seems to much like CS for me im not a huge fan for CS anyway BFBC is my game i preordered GOld EDitIoN
I found BFBC to be underwhelming. It didn't have this massive feel to it, controls felt sticky and after a couple rounds I still hadn't killed anyone yet online and the sniping is beyond saving. Actually this demo secured in my mind that I'm getting MGS4 and probably Civilization Rev and not BFBC. 2142 was way better then this...
I like COD4 better, overall it's a lot smoother and I got so annoyed during the online BFBC demo because there was no kill cam and I thought every death was BS. However, I like some of the guns, and the vehicles are pretty cool, (except when they kill me) and the destructibility of the buildings is pretty nice.
Log in to comment