Its very different to COD4. Actually, its rather underrated by console gamers to be honest. The singleplayer is actually damn good, next to the same old sequels and IPs. It gives the player plenty of room to move, approach and vehicles +weapons to mess about with - it also doesnt take itself too seriously which is a blessing. As far as shooter design goes its refreshingly different, just like The Darkness. Both of which are rather underrated by Lemmings and Cows. Oh and Earth Defense Force 2017 - this is lemming cult material.
[QUOTE="aero250"] Battlefield is enjoyable online but the maps are far too big, So it's never intense to play.aero250
wut? going after the gold can be very intense or trying to hold a zone. Ive never found the game intense apart from hiding from the Tanks which dominate everything.Well imbalance is a major reason of what makes Battlefield games so intense.
BFBC destroys cod4 in gameplay and graphics, its a must have shooter. ^ so your complaining about destruction when cod4 has none, and trees being messed up yet cod trees dont even move AT ALL!!! ...LOL
videogamesdead8
they didnt half ass attempt destruction either, battlefield you cant shoot through walls
or cars so there u go
Wow, you created that account just to bash this game, huh?
BF:BC was/is awesome. I love exposing snipers in attics w/ tanks. Its like catching someone changing clothes.
Rudy25
Even better is when the morons don't even realize the entire freaking roof has been blown away and still sit there looking through their scopes. Then, when that tiny bit of damage they took from the shell explosion makes his triangle appear to your team, and every single one them unloads on him...priceless.
I don't have it but I played the demo and the one thing that I hate about console Battlefields is the fact that they have large maps and a small amount of players. I would be fine if it were 32-40 players it would most likely beat out CoD4 in online if that were true.
Honestly, it would be very foolish to be getting into CoD4 now. Two years into its life, most of the players know that the M-16 can beat just about everything, and the only sound you'll be hearing is the 'Buh-da-da' of its burst-fire, followed by you dying. Oh, and the 3x Frag perk abusers don't help things. It's the cheapskates' game now, and there's no wrestling it away from them.
I'm not going to vote because I haven't played BF:BC but i have heard good things about it, one negative point though (that makes me not want to buy it) is that EA handle the online and it's pretty bad.
they didnt half ass attempt destruction either, battlefield you cant shoot through walls
or cars so there u go
you can only shoot blow up pretermined walls and they break the sameway.
you cant shoot through the buildings frame
owned
you cant lean or prone crawl no free for all deathmatch game sucks
videogamesdead8
Prone is not needed. It would be very annoying. They didn't take it out just to piss a few kids off. If you didn't like BC destructions then you will love BC2 destruction. Destruction 2.0 with fully blown to **** buildings and micro destruction ftw.
I'm not going to vote because I haven't played BF:BC but i have heard good things about it, one negative point though (that makes me not want to buy it) is that EA handle the online and it's pretty bad.
Nero_Paladin
The dedicated servers are great. Once in a blue moon a server will lag like **** though, but I only had that happen to me aroubd 4 or 5 times and I played the game like crazy. In 1943 I haven't had any lag at all except for the first few days when it came out where they lacked enough servers.
BFBC destroys cod4 in gameplay and graphics, its a must have shooter. ^ so your complaining about destruction when cod4 has none, and trees being messed up yet cod trees dont even move AT ALL!!! ...LOL
videogamesdead8
they didnt half ass attempt destruction either, battlefield you cant shoot through walls
BF:BC was/is awesome. I love exposing snipers in attics w/ tanks. Its like catching someone changing clothes.
Verge_6
Even better is when the morons don't even realize the entire freaking roof has been blown away and still sit there looking through their scopes. Then, when that tiny bit of damage they took from the shell explosion makes his triangle appear to your team, and every single one them unloads on him...priceless.
I'm not going to vote because I haven't played BF:BC but i have heard good things about it, one negative point though (that makes me not want to buy it) is that EA handle the online and it's pretty bad.
SparkyProtocol
The dedicated servers are great. Once in a blue moon a server will lag like **** though, but I only had that happen to me aroubd 4 or 5 times and I played the game like crazy. In 1943 I haven't had any lag at all except for the first few days when it came out where they lacked enough servers.
OK you've convinced me, I'll definitely pick it up at some point.
I'm not going to vote because I haven't played BF:BC but i have heard good things about it, one negative point though (that makes me not want to buy it) is that EA handle the online and it's pretty bad.
Nero_Paladin
Online is all I've played. I've never witnessed any major issies on both XBL or PS3. By the way this thread is going quite smoothly. I'm actually suprised everyon is respecting peoples opinions. The world is going to end today.
I'm not going to vote because I haven't played BF:BC but i have heard good things about it, one negative point though (that makes me not want to buy it) is that EA handle the online and it's pretty bad.
The dedicated servers are great. Once in a blue moon a server will lag like **** though, but I only had that happen to me aroubd 4 or 5 times and I played the game like crazy. In 1943 I haven't had any lag at all except for the first few days when it came out where they lacked enough servers.
OK you've convinced me, I'll definitely pick it up at some point.
Awesome. One of the best things about the new battlefields (BC and 1943) is the sound so if you have a nice system, be sure to crank it up.
[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]For the people complaining about the limited destructibility in BC: Watch thisVerge_6
Wow...the gunplay and effects look like they are completely revamped, and in a good way. It also looks better when you kill people. Blood and improved ragdolls. :)
Bad Company is a blast, and doesn't take itself too seriously. Multiplayer is very fun. So that gets my vote. And to be honest, I thought CoD4 would be winning the poll! :o
[QUOTE="JebranRush"]Bad Company is a blast, and doesn't take itself too seriously. Multiplayer is very fun. So that gets my vote. And to be honest, I thought CoD4 would be winning the poll! :o There are a lot of COD haters in SW. ;)
[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="JebranRush"]Bad Company is a blast, and doesn't take itself too seriously. Multiplayer is very fun. So that gets my vote. And to be honest, I thought CoD4 would be winning the poll! :o There are a lot of COD haters in SW. ;) Not CoD haters, but CoD4 haters. Most people love the prior ones (3 being an exception, though plenty enjoyed it).
battlefield COULDVE been a fun game. most of the time i felt like i was fighting a war with two seemingly childish partners. all they do is a very poor attempt at comedy throughout the games SP wich gets old VERY quickly and sometimes the mission objectives arent too clear......imo. i really didnt like the game so i wound up returning it not long after i bought it. i exchanged it for God of War 2. i may pick it up again later when the price goes down even more but for now...the only saving grace for that game to me was the multiplayer wich was truthfully better than COD but i just didnt find it as addictive...slvrraven9
if your talking about the single player there is three people other than the main guy, making it four total.
But IMO, I think Bad Company is better, I play it WAAAY more often then COD4. The only thing that CoD4 has over Bad company is a better weapon selection (But mainlt because its about 20 years into the future), but I noticed that they added scopes and stuff into BC2, so that will help.
[QUOTE="slvrraven9"]battlefield COULDVE been a fun game. most of the time i felt like i was fighting a war with two seemingly childish partners. all they do is a very poor attempt at comedy throughout the games SP wich gets old VERY quickly and sometimes the mission objectives arent too clear......imo. i really didnt like the game so i wound up returning it not long after i bought it. i exchanged it for God of War 2. i may pick it up again later when the price goes down even more but for now...the only saving grace for that game to me was the multiplayer wich was truthfully better than COD but i just didnt find it as addictive...WiiMan21
if your talking about the single player there is three people other than the main guy, making it four total.
But IMO, I think Bad Company is better, I play it WAAAY more often then COD4. The only thing that CoD4 has over Bad company is a better weapon selection (But mainlt because its about 20 years into the future), but I noticed that they added scopes and stuff into BC2, so that will help.
It's set in the modern period. I don't think the USMC is going to be using the M-16A2 in 20 years, much less the Cobra (which is old by today's standards, to say nothing of twenty years in the future). But yes, the weapon selection in CoD4 is better. More well known weapons and less 'what the hell is this thing?' in MW. BC needs more mainstays like AK-47/74s, Dragunov SVDs, MP5s, M4s, etc. etc.
Log in to comment