[QUOTE="WardCleaver02"]

[QUOTE="Jurassic85"]

Here's my problem with Battlefield, people say that its a lot less of a lone wolf game and I don't think that's true. Every game mode (in BFBC2) is based on having a certain number of tickets (lives) and when the run out, the game is over. How is this ANYTHING other than a glorified Team Death Match? Sure you can capture flags, plant bombs, but ultimately the game ends after a certain number of kills. And yes, you can repair vehicles, and spot, and whatnot. But how often does the average random take advantage of all of these features, or even use a dang headset? Rarely.

Sure you can tell me that its much better if you play with friends (which is what I prefer). But couldn't the same be said about CoD? Playing it with friends can make the experience much more fun and team-based. I like both games, but BF elitists need to get over themselves. The average message board posts would lead one to believe that BF is undeniably bettet than CoD, but the sales figures say the exact opposite! It just goes to show that many who hate on CoD online still buy and play it, and love it.

Jurassic85

I somewhat agree with you.

When BFBC2 is at its best; your squad is cooperating and communicating, there is a good balance of all classes, etc., I feel that I enjoy BFBC2 more. There is something really cool about having the right balance of classes and people who can use them effectively And, in my experience, players in BFBC2 do tend to communicate more.

Having said that, more often than not, people do "lone-wolf" itin both games objective based modes. And, to me, it tends tobe more detrimental to the BFBC2 experience because usually it means that you have people favoring 1-2 classes over the others, particularly the Scout class.

On topic, I will most likely get BF3. I have not decided on MW3.

Yeah, there are certain BF3 fanboys in this thread who I will no longer respond to, but your points are solid. I would actually argue that lone wolves are just as detrimental in CoD. Take Domination for example. They can snipe the whole match and rack up a ton of kills, and even prevent the enemy from taking the objective that they camp by. However, If they enemy controls the other two objectives the whole game, they will win easily. There are even examples of people who prevent the enemy from planting a bomb, but make no attempt to diffuse this bomb if the enemy gets through.

Also in Battlefield the teams are generally much larger, the lone wolf has less impact on the match. I love both games, but see the faults in both as somewhat equal.

Who thought it was a good idea to have a hockey team in the south...move the rest of them north while you're at it please.ice144