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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!