This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Battlefield 3 vs Bad Company 2

#21JhayCeePosted 5/31/2012 10:38:08 PM
Bad Company 2 takes the cake in the sound and gameplay category.
---
League of Legends: JCperfect
#22JonWood007Posted 5/31/2012 10:50:22 PM
cody4783 posted...
JonWood007 posted...
All Im going to say to this is play gulf of oman on the losing team.


Done it. Had a hell of a fight and it was pretty damn exciting to try and team up and fight to push them back.

Still lost; But so what.


In my experience, it's one freaking apc/tank after another, after another, after another. Since the more control points you have, the more vehicles you have, when one team controls the points, they control most of the vehicles....and it becomes darn near impossible to do anything without getting roflstomped.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 5850 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#23_GRIM_FANDANGO_Posted 6/1/2012 5:35:04 AM
I liked battlefield 3 a LOT more. Personally, I dont see why people so often say BC2 was the better game. I played both for over 250 hours and played it in groups with people I know as well as "lone wolfed" it. Outside of the single player, I just do not see how so many people prefer BC2. In my experience, while good it is the inferior game of the two.

To each his own I guess.
---
I5 760 | MSI GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II | 8GB 1600MHz | WD 1TB 7200Rpm | Corsair VX 550w | CM Gladiator | Samsung S24A350H | Board Corsair K90 | Mouse Corsair M90
#24GM_Posted 6/1/2012 6:39:48 AM
Anyone that says BC2 looks better than BF3 needs their eyes checked pronto.
---
R.I.P - My kitty 2010-2012 on 3/22/2012
She lost her battle with Feline Leukemia
#25Orestes417Posted 6/1/2012 6:43:35 AM
People say BC2 was the better game largely because it had more consistently good maps. Yes, the great maps on BF3 are better than anything BC2 has to offer, but for every wake island it feels like you have a Metro Rush to counterbalance it
---
Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.
#26corex3dPosted 6/1/2012 7:12:35 AM
BC2 the maps are just so much better imo
#27godplaysSNESPosted 6/1/2012 7:20:19 AM
Haven't played BF3 since the Beta...Perhaps will if they make a Premium pack that includes BF3 and not just the DLC


Either way, IMO, Bad Company 2's big weakness right now is that it really has gone down in popularity...Not much diversity in maps anymore
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
Won't get Battlefield 3 until all DLC is included
#28JonWood007Posted 6/1/2012 1:35:55 PM
Orestes417 posted...
People say BC2 was the better game largely because it had more consistently good maps. Yes, the great maps on BF3 are better than anything BC2 has to offer, but for every wake island it feels like you have a Metro Rush to counterbalance it


This. It's mainly design choices. BF3 has more features in it, but they don't work together as well.

The maps in BF3 are horrible. The base maps are very linear. I mean, metro's ridiculous. 64 people shooting at each other in a subway tunnel can be fine, but it gets old quick. When you got like 10-20 people guarding a single choke point on each team, it's just problematic. Many of the other maps are similar.

And the B2K maps are the complete opposite, which doesn't make them any better. Karkand is and always has been a great map, but the others....meh. Too open, too reliant on vehicles to the point that if you're not in one, you're more or less screwed (unless you have a REALLY good team that works together, but how often do you get that in pubs?) and as I mentioned above, once one team starts winning over another, the game just goes downhill.

BC2 had a much better design to it. The levels were mostly linear, but not too linear. Had vehicles, but not too many vehicles, and the 32 player limit made the maps feel more strategic and less spam happy. The vehicle balance was generally better. Sure, BC2 had a lot less realistic mechanics, but other than that, the design choices were simply better IMO.

And above all, BC2 had a much more consistent experience. BF3 has its really awesome moments, but then it also goes down the tubes really fast. The game becomes so stacked in favor of one team there's almost no point in playing. And since people for some odd reason favor 1000 ticket servers meaning the games can go on as long as like 45 minutes or so...it just gets very tedious and monotonous. And I heard if you don't play games through to the end, you lose all your points you earned in the game. Don't get me wrong, BF3 has its amazing points too, but it's just a much more flawed game overall than BC2. BC2 is almost always fun.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 5850 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#29Orestes417Posted 6/1/2012 1:40:13 PM
Metro Conquest's a great map, it just should've been capped at 32 players max. 64 is just overkill.
---
Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.