180°
Submitted by Kuzo 1724d ago | article

LOT: Why Bad Company 2 is Better Than Modern Warfare 2

Lens of Truth writes," Let me get out this there first: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a great multiplayer experience. I enjoyed it; my comrades were obsessed with it to death and so were millions of gamers worldwide. It is a game that will have a place in history for evolving console multiplayer games into what it is today. Many developers have tried to replicate the formula but only seemed to get half the job done. So when, Modern Warfare 2 was announced how could I not have anticipated the sequel to the 2007 Game of the Year? So, once I finally got a hold of it, It was amazing; like so many of you I played it for months enjoying the spectacular (but plot hole filled) campaign and it's robust multiplayer.

Yet, something always felt wrong." (Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

FragMnTagM  +   1724d ago
Great article
This is exactly how I feel about the two games. He completely nailed it.
-Alpha  +   1724d ago
He said everything that has already been said
Better maps: we knew that.
Destruction 2.0: we knew that.
Killstreaks vs. Vehicles: What? Why compare that?

Teamwork: Yes, completely agree... except for the fact that the implementation is completely stupid in BC2. You can only play and chat with THREE friends (on PSN anyway, because we don't have party chat), and MW2 has more customizable options for private games. That's one of the things MW2 does better, it's much easier to play with friends.

Love BC2. But MW2 sucks because it sucks. Simple as that. BC2 doesn't affect it much at all, MW2 has always sucked and was always a poor game.

Anyways, BC2 is my #1 shooter this year. It's a terrific game. SP blows and is SO boring and typical, but the MP is all I care about.

My all time biggest issue is the amount of idiot players, mostly snipers, that just camp back and kill. Conquest mode also sucks monkey nuts because it's basically TDM and capping flags doesn't do ANYTHING except give you a place to spawn.

Sniping is way too easy and noob friendly IMO. It needs a very slight sway. God I hate the snipers that don't help the team. I've never sent such angry PSN messages before lol.
#1.1 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Cerebellum  +   1724d ago
^^^
You gotta admit that the spawn camping helicopters get a little annoying too in BFBC2.
Sm0k3y_Bac0n  +   1724d ago
Alpha - Capturing flags reduces the enemies spawns as long as you hold onto it. Normally the team with the most flags wins. But tbh rush is better imo anyway. More pitched battles trying to fight through the enemy frontline to get to the bombs. Attacking on rush is some of the most fun I've had playing video games.
gamingisnotacrime  +   1724d ago
why another article stating what is already known?
im still amazed by MW2 huge success, i dont have the game but to see an average game like this sell so many millions is mind blowing.
bjornbear  +   1724d ago
@ alpha
sure but he does nail WHY maps, destruction and vehicles >>> anything in MW2

i've said it before and I'll say again:

MW2 is BF:BC2 without vehicles, huge maps, team work and destruction 2.0

only extra: kill streaks but thats a broken system anyway.
Takoulya  +   1724d ago
@bjornbear
Also, BF:BC2 requires more skills than MW2. There is a slight weighty feeling, and the guns lose their accuracy when continuously fired without stopping.
-Alpha  +   1724d ago
@smokey and bjorn
@Smokey

That simply is not true. Holding flags does nothing effective whatsoever. Instead of capping flags to drain the tickets they are worthless. It's basically team deathmatch because kills are THE most effective way to win in Conquest, which is why the mode is so broken. The ticket bleed is SO slow, the maps are SO small that flags constantly turn over which means ticket bleed is rarely effective. The ticket bleed is so slow that they are internally tweaking it. The community has complained a lot about it and it's why I prefer Rush as completing the objectives is the only way to win.

Sorry but Conquest is a giant Team Deathmatch.

@bjorn

But that's all really subjective. Smaller/Bigger maps, # of players, vehicles, even destruction are all design decisions.

I love CoD4 for the map design, and it didn't have to be big like Bad Company in order for me to enjoy it.

MAG is 256 players but that doesn't make that a better game either. Bigger and More is a design choice, not something that makes a game better.

However, I don't think that's your point: I do agree that overall the factors of maps, vehicles vs. killstreaks, etc. is what makes BC2 much more fun, but in general MW2 fails because it sucks. The maps suck not because they are small but because they are poorly designed, etc.
jjohan35  +   1724d ago
I actually agree with Alpha-Male's problem with conquest. Normally I enjoy this mode on Battlefield games but in BC2 the ticket bleed is ridiculously slow. I feel like the current system simply subtracts the number of tickets per second (or minute) based on the amount of flags captured. I would rather have the captured flags AMPLIFY ticket reduction per kill. So the more flags my team captures, each kill would knock more tickets from the enemy team. If I have less flags captured, each kill would knock down less tickets.

I also feel that more than half the conquest maps are too linear. Previous Battlefield conquest maps were less linear (flags weren't lined up in a straight line).

Otherwise I think BC2's multiplayer is absolutely great. Can't say the same about the single player though (they need to hire a composer for background music, it gets really bland otherwise).

I have one complaint about Rush modes though. I find it lame when attackers sit back as snipers and mortar strike the hell out of objectives. I've been playing a lot of games lately where that's all I encounter. If DICE allows this to happen, then at least allow us the ability to repair objectives. It will force attackers to actually set a bomb at the objective instead of camp on the perimeter.
#1.8 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
RememberThe357  +   1724d ago
I wasn't antirely impressed with either.
BFBC2 was indeed a better game than MW2 but I neither were as satisfying as Killzone 2 or COD4 were. I'm going to try MAG now and see if it can quench my online FPS thirst.
#1.9 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
WhatARump  +   1724d ago
Modern Warfare 2 sucked?!!!!

Nahh, Your all overthinking things
Judging a game by "graphics", "sound", "replayability" is lame

If you have fun playing it, keep going!

Forget what everyone else says :)
Besides although everyone seems to hate it here; almost everyone I know has it and plays on a daily basis (cept for me... i actually bother studying >.>)
#1.10 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
darkride66  +   1724d ago
Nice article, LOT.
I haven't played Battlefield yet, but you certainly made me want to play it. I'm so sick of playing Modern Warfare 2 games where everyone just rushes into one point and 3/4 of the team has 25 kills and 30 deaths. Isn't the point of the game not to die, not just to rack up kills?

Maybe it's just me. I'm an old gamer and that's the way we used to play these games back in the days of Rainbow Six before it got all arcade like.
SixZeroFour  +   1724d ago
@jjohan35 - entirely agree with this comment

"I have one complaint about Rush modes though. I find it lame when attackers sit back as snipers and mortar strike the hell out of objectives. I've been playing a lot of games lately where that's all I encounter. If DICE allows this to happen, then at least allow us the ability to repair objectives. It will force attackers to actually set a bomb at the objective instead of camp on the perimeter. "

if they can literally sit back at their spawn point, fly a uav with c4's/mortar/destroy building to take out the mcomm without stepping into the battlefield then atleast let the engineers be able to repair it, forcing them to come in and have to charge it...theyll still be able to blow it up as long as they have snipers picking off those engineers, but atleast the defenders will have that option against those kind of attackers

it only takes about 12 c4's to destroy the mcomm, and on arica harbor on the last set of mcomms, i literally had a group of players, who would run up the steps and throw one c4 and detonate it along with themselves and won that way because it only took 12 tickets for each mcomm...whenever i set foot in a game where the first thing i see is a uav come down and blow up right beside an mcomm, i quit right then and there...i dont care if i take that loss, i refuse to play against those cowards
Dee_91  +   1724d ago
yea all that is true but i have more fun on MW2
its more of a challenge for me

I come in 1st to 3rd place majority of the time on Rush
if u dont believe me add me PSN Dmarc_Atl lol
ThanatosDMC  +   1723d ago
Wow, many people complaints and gripes about both games are all "fixed" in MAG. MAG is the answer to your FPS needs.
FragGen  +   1723d ago
Thanatos: You are a knob. Get over the MAG thing. Stop bringing it into every single MW2 or BFBC2 thread. It's a good, solid, game but the pacing and variety sucks compared to BFBC2.

FWIW: I've pretty much shelved MW2 for BFBC2 (with some MAG thrown in) but really, I still understand why people play MW2. It's much more kick ass than the haters give it credit for... The design just made different trade-offs.

MW2 feels more like the "old school ADD on crack" style gameplay from the Quake days. And sometimes that really hits the spot. :) I played a free for all match a couple of weeks back on a full server and it was just so NUTS that I was laughing my ass off playing. It was great... just a huge brief adrenaline rush... I felt dizzy after I got done. Then I played BFBC2 for a few weeks. :)
#1.15 (Edited 1723d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Baron79  +   1724d ago
Great article, I agree with just about everything said especially the maps, I hate MW2's.
Lord Vader  +   1724d ago
Yeah, for me MW2 > BFBC2 in SP mode...

But BFBC2 *crushes* MW2 in MP, there is no comparison. MW2 is so unbalanced, spawning is a joke, the maps are too small, & it has no sense of teamwork whatsoever.

As a big COD fan it was hard for me to try BFBC2, but I am so glad I did, it solidifys everything I didnt like in MW2 & justifies all the reasoning behind why I have never been a big fan of it's uber-unbalanced MP gameplay.
Kuzo  +   1724d ago
I play games more for solo campaigns then multiplayer.
DirtyLary  +   1724d ago
I play games more for multiplayer.
RememberThe357  +   1724d ago
I play games for both.
FragGen  +   1723d ago
I don't play games I just read N4G so I don't have to!
jaidek  +   1724d ago
I have to agree. I know of a lot of people, including myself, that have moved on to greener pastures with Bad Company 2. Hopefully, the next incarnation of COD will use this game for inspiration.
ASSASSYN 36o  +   1724d ago
Two words as to why BFBC2 is better than MW2. "It works!"
Kuzo  +   1724d ago
You would think that since the game's been out for a while, they could have fixed it.
Sea_Man  +   1724d ago
Nice article
I agree, I love seeing environments get destroyed. Plus now you can use objects in the environment to your advantage!!
Kuzo  +   1724d ago
yeah, destructible and useable environments is a plus in my book
claterz  +   1724d ago
Mw2 does kind of suck, but it's somehow realy addictive, I've never played a game thats gets me as mad as Mw2 does, and yet I spend hours on it everyday lol.
Walrus  +   1724d ago
I was the same way until I went back to CoD4. It felt like a job, and I did it because I had to, even though I hated it.
#7.1 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
happy_gilmore  +   1724d ago
recon campfest
with fugly graphics

for

the

win
evildeli  +   1724d ago
Modern Warfare 1 kicked my ass so much, I decided to stay away from Warfare 2. And I keep hearing that warfare 2 is broken anyways.
#9 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
evildeli  +   1724d ago
What about MAG? Does anyone care about that game? When I read the article Battlefield sounded like MAG to me. Sounds like they share a lot of similarities.
Dead_Cell  +   1724d ago
MAG is similar.
It doesn't have the flashy effects but it's much more of a solid game.
-Alpha  +   1724d ago
Well MAG has no destruction, but I agree that it's a solid Team game. Teamwork is very key to it. I prefer BC2 overall, but MAG's teamwork and scale is unparalleled. When strangers are communicating and making an effort with other teammates you know you've provoked a good gameplay mentality.

I've no time for MAG lately but I got real addicted to that game for a while. Great game, but too different to compare. Actually, I don't even think BC2 is comparable, but it's the most similar to MW2 and the point of articles like this is to crown a new FPS king.

I think BC2 totally kicks MW2's ass, but again, they are different games. I DO like MW2, but it's just plagued and it sucks all by itself. BC2 is just a better alternative. I've also enjoyed MAG and find Zipper did a better job than IW did on MW2, which speaks volumes on how fall IW has fallen.

CoD4 is still one of the greatest FPS' this generation though, that game is still ace.
DirtyLary  +   1724d ago
I still play MAG daily. Looking forward to Socom:4 too.
gamingisnotacrime  +   1724d ago
Even with all BC2 has in its favor, MAG's scale of combat is amazing. The domination matches with 256 are a blast specially if your squad is organized, and the platoon etc etc. I think if BC2 had at least 32 players on those big maps it would be a lot better.
MAG is my top dog, but BC2 is a sweet companion
Ravenor  +   1724d ago
@9.4
PC version does 32 players and it's a much better game over the console version.

Why people argue FOR MW2 is beyond me, it's got less content then United Offensive and that was an expansion pack for CoD1.
ryano23277  +   1724d ago
As a video game, when you look at all its offerings, BFBC2 is a better polished game than MAG.

But, as Alpha mention the communication that can flow between squad mates (even trashing the enemy) is unmatched.

I would really love to be able to have put more hours into BFBC2, but MAG has me addicted.

Both are too unique to be compared & too good to be ignored.
saraphina017  +   1724d ago
I do enjoy multiplayer games, but to me, a game really has to be effective with single-player to be worthwhile. If you can create a game with a great single player experience and then add on great multi-player, you get my money.
espiritu604  +   1724d ago
CANT WAIT FOR BFBC3 ITLL GIVE BETTER GRAPHICS AND KZ3 WILL DO SUNLIGHT MAYBE AN INVASION IN EARTH WITH TREES AND STUFF AND FREE ROAM!
Dead_Cell  +   1724d ago
Killzone 3 free roam?
Don't have an idea again. Please.
The Time Reaper  +   1724d ago
I don't know BC2 yet, but I DO know that MW2 is pretty awful. I have a 20mb/4mb connection, and yet I STILL can't find a lag free game (my buddy has CRAP DSL and he gets chosen as the host, then we all lag out... really? That's the best host their software could find?).

Tell me, why are bugs from CoD4 still around, such as parties being split up?
talltony  +   1724d ago
IMO
Both suck now just mw2 sucks more. I seriously can't belive how quick I got tired of bfbc2
bjornbear  +   1724d ago
fair article
glad they aren't talking about graphics =O

i agree =) playing MW2 after BF:BC2 feels so restricted and limited =( oh well, keeps the kids away from the real stuff =)
bobdog626  +   1724d ago
I played MW2 but did not like it.
I liked Gear's of War better.When i got shot all that juice or blood got in my way. can't see what im aiming at.croching down with the B button suck's.Other than that it was ok.
BoneMagnus  +   1724d ago
Can we stop with the comparisons already!
I own both and like both. They are very different to me. Which one I play depends on my mood. Sometimes I want to strategize and focus on a goal, and sometimes I want to frag in a fast paced game.
Ultra Gamer  +   1723d ago
^^^YES!!
Exactly what I keep saying. I'm the same way you are. I play what I'm in the mood for. When I want to play with friends strategically I play BC2. When I want to run and gun I play MW2. They both have things I like and dislike so I just play both.
Hey Its Me Again  +   1724d ago
Truth.
Call of Duty series are the new Halo while Battlefield is overlooked by many. Actually, all the FPS n00bs ignore it because they know it actually requires skills to play competitively online. N00b friendly games will always receive more sales, not that I care though. I dig the tough competition in BC2 online. Each kill gives me good satisfaction. :)
#18 (Edited 1724d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
MAG_SVER  +   1724d ago
WOW Journalist
How can you post something on the Net, with the first sentence representing "Very BAD Grammar"

EG.

" Let me get out this there first: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a great multiplayer experience"

EDIT & CORRECTED VERSION :

" Let me get this out there first: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a SH!TTY multiplayer experience.

DONE!!!!

Proof Read Before you post on the Net!!!
CernaML  +   1724d ago
Call of Duty 4 was awesome. =\
GenoZStriker  +   1724d ago
Yawwwnnnn
NEXT!
JonnyBigBoss  +   1724d ago
It's definitely better. I'll never go back.
ninjagoat  +   1724d ago
good article just wish people would play longer at nights after 12 UK servers numbers just drop away. I don't know if thats to do with europe only servers. But one thing i can say for mw2 even lo i prefer bfbc2 is i can get a game when i want. Thats needs sorted imo even if it means laggy USA servers ;)
ZILLA  +   1724d ago
BAAAAAAAD COMPANY 2 IS ONLINE MADNESS!!
cmon all you COD noob,get BFBC2 and come get your heads kicked in!
LeonSKennedy4Life  +   1724d ago
Haha. BC2 is WAAAAAAAY easier online. Try MAG if you wanna prove yourself. BC2 is an epic noobfest!
ThanatosDMC  +   1723d ago
I completely agree with Leon. MW2 and BC2 are noob fest. MAG does have noobs in a form of people wearing heavy armor and the heavy machine guns.

Try MAG, you'll love it... but it's an uphill battle.
LeonSKennedy4Life  +   1724d ago
No. MW2 is much better. Both the campaign and the multi-player put BC2 to shame. I prefer MAG over both though.
Ultra Gamer  +   1723d ago
In terms of fun(multiplayer)
BC2>MW2>MAG
ThanatosDMC  +   1719d ago
Obviously never played MAG before.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
40°

Digimon Story Cyber Sleuth Tries to Solve Vita’s “No Games” Problem (Screens, Trailer)

27m ago - "Final Fantasy got most of the attention with a bunch of new media at Jump Festa, but a new trail... | PS Vita
20°

Wii U 8GB console is tempting for casuals and curious alike at £145

27m ago - Dealspwn writes: Act fast and you can order a basic Wii U console (the white 8GB one) for an enti... | Wii U
40°

LittleBigPlanet 3 already available for under £25 on PS4

49m ago - Dealspwn writes: LittleBigPlanet 3 for £24.85 on PS4? That's what we call a hot gaming deal here... | PS4
40°

Game of the Year Awards 2014 | Best Portable Game

1h ago - Dealspwn writes: Japan seriously came through for 3DS and Vita fans this year with some absolutel... | PS Vita
Ad

Study Game Design at DeVry

Now - DeVry University, is an accredited* university offering you the flexibility of over 90 locations, online courses and a wide variety of bachelor's a... | Promoted post
40°

PlayStation Universe Readers' Game Of The Year

1h ago - The votes have been counted and the readers of PSU.com have made their final verdict on their Pla... | PS3