Why Are These Features Not In Battlefield 3? A Bad Company 2 Comparison

MP1st - "So I popped Battlefield: Bad Company 2 into my Xbox 360 last night for the first time since the release of the Battlefield 3. Much to my surprise, it doesn’t look aged one bit. In fact, I found just as much enjoyment, if not more, than when playing the latest instalment. It quickly became clear to me that Band Company 2 still has some strengths that other shooters, including even Battlefield 3, have yet to surpass."

The story is too old to be commented.
guitarded772285d ago

Yep, good points... I like the diversity of the environments in Bad Company 2. Also, everything was destructible in BC2... when I first started playing Battlefield 3, it was a little frustrating because some things aren't destructible, and it took time to figure out what was and what wasn't. It's a big part of my strategy... and it sucks when your tank gets stuck on some pipes that it should crush, but doesn't, then rolls right over a fortified structure like it's nothing. I still love the game, but that is my main complaint.

Chuk52285d ago (Edited 2285d ago )

Bad Company 2 is a better game.

Snookies122285d ago

Overall I would agree, but given time and Dice's willingness to actually update the game. I think BF3 will soon overtake that top spot. Battlefield is just about one of the only shooters I actually like, so I really hope they go all out on making it as great as possible.

da_2pacalypse2285d ago

BF3 wont ever be better than BC2, specially on consoles. the maps are too big for the consoles... BC2 was developed for consoles, and therefore the maps work a lot better. playing on Operation firestorm on the consoles is just stupid -_-

Snookies122285d ago

Why would maps being big have any effect on console versus PC? Sure the PC version looks better and has a better draw distance, but gameplay-wise it wouldn't change anything.

Captain Qwark 92285d ago

i dont think BF3 could ever eb better than BC2 or BC for that matter for one reason and one reason only imo.

the destruction. in BC you could level buildings completely and if you took to long in one area to blow the crates, all cover was destroyed making it infinitely harder. to me this added a level of strategy and urgency to completing the objectives that is missing from BF3.

LightofDarkness2285d ago (Edited 2285d ago )

@Snookies: the larger maps were designed to accommodate the larger player counts (64 players). Less players without less real estate means a lot less action. It changes the dynamics quite a bit.

IaMs122285d ago

Im pretty sure they could update the game to have better destruction/more destruction. Lets hope they do at least or the newer maps have fully destructible environments.

I still think BC2 is better but i do like BF3.

glennco2284d ago

@Captain Qwark - BC1 had limited destruction in the sense you could not take a building down, but most buildings' walls were destructible. 1943 is where the complete leveling destruction came in. BFBC2 added falling debris. This is why CoD will never match BF... the evolution of the franchise.

BFBC1 is still my all time favorite online shooter but i am playing on 360. if i was PC, 64player BF3 would most definitely trump it for me.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2284d ago
The_KELRaTH2285d ago

Better playability, better cleaner graphics and a great Vietnam expansion. I also prefer the controller movement as I get a slight delay in BF3 (PS3).

A nice update to a server list and user servers would just finish it off nicely :)

GraveLord2285d ago

The thing is with BF3 they focused on graphics over everything else.

Zha1tan2285d ago

How about a real comparison is done between BF2 + BF3.

BF2 had more factions, more weapons, and more vehicles types. It certainly made you feel the scale and involvement of the battle more than BF3.

The map design was far better, BF2 allowed you to plot points on the map with specific orders, Squad leaders in BF3 are irrelevant because anyone can spawn on anyone.

BF3 has no VOIP, Vehicles have unlimited Ammo + health (this means good jet pilots/tankers dominate), No commander mode for BF3.

Want to talk about missing features?

Tonester9252285d ago

Not to make an excuse for BF3 but there is still time for them to put these in the game. Those don't sound like it would be hard for them to do.

latinalover2284d ago

There is no way that they put it in there.

Pandamobile2285d ago

Speaking as a BF2 vet, the additional factions didn't really change anything besides the initial weapons load out.

More weapons? False. BF3 has WAY more weapons.

More vehicles? Not really. From what I can remember in BF2 there were ITVs, hummers/vodniks, APCs, tanks, transport choppers, attack choppers, jets. (Only counting those from the original BF2, not BF2:SF, or the booster packs)

Map design was better? Maybe. BF3 has some great maps. Caspian, Kharg, Noshahr and Damavand are pretty damn good maps in my opinion. Siene and Metro are a good change of pace from the other maps mentioned because they offer a different gameplay style than the vehicle focused big maps. To top that off, DICE gave us 4 of the best maps from Battlefield 2 reimagined in Frostbite 2 which was pretty much a dream come true for me.

Lack of VOIP has never been an issue for me because I'm always on Ventrilo with my friends, but I can see why it's a bummer for a lot of people. Oversight by DICE on that part.

The self repairing/infinite ammo vehicles is not a problem in my opinion. I rather like being able to engage another tank and having a chance to recover from the fight without having to rely 100% on an engineer to save me. It's a slow enough recovery that you still have to be careful not to get overwhelmed, and engineers are still handy to have. Also, they don't repair past a certain point. If you get a tank under 30-40 HP, it slowly takes fire damage before exploding. Same with choppers and jets.

Just my 2 cents.

Hufandpuf2285d ago

I agree but I also feel that when I play Wake Island on BF3, it feels just like BF2. I get chills on Conquest Assault.

Show all comments (24)
The story is too old to be commented.