On the Ball: Two Shooters Enter …

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

On the Ball: Two Shooters Enter ...

Think Bad Company 2 goes toe to toe with Modern Warfare 2? Think again.

Read Full Article

you are like lady gaga?...what the hell does that mean, if music is games then lady gaga would be farmville, weird in its popularity and the fans of music(games) make fun of it.

Pardon me for my ignorance, but I really can't tell what you're trying to say with this piece. No disrespect intended, Mr. Deam, but I'm genuinely confused; is there something I'm missing? I can;t decide if this was a simple statement of facts, or something...larger.

For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse Bad company 2 over MW2.

They are both beat by...Bad Warfare 4.

Here's the difference: Modern Warfare 2 has normal, functional mouse control and normal FOV. Bad Company 2 has mouse lag + mouse acceleration and a small FOV.

Honestly? Are you even trying to attempt attach "realism" to MW2? It's an arcade shooter dressed up in some HIGH SPEED LOW DRAG GO LOUD DROP TANGO SUPPORT. While some of the weapons resemble their real-life counter parts, the weapon stats are just goddamned confusing. For instance, despite the fact that TAR-21 and M4A1, FAMAS, L86, and MG4, M16, ACR, and F2000 all fire the same 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge, their damage is completely inconsistent. The TAR-21, FAmAS, M16, and L86(40) all deal more damage (40-30) than the M4A1, MG4(30), ACR, and F2000 (30-20). The first set also deal more damage than the M240B (30), which fires the much more badass 7.62x51mm NATO. The SCAR-H fires this and does 40-30, and the FAL fires it and does 55-35. I won't go into detail, but also consider the UMP-45 and the Vector. Both fire .45 ACP, yet the UMP does 40-35, and the Vector does 25-20. Where's the sense and realism in that?

(By the way, the guy with one arm is dead since COD4.

Anyway, the more important factor, which, this article more or less addresses, is that they are two completely styles of FPS. Comparing MW2 and BC2 is like comparing apples and carrots. It's just goddamned illogical and stupid.

If Modern Warfare 2 is like classical music, and Bad Company 2 is like jazz,

I mean this in the highest possible respect, because I do see and appreciate an honest analysis like this, but, theoretically, MW2 is far more like pop - or if you don't like the sense of pejorative that's endemic to the word, it's specifically like Wagnerian Program music. It's highly focused and "melodic". It follows a line and affects the audiences through extreme emotional peaks and variances.

Yeah, that's super pedantic, but when you just say "classical" that's not what comes to peoples minds.

Edit:

Oh yes, that was a fantastic article. I was honestly expecting some bias but it was very analytical and straightforward.

Really good read. I still need to play through more of BF:BC2 before I can truly which one I like more out of the two myself. I was already hesitant to get it in the first place because I already have MW2 and Halo 3 that take up most of my multiplayer time and wasn't sure if I would get a lot out of another shooter.

I love the destructo-environments and being given lots of options to engage an enemy but the scripted scenes from CoD were pretty awesome to watch. When it comes to the multiplayer they are definetly complete opposites. BC2 has a big battle-wide scale with vehicular warfare and MW2 has a much smaller person-person sized scale. As a result MW2 puts a lot more detail into that part of it's multiplayer so while there will be no tanks to drive or helicopters to drop in buddies at an objective. So for me fighting online, infantryman to infantryman, is more enjoyable for me in MW2. BC2 makes up for that though with all the vehicles and larger scale.

I can't decide yet which one I like better but I've always loved Halo more out of any other shooter. Halo takes realism and uses it as a coaster for its lazer/plasma/jetpack coffee mugs.

HT_Black:
For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse Bad company 2 over MW2.

I would also - if the server browser worked - or at least displayed pings, if I could get into a game in under 10 mins, if I could get into a server with less than 300 ping, or if the 'play now' function would pick a) a populated server and/or b) a sever with playable ping.

Until it can offer me ANY of those things, I can't endorse BC2 :'(

It is like a battle of the titans. Both in same genre, both with huge budgets and a successful history...its a case of really who has more fans than anything else.

For me, its just a case of, I enjoy both games, and I think they both do very good jobs in there own rights in the genre they are set in

The trouble with such a tightly scripted sequence of events is that it delivers that tension and pacing extremely well, once. After that you know what happens next.
I'll gladly lose the set pieces if it means I can play games with an air of unpredictability to them, it's much more satisfying to react to and overcome the things you didn't see coming.

I didn't really enjoy the first Modern Warfare much. The second was even worse. Though in all fairness I borrowed the first for a few weeks and only played the second when I stayed at a friends house for a bit the multiplayer was little more than "Run. Stop. Shoot/Get shot." And I suck at the games.

Granted I bought both. I like the tactical game play, the environments are bigger and just more. The guns feel better (in 2) and basically I just like it more. Oh, and fewer douche bags play it.

DirkGently:
Anyway, the more important factor, which, this article more or less addresses, is that they are two completely styles of FPS. Comparing MW2 and BC2 is like comparing apples and carrots. It's just goddamned illogical and stupid.

Huh, I wouldn't say that they are "two completely styles of FPS", if by that you mean completely different styles. Sure the shooting mechanics in COD are simpler and, like jordan said, the level progression is far more structured and linear. But that doesn't make them inherit "completely different styles", nor does it make comparing them illogical or stupid. Certainly campaign wise they are pretty similar, at least outwardly.

I mean, they're both FPSs. They are almost identical in A LOT of aspects. And its not like we're talking about STALKER or Bioshock here (which arguably have some pretty significant differences in the structure of their campaigns). They're linear level based shooters based in "modern" times, with plenty of so-called "cinematic" sections, on rails vehicle missions to break up the regular shooting, etc. They aren't that different dude... More like a lime to a grapfruit. You definitely won't mistake them (unlike the tangerine-clementine-oranges if the doom clones), but they PRETTY DARN SIMILAR.

The whole "controlled/optimized" feel to MW2 is why I traded it in to buy Battlefield.

Going one direction and getting gibbed by the guy with the ACR/slight of hand/stopping power/ninja because he was in the perfect camping spot, then going the other direction to flank him and getting gibbed by the OTHER guy guarding the only other way through the map (he also has ACR/slight of hand/stopping power/ninja).

MW2 feels too closed up, formulamic, and it feels like you're being punished if you don't use and assault rifle. I don't have this problem in BF2. If I do, I can just blow a hole in the wall.

I don't think activision can really loose this fight.

Even if noone purchased MW2 from this moment on, it's still the best selling game ever.
It has made shitloads of money beyond belief, and will still have been a huge succes even if people stopplaying it and starts playing BF:BC2.

People bitched about lack of dedicated even servers before it came out, but the game still sold more than anything before it.
So even if people move to BCBF2 for now, MW2 has made it's money already, and for the reason of the paragraph above, they're prolly still gonan get MW3 when it comes out.

The only possible way someone could loose here would be EA if people didn't buy BFBC2, cause they just as well might stick with MW2, which i doubt will happen, cause even though MW2's only 4 months old, it has still lost it's novelty, and lots and lots of peopel will get BFBC2, and it will be a success.

Ofc this could be trouble for either company, if they release their next games sequels (MW3 and BFBC3) more closely when they come around some day.
But i doubt they'll be doing this, cause it would be a bad move for both companies, seeing how they're prolly not gonna be competing over costumers if they just release with something liek 4 months between them like now.

To me, BC 2 has had a much more enjoyable multiplayer experience. I played more than my far share of MW2 multiplayer, but the level design is so constricting that it takes a lot of the advanced strategies out of it.

Also, with the inclusion of more party-friendly functions in BC2, like being able to spawn with party members and mark enemies, I feel that BC2 is much more fun to play with friends.

DirkGently:
::snippety snip::

The fact that you can even make those comparisons to real-life guns and ammo means that the game is approaching realism. Not perfecting it, but certainly aiming for it. Consider COD vs. Borderlands. Which is more realistic? Which is trying to be more realistic? And for the love of god, please think about my point before you info-dump a bunch of weapon stats for a second time because the raw numbers are completely beside the point.

Anyway, this article points toward what has always put me off about the CoD series, although I've never personally met anyone who agreed with me on the "rail-shooter" assertion. Reading this article makes me think that I'd enjoy BC2 much more, just for the sake of how open the gameplay appears to be.

Jordan Deam:
Two Shooters Enter ...

Think Bad Company 2 goes toe to toe with Modern Warfare 2? Think again.

Read Full Article

Wait a second, you're like Lady Gaga? So, then you're a hermaphrodite? Just saying, that's being like Lady Gaga.

To the topic, I DO think these are competing games and I DO think that BC2 does it's gameplay better than MW2 because it gives the players choice on how to play, even if haphazardly done. See, look at Mass Effect 2, it's got a lot of player choice and for that the players love it. We, the gamers, do not like being directed were to go, who to shoot, how to kill them like some 1960's arcade game shooter; we love the choice because it allows us to enact our personalities within the game.

Wicky_42:

HT_Black:
For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse Bad company 2 over MW2.

I would also - if the server browser worked - or at least displayed pings, if I could get into a game in under 10 mins, if I could get into a server with less than 300 ping, or if the 'play now' function would pick a) a populated server and/or b) a sever with playable ping.

Until it can offer me ANY of those things, I can't endorse BC2 :'(

Oh cool, so it has all of the exact same problems I always had with Battlefield 2? Groovy. >:(
I'll make sure to play it on XBox, sigh.

Onyx Oblivion:
They are both beat by...Bad Warfare 4.

I believe you meant Modern Company 4. You know, that game where you assault your own company headquarters with a SWAT team.

Team Fortress 2 still beats both of them. :)

I thought no Vs. Threads were allowed? xD

As for me I'll have to go with Battlefield cause I didn't even think about buying Modern Warfare with no Dedicated Servers and being published by Activision so yeah xD

Didn't bother much with the SinglePlayer though (played like 2 missions of it that is) and been playing only Multi since then (16+ hours), SP isn't what I bought the game for and isn't where the fun in "Battlefield" games is. It seems like this sort of lame tacked on experience that wasn't really necessary (first 4 Battlefield games don't even have SP) xD

Online it is still damned buggy though, constant connection losses and cryptic errors and often the Login Servers even break...

Wicky_42:
(snip)

And I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly endorse this opinion. Bad Company 2 combines the most dynamic and tactically-interesting multiplayer FPS experience with terrible network issues.

The highs are as high as they come, but they only make the lows hit even harder.

300lb. Samoan:

DirkGently:
::snippety snip::

The fact that you can even make those comparisons to real-life guns and ammo means that the game is approaching realism. Not perfecting it, but certainly aiming for it. Consider COD vs. Borderlands. Which is more realistic? Which is trying to be more realistic? And for the love of god, please think about my point before you info-dump a bunch of weapon stats for a second time because the raw numbers are completely beside the point.

Anyway, this article points toward what has always put me off about the CoD series, although I've never personally met anyone who agreed with me on the "rail-shooter" assertion. Reading this article makes me think that I'd enjoy BC2 much more, just for the sake of how open the gameplay appears to be.

Hardly. It does not have some degree of realism because it uses real guns (regardless of their actual usage/expected usage in any armed forces) and is set in the modern day-ish kind of time period. My point was that if it was 'realistic' the damage values per gun might reflect that, and not be more or less randomly assigned to each weapon.

Borderlands goes the other way from any semblance of realism. It intentionally goes to whacky and silly and guns that shoot lightning. COD doesn't though. In my opinion, it doesn't even try for realism, it just tries to appear as if it's going for realism. You know, like a movie like The Hurt Locker. It's not even trying to achieve the level of technical accuracy of Generation Kill. It's a lot like Black Hawk Down, but like they let the Hollywood types who said "fuck it, let's just add a pile of extra muzzle flashes and gunshots to goddamned everything" have a lot more control from the get go.

Id take MW2 over BC2 anyday. Couldnt stand any of the Bad company demos

Wicky_42:

HT_Black:
For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse Bad company 2 over MW2.

I would also - if the server browser worked - or at least displayed pings, if I could get into a game in under 10 mins, if I could get into a server with less than 300 ping, or if the 'play now' function would pick a) a populated server and/or b) a sever with playable ping.

Until it can offer me ANY of those things, I can't endorse BC2 :'(

Your browser doesn't work? What a shame. You might want to get that looked into. I'd also recommend fixing the ping issue by purchasing, say...a moderate-speed USB internet connection (or, alternately fixing the server browser). I did, and now I own n00bs at the speed of eight kills a minute (no kidding).

H.T. Black also endorses moderate-speed internet connections.

Oyster^^:

DirkGently:
Anyway, the more important factor, which, this article more or less addresses, is that they are two completely styles of FPS. Comparing MW2 and BC2 is like comparing apples and carrots. It's just goddamned illogical and stupid.

Huh, I wouldn't say that they are "two completely styles of FPS", if by that you mean completely different styles. Sure the shooting mechanics in COD are simpler and, like jordan said, the level progression is far more structured and linear. But that doesn't make them inherit "completely different styles", nor does it make comparing them illogical or stupid. Certainly campaign wise they are pretty similar, at least outwardly.

I mean, they're both FPSs. They are almost identical in A LOT of aspects. And its not like we're talking about STALKER or Bioshock here (which arguably have some pretty significant differences in the structure of their campaigns). They're linear level based shooters based in "modern" times, with plenty of so-called "cinematic" sections, on rails vehicle missions to break up the regular shooting, etc. They aren't that different dude... More like a lime to a grapfruit. You definitely won't mistake them (unlike the tangerine-clementine-oranges if the doom clones), but they PRETTY DARN SIMILAR.

COD, for the most part, is pretty simple. You see bad guys, you shoot 'em, you get shot, respawn quickly, rinse, repeat. There typically is much strategy. need to a cap a point? Rush rush rush. Need to defend it? Shoot shoot shoot M203. You can join objective gametypes and just go by those simple rules, and you'll do pretty goddamned good, even without communicating with your team. Try doing that in BC2. Not likely that it'll do much besides getting you killed.

Now then, I haven't played the BC2 singleplayer, so maybe it's so heavily similar to MW2, and completely different from BC1's SP, but for BC1, you had a wide variety of options. Strong point the enemy held town in a humvee? Sure! Pick off guys with a sniper rifle or go charging headfirst with an assault rifle or SMG or shotgun? Your call. Light tank or heavy or some sort of careless daredevil and head out only with a RPG? it's all up to you. Come in from the side or the front or open a few holes in the wall? Your choice.

MW2's choices consist of taking the alley on the left, or the alley on the right; and the game usually says "Roach! Take the alley on the left and flank them!" or something similar. Never mind that they play differently. MW2 is very speedy and quick and all, with sensitivity ranging from "slow" to "the flash". BC2 on full sensitivity takes quite some time.

In my opinion they're only "identical" in that they're FPS's and you shoot people in them, with modern-era guns.

dochmbi:
Here's the difference: Modern Warfare 2 has normal, functional mouse control and normal FOV. Bad Company 2 has mouse lag + mouse acceleration and a small FOV.

I think you have those backwards...

BC2 has a changeable FOV, fine mouse controll, and lag is going to be based on your connection to hte server.

hmmm well MW2: WE'RE REALISTIC HAHAHAHA KIDDING! plus the horrible balancing issues.

BC2: WE'RE A GAME WITH DESTRUCTABLE ENVIRONMENT, HAVE FUN!, yeah it's not a perfect game, it has some issues, but its a helluva lot more fun than MW2

Stubee:
Id take MW2 over BC2 anyday. Couldnt stand any of the Bad company demos

Elaborate?

BC2 all the way btw.

No more who gets to the first camping spot first wins, because now i can put a giant hole where your precious sniper window was. Plus there is few things more satisfying than tracer darting someone on a machine gun and letting the rocket fly (oh and getting your friends dog tags)

HT_Black:

Wicky_42:

HT_Black:
For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse Bad company 2 over MW2.

I would also - if the server browser worked - or at least displayed pings, if I could get into a game in under 10 mins, if I could get into a server with less than 300 ping, or if the 'play now' function would pick a) a populated server and/or b) a sever with playable ping.

Until it can offer me ANY of those things, I can't endorse BC2 :'(

Your browser doesn't work? What a shame. You might want to get that looked into. I'd also recommend fixing the ping issue by purchasing, say...a moderate-speed USB internet connection (or, alternately fixing the server browser). I did, and now I own n00bs at the speed of eight kills a minute (no kidding).

H.T. Black also endorses moderate-speed internet connections.

Ah, the man's funny. Yeah, of COURSE it's my bad that I can't find a ping that reads lower than 999 or merely '-' in the browser, and that I havn't managed to find a game with lower than 300 ping. I mean, the fact that I can play Crysis perfectly fine, browsing servers happily, cherry-picking 30 ping servers whenever I desire must be irrelevant :p

I don't care how fast you "own n00bs". I do care that Dice seemed to have issues with their software that they are 'aware of'. Fat lot of use that is.

Dorian Cornelius Jasper:

Wicky_42:
(snip)

And I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly endorse this opinion. Bad Company 2 combines the most dynamic and tactically-interesting multiplayer FPS experience with terrible network issues.

The highs are as high as they come, but they only make the lows hit even harder.

So true. Which makes the ABYSMAL network issues SO much more frustrating.

Anyone got any hints beyond the useless 'run shortcut as admin'?

I can't help but feel that anyone reeled in by any of the marketing hyperbole about BC2 being a direct competitor/replacement for MW2 simply hasn't been paying attention to the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. Frankly, I was getting worried (until the demo) that they had somehow abandoned a relatively tried-and-true Battlefield formula in chase of the Call of Duty fanbase.

I like both flavors for different reasons (although I found the campaign in BC2 less satisfying than the one in BC, and I blame the influence of Call of Duty on that), and I'm glad that marketing hyperbole is all it ended up being.

The opening to the article is all screwed up. Of course these two games aren't fighting head to head. Competing for sales yes, but that is not to say that one can outright beat the other; as long as both games make a significant profit, both are winners, regardless of who makes the most money or is generally the better game.

The only conclusion that can be squeezed out of this article is that these two similar games go about things differently. I don't think that is enough for a proper article.

I'd like to say one thing: Call of Duty 4. That is all.

In all honesty, I can't judge since I haven't played Bad Company 2. But let me say this: if I could play Bad Company 2 without wanting to smash a controller and rage quit every 5 seconds, it would already beat MW2.

DirkGently:
Honestly? Are you even trying to attempt attach "realism" to MW2? It's an arcade shooter dressed up in some HIGH SPEED LOW DRAG GO LOUD DROP TANGO SUPPORT. While some of the weapons resemble their real-life counter parts, the weapon stats are just goddamned confusing. For instance, despite the fact that TAR-21 and M4A1, FAMAS, L86, and MG4, M16, ACR, and F2000 all fire the same 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge, their damage is completely inconsistent. The TAR-21, FAmAS, M16, and L86(40) all deal more damage (40-30) than the M4A1, MG4(30), ACR, and F2000 (30-20). The first set also deal more damage than the M240B (30), which fires the much more badass 7.62x51mm NATO. The SCAR-H fires this and does 40-30, and the FAL fires it and does 55-35. I won't go into detail, but also consider the UMP-45 and the Vector. Both fire .45 ACP, yet the UMP does 40-35, and the Vector does 25-20. Where's the sense and realism in that?

(By the way, the guy with one arm is dead since COD4.

Anyway, the more important factor, which, this article more or less addresses, is that they are two completely styles of FPS. Comparing MW2 and BC2 is like comparing apples and carrots. It's just goddamned illogical and stupid.

yet, in Bad Company 2, you can take a .50 round in the chest and still survive, or even a regular 7.62 sniper round for that matter and act like nothing had happened other than havign a little red on your face for a few seconds.

lets not forget the vehicle coax guns, which fire large caliber munitions also, in REALISM one or two bullets would put you down, in BC2? takes about 10-20 rounds.

if you want a REALISM game, Ill point you to Arma with the ACE mod, THE most frustratingly realistic game available.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here