Battlefield: Bad Company 2...anyone try the demo?

[Nokturnal]

Just wanted to add my $0.02 on the discussion.

Battlefield and CoD games cannot be compared in terms of gameplay. They are almost entirely different genres if you think about it.
Battlefield focuses on a more war-like experience, you work as a team and have various roles for supporting one another.
Whereas CoD games essentially let us play as John Mcclane but with a bigger choice of weapons. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not the same at all.

In response to a few comments/questions raised in this topic:
- Prone - This won't be added as it slows down gameplay and encourages camping. Unlike CoD, a sniper isn't a lone-ranger fighting for himself, he is supposed to follow the squad (at a distance of course) and provide support.

- Damage - Play hardcore mode, simple as that. Health is reduced, making 1 shot kills possible with the sniper. (not that it's actually more realistic, just a more deadly style of gameplay when cover is actually useful and not an obstacle)

- Graphics - As someone else pointed out, the high-end graphics are unable to be seen yet, so do not judge the graphics based solely on the beta.

- Realism - Neither game even comes close to being realistic. If you want realism, try playing OFP (original..not dragon rising) or one of the ArmA games... I could rant for hours on how much more realistic they are when compared to the other FPS' out there, but i won't waste your time.


So what i'm trying to say is, these games are not in competition with one another. The fans want different things.
If you want to jump into a game and start killing instantly, and don't want to have to utilise teamwork, stick with CoD.
If you've got a group of friends and like working as a team, stick with Battlefield.

Personally i'm not a huge fan of either of these franchises. I've been a "mil-sim" player for too long, and the slower pace makes me almost useless in these crazy fast-paced shooters. That being said, it's still fun to jump in occasionally and give it a go.

[Desode]

Originally Posted by Nokturnal

Just wanted to add my $0.02 on the discussion.

Battlefield and CoD games cannot be compared in terms of gameplay. They are almost entirely different genres if you think about it.
Battlefield focuses on a more war-like experience, you work as a team and have various roles for supporting one another.
Whereas CoD games essentially let us play as John Mcclane but with a bigger choice of weapons. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not the same at all.

In response to a few comments/questions raised in this topic:
- Prone - This won't be added as it slows down gameplay and encourages camping. Unlike CoD, a sniper isn't a lone-ranger fighting for himself, he is supposed to follow the squad (at a distance of course) and provide support.

- Damage - Play hardcore mode, simple as that. Health is reduced, making 1 shot kills possible with the sniper. (not that it's actually more realistic, just a more deadly style of gameplay when cover is actually useful and not an obstacle)

- Graphics - As someone else pointed out, the high-end graphics are unable to be seen yet, so do not judge the graphics based solely on the beta.

- Realism - Neither game even comes close to being realistic. If you want realism, try playing OFP (original..not dragon rising) or one of the ArmA games... I could rant for hours on how much more realistic they are when compared to the other FPS' out there, but i won't waste your time.


So what i'm trying to say is, these games are not in competition with one another. The fans want different things.
If you want to jump into a game and start killing instantly, and don't want to have to utilise teamwork, stick with CoD.
If you've got a group of friends and like working as a team, stick with Battlefield.

Personally i'm not a huge fan of either of these franchises. I've been a "mil-sim" player for too long, and the slower pace makes me almost useless in these crazy fast-paced shooters. That being said, it's still fun to jump in occasionally and give it a go.

I can't get into the rush mode, It just isn't Bf to me. I like to creep and stalk and use tactics and the rush mode kills that for me. I'm just glad that full conquest will be read on release day this time around. I don't understand why Dice is pushing this rush mode so much. I personally think having rush mode in the demo hurts the franchise and hurts bringing new players in to the game.

[Nokturnal]

Originally Posted by Desode

I can't get into the rush mode, It just isn't Bf to me. I like to creep and stalk and use tactics and the rush mode kills that for me. I'm just glad that full conquest will be read on release day this time around. I don't understand why Dice is pushing this rush mode so much. I personally think having rush mode in the demo hurts the franchise and hurts bringing new players in to the game.

Unfortunately i would say the rush mode is actually DICE's attempt to get some of the CoD players interested. As you say, it's less about skill and tactic and more a hectic killing spree with bullets flying everywhere and people playing independently. Certainly not why people play Battlefield.

I don't like it much either, but you can't really blame them for trying to "steal" players from other games....I just sincerely hope it doesn't work I would hate to see a Battlefield game become the new CoD.

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

Most of the team I usually play OFP and BC with are serving millitary or ex-millitary and we play in BC as a giant coordinated party team. We've had 12 in a team all on one cooridinated team.... and we dominate the games we play in.

If these friends of yours are in either the UK/US or Australian army, you should get them to "borrow" a copy of VBS2, that will even make OFP and ArmA look arcadey. Then you can send me a copy!

As for everything else you said, i agree completely.
CoD games aren't what they used to be.
They came, they impressed and entertained us for a while..Then they switched their target audience and became a waste of time/money.