Bf bad company series vs. Bf 1943-bf2142 opinions

[thareaper08]

Which do you guys like more I personally liked battlefield back in the day it was way better in my mind what are your guy's opinions

 

[ChocolateVillain]

Bad Company and Battlefield are 2 different games...
I still have no idea why they added "Battlefield" to the Bad Company franchise...

 

[blackhawksniper]

^

I can't compare Bad Company to the Battlefield Series, they totally different series.


However I think Vietnam was the best of all of the BF games

 

[Nik :D]

Battlefield 2 is the best Battlefield, IMO.

The Bad Company series is good, but it doesn't live up to games like 1942, BF2, and 2142.

 

[Liliana]

I can see multiple reasons why BC is a BF game, but it is different.
Really, though, I prefer 2142 to BC2 (the two BF games I've played, sadly).

 

[iEye Captain]

Bad Company and Battlefield are 2 different games...
I still have no idea why they added "Battlefield" to the Bad Company franchise...

I've been reading this all over... but I've only played BC2...

How different are they, really? and how so? :confused1:

I'm asking because I'd like to know roughly what to expect in terms of differences between BC2 and BF3 besides the obvious..

 

[Liliana]

I've been reading this all over... but I've only played BC2...

How different are they, really? and how so? :confused1:

I'm asking because I'd like to know roughly what to expect in terms of differences between BC2 and BF3 besides the obvious..

The Battlefield main series contains much larger maps and matches, a non-linear progression system (that means choice over what you want), and probably more vehicles. Also, BC2 has that whole lack of most of a HUD thing going on, while at least in 2142, they give you bars for health, sprinting, armor(vehicles), ammo, and maybe some other stuff that I forget.

 

[ChocolateVillain]

The Battlefield main series contains much larger maps and matches, a non-linear progression system (that means choice over what you want), and probably more vehicles. Also, BC2 has that whole lack of most of a HUD thing going on, while at least in 2142, they give you bars for health, sprinting, armor(vehicles), ammo, and maybe some other stuff that I forget.

To expand on that...

-Larger maps (up to 16 square kilometers)

-Chain of command (There is a designated team leader who issues commands to his squad. Attack location/Defend location/issues artillery on areas/issue supply drops on areas/UAV on areas)
-There is also a commander of the army who revives these commands from team leaders and issues artillery/supply/UAV

-Larger squads

-More realistic weapon handling (You cant fire the shotgun slug across the map and get head shots/Weapons react how they would in real life more or less)

-More vehicles

-Fixed wing aircraft

-Conquest as it was meant to be played (Assault conquest > Rush any day)

-Modding

-Knife is a wieldable weapon (No more of this one button crap)

-More maps

-Spotting/Command tree in Battlefield is a whole hell of a lot better then Bad Company

-Scope Sway

-Small playable area - out-of-bounds is too restrictive

-TV missiles missing from helicopters
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kFiPioYFo0[/ame]

- Helicopters handle like helicopters and not tug boats

-Destroyable Commander assets in home base (Artillery/Supply/UAV)

-Different Class/weapon set up
- Assault (AR&Med Packs)
- Support (LMG&Ammo)
- Engineer (SMGs that cannot snipe, with a rocket launcher and mines at the same time
- Recon (Choice of either Default or Enhanced sniper rifle or a LAR with Silenced Pistol)
The recon class was RECON and not just a freaking sniper class in Battlefield games

Bad Company is a water downed version of Battlefield to fit onto consoles.

I'm probably missing some other key points but to lazy to list them all.

Really when you look at it the difference is that Battlefield is more of a SIM game and Bad Company is really just another arcade shooter.

 

[iEye Captain]

Ahh, I see.

So.. it's harder to play than BC2..

 

[ChocolateVillain]

Ahh, I see.

So.. it's harder to play than BC2..

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but any Battlefield game is on par with difficulty lvl of any FPS on the market.

With the added ability of a better communication system it was a lot easier then Bad Company.

Take fore example when you used the "medic" button in a Battlefield game. It called out medic. All the medics in there HUD would show up a medic symbol. Saying that guy needs a medic. Same goes for AMMO.

If you really want to know the difference of the two games first hand. Go pick up BF2. It's still has a user group that still plays it and should be cheap to buy.

 

[iEye Captain]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but any Battlefield game is on par with difficulty lvl of any FPS on the market.

I came to that conclusion from this:

Bad Company is a water downed version of Battlefield to fit onto consoles.

If something is watered down, usually that means it's simplier to learn.

And from what you described, there seems to be a higher learning curve for playing the Battlefield well (<- key word right there) than for playing Bad Company 2 well (<- here's that key word again! )

 

[CrazyKiller]

Battlefield 2 was an amazing game, and always will be!

Some of the untouched differences in Battlefield 2 compared to Bad Company 2:

1. The game was balanced. Everything in game had something to counter it. For example, helicopters, as they are in Bad Company 2, are overpowered. In Battlefield 2, you had jets that were either ground-attack aircraft, or anti-air aircraft. Neither one could dominate both the ground and the sky. This means the helicopters were easy prey, unless it was in the hands of a very skilled pilot.

2. Physics. The physics in Battlefield 2 feel a lot better (at least in MY opinion). Weapons are more true to their natures rather than the arcade style gaming Bad Company 2 has.

3. Barrel rolls can be done in helicopters in Battlefield 2.

4. Heat-seeking missiles.

5. Commander role in Battlefield 2 was the key to successful missions. Incompetent Commanders get people killed or games lost.

6. Squad system was more robust, and squads absolutely relied on their squad leader. Members could only spawn where the squad leader was if you wanted to spawn with the squad.

7. A lot of the more hardcore and experienced players group squads based upon their roles in game. Some squads would designate themselves as anti-tank, and play to that. Some would be recon and would do just that.

8. Battlefield 2 is just more awesome.

 

[ChocolateVillain]

I came to that conclusion from this:



If something is watered down, usually that means it's simplier to learn.

And from what you described, there seems to be a higher learning curve for playing the Battlefield well (<- key word right there) than for playing Bad Company 2 well (<- here's that key word again! )

Usually ( Key word right there) when I say water down it means that the game to me is missing key features which make it a "Battlefield" game.

Usually (hey its that key word again) FPS have a learning curve to play the game competent.

Again I looked over the list compiled and still don't see how it describes "difficulty"

 

[Liliana]

Usually ( Key word right there) when I say water down it means that the game to me is missing key features which make it a "Battlefield" game.

Usually (hey its that key word again) FPS have a learning curve to play the game competent.

Again I looked over the list compiled and still don't see how it describes "difficulty"

Maybe it was the diagrams? Those could look confusing to someone who doesn't understand them.

But it's not really harder in any way, that's for sure. It was watered down because I'm pretty sure a real Battlefield wouldn't translate completely well onto a console for the same reasons RTS's don't. It is, after all, mostly the whole squad and commander thing and the map size/player count that sets BC apart from the main series.

 

[Sexy Beast]

However I think Vietnam was the best of all of the BF games

Man I played so much BF: Vietnam back in the day.

 

[ChocolateVillain]

Maybe it was the diagrams? Those could look confusing to someone who doesn't understand them.

But it's not really harder in any way, that's for sure. It was watered down because I'm pretty sure a real Battlefield wouldn't translate completely well onto a console for the same reasons RTS's don't. It is, after all, mostly the whole squad and commander thing and the map size/player count that sets BC apart from the main series.

Yeah. The first Battlefield game to hit console was BF2 for Xbox and PS2
Took me ages but found an a clip of the multiplayer from it...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjZM9yVDoCE[/ame]
The game got horrible reviews for the Xbox version. But the PC version got rave reviews.

Compared to the PC version of the same game...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9AfUMdXFqQ[/ame]

 

[Rukus.]

I think BF2 is like $10 on steam, so its a steal.