Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 3? (Multiplayer)

  • 100 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#52 Posted by nutcrackr (12529 posts) -
Client side hit detection sounds like utter poop and worse gameplay to me bud. I die because of some laggy guy sees me even though I've actually already taken cover on my screen? There's a good reason why competitive games don't use that stupid **** :PKHAndAnime
You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.
#53 Posted by Jebus213 (8783 posts) -
BF3's netcode is the best of any multiplayer game I've ever seen.JigglyWiggly_
dafuq did I just read? It's a fvcking game of bending bullets...
#54 Posted by Jebus213 (8783 posts) -
[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Client side hit detection sounds like utter poop and worse gameplay to me bud. I die because of some laggy guy sees me even though I've actually already taken cover on my screen? There's a good reason why competitive games don't use that stupid **** :Pnutcrackr
You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.

Works wonders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p933kkTUNs Happens all the time. More then any other game I've ever played. I've been shot 3-4 times in a row while being completely in cover. I mean really, Wanted wasn't that great of a movie.
#55 Posted by KHAndAnime (13635 posts) -
[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Client side hit detection sounds like utter poop and worse gameplay to me bud. I die because of some laggy guy sees me even though I've actually already taken cover on my screen? There's a good reason why competitive games don't use that stupid **** :Pnutcrackr
You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.

I'm not going to fault it, especially considering that it simply could be the smarter route given the scale of the game and all the netcode that must go into it. It's just I've played plenty of other games where I don't encounter any noticeable problems whatsoever, and Battlefield 3 isn't one of those games. I do see what Jiggly is talking about but I don't think BF3's netcode is all that much better than FPS games out there, nor did I find Bad Company's 2 to be noticeably worse.
#56 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] I really don't know what I was thinking when I made that comparison.:P

Swiftstrike5

Personal taste maybe

Hmm, I distinctly remember being impressed by BC2's sound design. I loved that when you went into a building there was that really nice sounding echo. I also stuck a sub woofer at my feet so that standing near a tank would shake my feet and rock the table when it fired. I'd hear APCs dishing it out on the other side of the map. The crack of bullets passing over my head.

I honestly don't remember BF3 having nearly as enjoyable sound effects (even though they may be more releastic, as you said). Although, it may just be that BF2142->BC2 was a huge step up in sound design that BC2->BF3 wasn't even noticeable for me.

It was like that in BC2 because they went for a boomier sound and exaggerated the bass completely and added tonnes of reverb. The sound was terrific but it wasn't realistic in the slightest. BF3 is far more true to real life, the way guns clack and rattle rather than boom. They're crystal clear audio files and it's an amazing achievement.

If you still prefer BC2s sound then that's perfectly normal, but BF3 is the technically superior sounding game

#57 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]BF3s is orders of magnitude better from a sheer technical standpoint. It is factually better. Though if you prefer the more hollywood boomy sound of BC2 that's pure personal taste. Though after studying sound engineering for 2 and a half years, BF3s sound is incredible to listen to and makes BC2s look like childsplay.

One thing I preferred in BC2 sound though was the exaggerated sniper rifle sounds. They're more realistic in BF3, but they had that sweet sound in BC2 with a huge deafening crack

Ant0n89

Have you tried using War Tapes sound option in BFBC2?

Yeah, it's good to have that option to hear the raw files they recorded. But BF3 still has better raw files than BC2, they were recorded much cleaner and overall better. And they weren't altered to hell and back to make it sound good. BC2 has a lot of reverb aded to it and the bass boosted a lot of stuff. But war tapes was nice, it just clips too much

#58 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

BC2 was nothing as simple as pointing and shooting like Call of Duty. It was about judging the distance of the target and firing in small bursts. If you went full auto all the time like Call of Duty, then you would never hit anything. Battlefield 3 felt more like Call of Duty to me.

JangoWuzHere

I said it was more like CoD, I didn't say it was the same.

BF3 has far greater ballistics than BC2s. BC2 didn't have the spray and spread of bullets like BF3 does. LMGs kick like mules and spread all over the place and every single gun handles differently. In BC2 there were guns that were very similar. The M16 and AN 94 were very much alike for example, they just had different damage models.

Bad Company 2 had some pretty severe spread on the bullets if you held the trigger down to long. I didn't think Battlefield 3 did anything better in that part. You say that all the weapons are different, but I honestly don't see a dramatic difference. Most of the weapons are actually pretty bad and aren't worth the time to learn.

And maybe it's because you didn't take the time to learn that you can't tell the difference.

I have spent a LOT of time messing with guns in BF3 to find the best and they all handle way differently. Some pull up and left, some up and right. Others barely pull up but go side to side like crazy. Side to side you can't counteract, up and one direction you can/

The M16 and AEK pull up and left and up and right when fired. Can't remember which does which. But all you do is pull the opposite way to negate it. Side to side guns you can't like the AUG. Then you factor how accurate the first bullets are and how much it kicks after the first shot. Every single gun kicks differently after it's first shot fired. After that it's all affected by the attachments. Then guns like the AN94 which fires slow but has 2 shots in the exact same spot every time.

You can't say guns all feel the same in BF3 when they really don't. If that were the case then the M16 wouldn't be OP and you would see a huge variety in what people use. But they all stick to the same guns

#59 Posted by wis3boi (31294 posts) -

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

I said it was more like CoD, I didn't say it was the same.

BF3 has far greater ballistics than BC2s. BC2 didn't have the spray and spread of bullets like BF3 does. LMGs kick like mules and spread all over the place and every single gun handles differently. In BC2 there were guns that were very similar. The M16 and AN 94 were very much alike for example, they just had different damage models.

seanmcloughlin

Bad Company 2 had some pretty severe spread on the bullets if you held the trigger down to long. I didn't think Battlefield 3 did anything better in that part. You say that all the weapons are different, but I honestly don't see a dramatic difference. Most of the weapons are actually pretty bad and aren't worth the time to learn.

And maybe it's because you didn't take the time to learn that you can't tell the difference.

I have spent a LOT of time messing with guns in BF3 to find the best and they all handle way differently. Some pull up and left, some up and right. Others barely pull up but go side to side like crazy. Side to side you can't counteract, up and one direction you can/

The M16 and AEK pull up and left and up and right when fired. Can't remember which does which. But all you do is pull the opposite way to negate it. Side to side guns you can't like the AUG. Then you factor how accurate the first bullets are and how much it kicks after the first shot. Every single gun kicks differently after it's first shot fired. After that it's all affected by the attachments. Then guns like the AN94 which fires slow but has 2 shots in the exact same spot every time.

You can't say guns all feel the same in BF3 when they really don't. If that were the case then the M16 wouldn't be OP and you would see a huge variety in what people use. But they all stick to the same guns

This. And I see way too many people going full auto with their weapons all the time. Makes me shake my head. Single shot or burst all the way.

#60 Posted by LordTrexGuy (464 posts) -

BC2 obviously. It had better maps, balanced classes and the destruction was so much more awesome. Nobody wants to do teamwork in BF3, just run-and-gun like COD and ignore the objective. The guns in BF3 are also terrible. Every gun has so much recoil, I feel the guy holding it is suffering from anemia. Although I have to say, BF3 has superior graphics and is realistic plus it has jets. And offtopic: BC2's campaign was miles better than BF3's.

#61 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Bad Company 2 had some pretty severe spread on the bullets if you held the trigger down to long. I didn't think Battlefield 3 did anything better in that part. You say that all the weapons are different, but I honestly don't see a dramatic difference. Most of the weapons are actually pretty bad and aren't worth the time to learn.

wis3boi

And maybe it's because you didn't take the time to learn that you can't tell the difference.

I have spent a LOT of time messing with guns in BF3 to find the best and they all handle way differently. Some pull up and left, some up and right. Others barely pull up but go side to side like crazy. Side to side you can't counteract, up and one direction you can/

The M16 and AEK pull up and left and up and right when fired. Can't remember which does which. But all you do is pull the opposite way to negate it. Side to side guns you can't like the AUG. Then you factor how accurate the first bullets are and how much it kicks after the first shot. Every single gun kicks differently after it's first shot fired. After that it's all affected by the attachments. Then guns like the AN94 which fires slow but has 2 shots in the exact same spot every time.

You can't say guns all feel the same in BF3 when they really don't. If that were the case then the M16 wouldn't be OP and you would see a huge variety in what people use. But they all stick to the same guns

This. And I see way too many people going full auto with their weapons all the time. Makes me shake my head. Single shot or burst all the way.

It's also different bursts for different guns. M16 can get away with like 7 shot bursts, while the AEK can't, well, that's if you can limit it. Shoots pretty damn fast :P

#62 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23500 posts) -

[QUOTE="nutcrackr"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Client side hit detection sounds like utter poop and worse gameplay to me bud. I die because of some laggy guy sees me even though I've actually already taken cover on my screen? There's a good reason why competitive games don't use that stupid **** :PJebus213
You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.

Works wonders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p933kkTUNs Happens all the time. More then any other game I've ever played. I've been shot 3-4 times in a row while being completely in cover. I mean really, Wanted wasn't that great of a movie.

that doesn't mean he is getting an advantage
that means he shot you and he hit you on his screen
but it takes time for it to register


also m16a3 is not OP, it's a very well balanced wep

you can compare the guns here

http://symthic.com/bf3-weapon-comparison#10-53-05-05


m16a3 recoil is very natural to the hand, which is why I like it


#63 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23500 posts) -

[QUOTE="nutcrackr"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Client side hit detection sounds like utter poop and worse gameplay to me bud. I die because of some laggy guy sees me even though I've actually already taken cover on my screen? There's a good reason why competitive games don't use that stupid **** :PKHAndAnime
You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.

I'm not going to fault it, especially considering that it simply could be the smarter route given the scale of the game and all the netcode that must go into it. It's just I've played plenty of other games where I don't encounter any noticeable problems whatsoever, and Battlefield 3 isn't one of those games. I do see what Jiggly is talking about but I don't think BF3's netcode is all that much better than FPS games out there, nor did I find Bad Company's 2 to be noticeably worse.

if you don't find BC2's worse, then you have either not played it enough or are pretty unobservant.

BC2's was so bad I couldn't play more than 30 minuts.

I asked more casual friends and they couldn't tell a difference, which I don't understand how that's possible.

But, most people use steeringwheels to aim.
That or wiimotes.


Tribes ascend is another game that uses clientside hit detection for hitscan guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL05DjATZfw&hd=1

my shots count every time.

OFC the netcode in tribes ascend is like 10 leagues worse than BF3. Laggers stutter, movement isn't interpolated. Projectile weapons are not lag compensated, so using the assult rifle on 70 ping is exponetially harder than 15 ping.


#64 Posted by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

if you don't find BC2's worse, then you have either not played it enough or are pretty unobservant.


BC2's was so bad I couldn't play more than 30 minuts.
Zubin also found the hitreg unbearable.

I asked more casual friends and they couldn't tell a difference, which I don't understand how that's possible.

But, most people use steeringwheels to aim.
That or wiimotes.


Tribes ascend is another game that uses clientside hit detection for hitscan guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL05DjATZfw&hd=1

my shots count every time.

OFC the netcode in tribes ascend is like 10 leagues worse than BF3. Laggers stutter, movement isn't interpolated. Projectile weapons are not lag compensated, so using the assult rifle on 70 ping is exponetially harder than 15 ping.

JigglyWiggly_

I feel BC2's hit reg was more responsive and in BF3 you get hit behind walls more often because of it. Though in BC2 it wasn't that much better. I had a problem with BC2's hit boxes. They were... literally all over the place. The weapons weren't that well made either. Sounded good though.

#65 Posted by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

Doesn't mean he is getting an advantage

that means he shot you and he hit you on his screen
but it takes time for it to register


also m16a3 is not OP, it's a very well balanced wep

you can compare the guns here

http://symthic.com/bf3-weapon-comparison#10-53-05-05


m16a3 recoil is very natural to the hand, which is why I like it


JigglyWiggly_

The M16A3 was OP for the longest time. They did a good job balancing it out. It's rate of fire was too high for its spread and recoil. Now the spread and recoil match the RoF better and makes sustained shooting more difficult.

#66 Posted by KHAndAnime (13635 posts) -

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"] You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.JigglyWiggly_

I'm not going to fault it, especially considering that it simply could be the smarter route given the scale of the game and all the netcode that must go into it. It's just I've played plenty of other games where I don't encounter any noticeable problems whatsoever, and Battlefield 3 isn't one of those games. I do see what Jiggly is talking about but I don't think BF3's netcode is all that much better than FPS games out there, nor did I find Bad Company's 2 to be noticeably worse.

if you don't find BC2's worse, then you have either not played it enough or are pretty unobservant.

BC2's was so bad I couldn't play more than 30 minuts.
Zubin also found the hitreg unbearable.

I asked more casual friends and they couldn't tell a difference, which I don't understand how that's possible.

But, most people use steeringwheels to aim.
That or wiimotes.


Tribes ascend is another game that uses clientside hit detection for hitscan guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL05DjATZfw&hd=1

my shots count every time.

OFC the netcode in tribes ascend is like 10 leagues worse than BF3. Laggers stutter, movement isn't interpolated. Projectile weapons are not lag compensated, so using the assult rifle on 70 ping is exponetially harder than 15 ping.


Probably put 300+ hours into BC2, and played it heavily during beta. Like I said, the netcode wasn't perfect, but I had no huge problems with it. It almost felt a bit too easy at times... (I had no problem sniping people with shotguns from 50m+).

#67 Posted by Jebus213 (8783 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"] You are forgetting that the player with the high ping will die very quickly because he has a lower chance to respond or take cover while under attack. imo the netcode is prettty balanced at high and low pings. It's really playable at high pings but doesn't have a big advantage.JigglyWiggly_

Works wonders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p933kkTUNs Happens all the time. More then any other game I've ever played. I've been shot 3-4 times in a row while being completely in cover. I mean really, Wanted wasn't that great of a movie.

that doesn't mean he is getting an advantage
that means he shot you and he hit you on his screen
but it takes time for it to register


also m16a3 is not OP, it's a very well balanced wep

you can compare the guns here

http://symthic.com/bf3-weapon-comparison#10-53-05-05


m16a3 recoil is very natural to the hand, which is why I like it


It rewards higher ping players in peek-a-boo situations. The stupid "lag compensator" predicts movement for players with higher ping. Here's a situation: Player A (ping: 200) and Player B (ping: 1) situated around a corner, unaware. Player A rushes. Player A sees B about 201ms early. (200ms from A to server, 1ms from server to B) Player B gets a whopping 2ms of lag compensation advantage and dies before he can see A round the corner. Teams in the US play teams in South America/Europe, and they get server pick, they'll usually use a rented server in South America/Europe just for the peek advantage time. It doesn't matter whether you think rewards players or not anyway. It happens all the time and it's incredibly annoying. Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ru-1mzteMTE#t=62s Yep, best netcode ever.
#68 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Bad company 2 easly, much beter designed maps, more destruction, and more balanced. BF3 has flash lights that blind you in day light.

#69 Posted by Cloud567kar (2656 posts) -

I liked the maps in BC2 way more.

#70 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Man all this hate on BC2's hit detection: I know it's far from perfect and can cause rage, but I can still get a lot of kills in matches and so do most people. Highest amount of kills I got in a match was 79.

#71 Posted by Wolfetan (7522 posts) -
Bad Company 2 all the way. Really enjoyed it and it was just a better experience for me. Didn't take its self to seriously ya know?rangegear
+1, Just overall more fun. Maybe it was I overplayed BC2 and then when I played BF3 I was bored with Battlefields? Not sure, but suffice to say, I hated the maps in BF3.
#72 Posted by realguitarhero5 (3900 posts) -

I think that the number of unlockables and variety in maps with vehicles or no vehicles keeps it entertaining, as well as the fact that the BFBC2 maps seem better suited to Rush, while I prefer Conquest, makes it a better game (for me), but BFBC2 had superior gun on gun action. The guns in BF3 aren't bad feeling or handling, but the guns in BFBC2 are a little more "game-y" and balanced.

#73 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23500 posts) -

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] Works wonders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p933kkTUNs Happens all the time. More then any other game I've ever played. I've been shot 3-4 times in a row while being completely in cover. I mean really, Wanted wasn't that great of a movie.Jebus213

that doesn't mean he is getting an advantage
that means he shot you and he hit you on his screen
but it takes time for it to register


also m16a3 is not OP, it's a very well balanced wep

you can compare the guns here

http://symthic.com/bf3-weapon-comparison#10-53-05-05


m16a3 recoil is very natural to the hand, which is why I like it


It rewards higher ping players in peek-a-boo situations. The stupid "lag compensator" predicts movement for players with higher ping. Here's a situation: Player A (ping: 200) and Player B (ping: 1) situated around a corner, unaware. Player A rushes. Player A sees B about 201ms early. (200ms from A to server, 1ms from server to B) Player B gets a whopping 2ms of lag compensation advantage and dies before he can see A round the corner. Teams in the US play teams in South America/Europe, and they get server pick, they'll usually use a rented server in South America/Europe just for the peek advantage time. It doesn't matter whether you think rewards players or not anyway. It happens all the time and it's incredibly annoying. Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ru-1mzteMTE#t=62s Yep, best netcode ever.

switch the players around (not their ping) but the scenarios, same thing

#74 Posted by Jebus213 (8783 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

that doesn't mean he is getting an advantage
that means he shot you and he hit you on his screen
but it takes time for it to register


also m16a3 is not OP, it's a very well balanced wep

you can compare the guns here

http://symthic.com/bf3-weapon-comparison#10-53-05-05


m16a3 recoil is very natural to the hand, which is why I like it


JigglyWiggly_

It rewards higher ping players in peek-a-boo situations. The stupid "lag compensator" predicts movement for players with higher ping. Here's a situation: Player A (ping: 200) and Player B (ping: 1) situated around a corner, unaware. Player A rushes. Player A sees B about 201ms early. (200ms from A to server, 1ms from server to B) Player B gets a whopping 2ms of lag compensation advantage and dies before he can see A round the corner. Teams in the US play teams in South America/Europe, and they get server pick, they'll usually use a rented server in South America/Europe just for the peek advantage time. It doesn't matter whether you think rewards players or not anyway. It happens all the time and it's incredibly annoying. Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ru-1mzteMTE#t=62s Yep, best netcode ever.

switch the players around (not their ping) but the scenarios, same thing

No, that's stupid. That how it works. It's not the same thing.
#75 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -
[QUOTE="rangegear"]Bad Company 2 all the way. Really enjoyed it and it was just a better experience for me. Didn't take its self to seriously ya know?Wolfetan
+1, Just overall more fun. Maybe it was I overplayed BC2 and then when I played BF3 I was bored with Battlefields? Not sure, but suffice to say, I hated the maps in BF3.

The BF3 DLC maps are worth playing.
#76 Posted by wis3boi (31294 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wolfetan"][QUOTE="rangegear"]Bad Company 2 all the way. Really enjoyed it and it was just a better experience for me. Didn't take its self to seriously ya know?mitu123
+1, Just overall more fun. Maybe it was I overplayed BC2 and then when I played BF3 I was bored with Battlefields? Not sure, but suffice to say, I hated the maps in BF3.

The BF3 DLC maps are worth playing.

the karkand and armored kill maps are what DICE wanted for bf3, I'm guessing EA asked them to make the small ones to appeal to the new audiences they wanted to attract

#77 Posted by Jebus213 (8783 posts) -
Okay so we can all agree that BF3's netcode is complete trash.
#78 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4125 posts) -
While BF3 is superior in almost every technical way, I had a lot more fun playing Bad Company 2. The maps were also MUCH better. Panama Canal FTW.
#79 Posted by wis3boi (31294 posts) -

Okay so we can all agree that BF3's netcode is complete trash.Jebus213

every BF game suffers the same thing

#80 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23500 posts) -

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] I'm not going to fault it, especially considering that it simply could be the smarter route given the scale of the game and all the netcode that must go into it. It's just I've played plenty of other games where I don't encounter any noticeable problems whatsoever, and Battlefield 3 isn't one of those games. I do see what Jiggly is talking about but I don't think BF3's netcode is all that much better than FPS games out there, nor did I find Bad Company's 2 to be noticeably worse.KHAndAnime

if you don't find BC2's worse, then you have either not played it enough or are pretty unobservant.

BC2's was so bad I couldn't play more than 30 minuts.
Zubin also found the hitreg unbearable.

I asked more casual friends and they couldn't tell a difference, which I don't understand how that's possible.

But, most people use steeringwheels to aim.
That or wiimotes.


Tribes ascend is another game that uses clientside hit detection for hitscan guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL05DjATZfw&hd=1

my shots count every time.

OFC the netcode in tribes ascend is like 10 leagues worse than BF3. Laggers stutter, movement isn't interpolated. Projectile weapons are not lag compensated, so using the assult rifle on 70 ping is exponetially harder than 15 ping.


Probably put 300+ hours into BC2, and played it heavily during beta. Like I said, the netcode wasn't perfect, but I had no huge problems with it. It almost felt a bit too easy at times... (I had no problem sniping people with shotguns from 50m+).

no i own it, played it recently
#81 Posted by AjaxNeron (2318 posts) -

Battlefield 3 has a lot more to offer and a much bigger player-base, but Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was a solid experience and the weapons were much more balanced.

#82 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Wolfetan"] +1, Just overall more fun. Maybe it was I overplayed BC2 and then when I played BF3 I was bored with Battlefields? Not sure, but suffice to say, I hated the maps in BF3.wis3boi

The BF3 DLC maps are worth playing.

the karkand and armored kill maps are what DICE wanted for bf3, I'm guessing EA asked them to make the small ones to appeal to the new audiences they wanted to attract

Maybe but I doubt it. DICE just wanted to show off their infantry gunplay a bit more, because it's so damn good. CQ is still the epitome of BF3 but TDM is becoming really good now. Afterall, TDM or SQDM are some of the most played modes and the smaller maps are where they do it. It's a great way to get into a lot of gunfights fast.

I don't hate them for doing it, I just think they could have done it better. I actually like the smalelr maps. Something like Alborz is too big for its own good. And all the funneling areas they tried to make in the mountains didn't work, it's a badly designed CQ map. But a great TDM map. They still haven't beaten Caspian Border, best map ever made IMO. It's just so good.

#83 Posted by Wolfetan (7522 posts) -
While BF3 is superior in almost every technical way, I had a lot more fun playing Bad Company 2. The maps were also MUCH better. Panama Canal FTW.Toxic-Seahorse
!
#84 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

BF3 did everything right, but maps and colors. BC2 had some of the best maps, and it looked nice, unlike the bland bf3

#85 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] The BF3 DLC maps are worth playing.seanmcloughlin

the karkand and armored kill maps are what DICE wanted for bf3, I'm guessing EA asked them to make the small ones to appeal to the new audiences they wanted to attract

Maybe but I doubt it. DICE just wanted to show off their infantry gunplay a bit more, because it's so damn good. CQ is still the epitome of BF3 but TDM is becoming really good now. Afterall, TDM or SQDM are some of the most played modes and the smaller maps are where they do it. It's a great way to get into a lot of gunfights fast.

I don't hate them for doing it, I just think they could have done it better. I actually like the smalelr maps. Something like Alborz is too big for its own good. And all the funneling areas they tried to make in the mountains didn't work, it's a badly designed CQ map. But a great TDM map. They still haven't beaten Caspian Border, best map ever made IMO. It's just so good.

TBH I'm not a huge fan of that map Alborz, probably my least fav of the AK maps.

#86 Posted by NightmareP3 (256 posts) -

Battlefield 3 but i can't really reccomend it either, both games are pretty bad imo.

Not nearly as good as the good ol' Battlefield games (Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2,Battlefield 2142)

Bad Company 2 suffers from small maps which have huge design flaws, 80% of the time you'll see one team spawn camping the other with helicopters 24/7, constnatly farming kills. Snipers are also one man armies, they can one shot people in any part of the body using bolt action riffles and can spam infinite artilary strikes that murder everything and destroy all structrues making the map a waste land filled with snipers hiding in trees and hills one shoting everyone.

Battlefield 3 is a lil bit better designed and has much larger maps however it suffers from the fact than it doesn't require much teamwork and than it's more focused on measuring E-peens with KDr and not working as a team to achieve victory like in the older games.

Bad Company 2 was also the game that made the IQ level of the BF community drop to below 80, Battlefield fans and players now act like immature children that keep praising BF 24/7 saying it's an innovative amazing game, yet nothing has changed in Battlefield at all in these past few years, except for the fact than now you can blow up a few buildings. So pretty much they're like COD fanboys now, except they belive they're "more mature" and "smarter" yet they act on the same level of inteligence as the COD community.

#87 Posted by Gooeykat (3360 posts) -
I liked BC2 for the rush maps, for whatever reason I just don't like the BF3 maps for rush, so it's conquest only. Occasionally I'll go back and play BC2 for this reason.
#88 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

So pretty much they're like COD fanboys now

NightmareP3

COD ruins yet another series.D=

#89 Posted by Gammit10 (2261 posts) -
BFBC2 has only a few usable classes and it was boring to me. BF3 had more options and was more fun. Planetside 2 over both, though. :)
#90 Posted by speedysam123 (91 posts) -

BFBC2 has only a few usable classes and it was boring to me. BF3 had more options and was more fun. Planetside 2 over both, though. :)Gammit10

I don't really get planetside.

#91 Posted by bonafidetk (3820 posts) -

Nothing beats 1 hit helicopter destruction with guided rockets in BC2. BF3 is just pure lazy with lock-on crap that half the time it doesnt work or is simple to avoid. I also miss UAV's. It was my go-to when I was bored in BC2. Hopefully both will be making a return in BF4. I cant see any other reason to buy it honestly.

#92 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Nothing beats 1 hit helicopter destruction with guided rockets in BC2. BF3 is just pure lazy with lock-on crap that half the time it doesnt work or is simple to avoid. I also miss UAV's. It was my go-to when I was bored in BC2. Hopefully both will be making a return in BF4. I cant see any other reason to buy it honestly.

bonafidetk

UAVs are annoying!

#93 Posted by speedysam123 (91 posts) -

So, battlefield bad company 2 has a better colors, gameplay, maps, and it requires alot more teamwork. While Battlefield 3 is bland but still looks good?

#94 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

So, battlefield bad company 2 has a better colors, gameplay, maps, and it requires alot more teamwork. While Battlefield 3 is bland but still looks good?

speedysam123
That seems to be it pretty much.
#95 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23500 posts) -

So, battlefield bad company 2 has a better colors, gameplay, maps, and it requires alot more teamwork. While Battlefield 3 is bland but still looks good?

speedysam123
no
#96 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

So, battlefield bad company 2 has a better colors, gameplay, maps, and it requires alot more teamwork. While Battlefield 3 is bland but still looks good?

speedysam123

You revived this topic just to say this?

#97 Posted by simple-thomas (32 posts) -
BC2 is probably my favourite game of all time that I have played on-line BF3 is the game I currently play and I love it. If I could send the BF3 community back to BC2 I would but since I can't I recommend you the most recent one, BF3. But I honestly think you could get both games, they are not that expensive and they both will blow your mind away. If you really just get one just know this: - BC2 has a smaller community and is more oriented towards physical combat, as in the soldier - BF3 has a bigger community and is oriented towards vehicles even though there's an expansion just for Close Quarters Combat All the rest, they converge, they both award players for team-playing and they are both awesome. But now it's up to you, take your pick and I'll see you in-game.
#98 Posted by speedysam123 (91 posts) -

I recently bought battlefield bad company 2, and it runs 30-40 fps on my intel hd graphics low settings 1024x768 :D

#99 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

I CAN reccomend both, but BF3 is better.

#100 Posted by biggest_loser (24047 posts) -

BF3 because its actually playable. I've spent over 200 hours on BF3 and about 10 on Bad Cruddy 2.