Note the nice scenary ^
Note: Whenever I say COD I mean MW2.
Well I have heard this debate quite a lot and I am putting my amazing judgement to the test, and will talk about these two games. The one thing I hear most about is "Dude BFBC2's graphics are epic" then a fanboi ses "No it's graphics suck, and MW graphics are much better."
Now let me just say something right here. If you ever... I MEAN EVER say BBC2's graphics suck you are making a fool out of yourself. I know a lot of people who say it has horrible graphics compared to any COD game and they are just making fools of themselves. BFBC2 has amazing graphics, but has a much different ****compared to MW. Battlefield seems to work a lot on lighting, and shadows which makes it a gorgeous game to look at. While COD seems to have this rigid, dull lighting. Just saying. The lighting on Battlefield is some of the best lighting I have seen in a FPS and is really nice. You can see light shining through leaves in a jungle, and there are many awesome moments where you want to just stand there and appreciate the work that went into the environment. Snow levels are also good with the amount of detail of how the snow flows over roads, and much of the lighting itself. Truly awesome affects.
Okay I explained lighting, but what about graphics. BFBC2 also has good graphics, but they are much different than COD's graphics. COD seems to have very rigid graphics that honestly hurt my eyes. The lines on objects seem pixelated, and a bit off. The game is also very gray, and kind of boring. Now here is where the comparison of graphics really comes in. COD has good textures, while BFBC2 has good textures, but not as good. This is where some people say COD is better. Now here is an analogy. Imagine someone has two masks, and let's say they are monster masks. One mask has a picture of a scary monster on it, and the picture is incredibly detailed. Though the mask itself is flat. The other mask is 3Dimensional and has a lot of details on it. Which one is better? Well one mask is detailed, but flat, while the other is actually life like. This is COD vs BFBC2. COD has good textures, but in the end what makes something life like is the fine details that go into it, and the things you can actually touch and see, not the things you can imagine are there.
Gameplay: Now this is all matter of opinion. COD of duty seems to be a bit more for people with short attention spans (this isn't an insult) while BFBC2 is for people who strategize. COD is by far one of the easiest games to get into which is why a lot of people like it. You can't really lose in it because the maps are so small, and there are so many enemies that combat is fast, and frequent. Though just saying from my opinion: this is kind of dull and reptitive. Just my opinion though. COD is good for playing quick games, and getting lots of kills. The maps are so-so and some weapons are pretty interesting (mention Black-ops and its new weapons). Now BFBC2 I have to say is the closest to movie action sequences as a game can get. The maps are HUGE. Miles long, and pretty epic. The nice thing that BFBC2 has is vehicles which is one thing COD hasn't picked up on. Then again COD is COD because it has no vehicles. Either way BF has many awesome moments where a tank comes rolling down a hill and starts knocking over buildings, but then a mortar strike hits it, but then an Apache swoops in and clears out all of the soldiers and snipers. The combat is fast paced, but not in the same sense of COD. Battlefield also has the option to customize on the fly. It doesn't sound like much, but it means you can constantly change your ****everytime you respawn which allows you to fight for different situations better.
Now I have played both games, and I do find them both fun to play, but BFBC2 seems to be the better game in my opinion. The combat is crazy epic, and there are things that happen in this game that remind you of only the coolest of movies. It is a well set up game, and the ****s are very even. The thing that really makes COD and BF different is the objectives. COD is for killing, while BF is objective based.
Sound: BF's sound effects are very life like. The guns sound very accurate, and the sound of missiles hitting near you sound very good. Explosions will sound differently depending on what material you are standing next to. If you are in an open battlefield it is a bit quieter, but it echoes. Inside a building it makes you virtually deaf and you will hear it echo for several seconds, while hearing the sound of bits of plaster hitting the floor. COD has some good sound effects as well, but whenver I play it I seem sort of distant as if I'm not really there.
Map: Now this is hands down to BFBC2. BF series has almost always had good maps and this game is no exception. The maps are very well designed, and everything in the maps are balanced. In one of the snow levels there are two buildings standing next to each other, and both are destroyable. Across from them is a short building also. This one part of the level, but it is set up so well but you don't realize it. The battles in this area are crazy because one building is defending while the other building will blow holes in the side of it, and can actually jump from one building to another. Hard to describe. Also since the maps are miles long it is like having 8 COD maps in one BFBC map. The battles are always different in one level because you constantly move around in the map to find more areas that are built for different kinds of fighting. Now again not trying to diss COD but COD maps are very small, and very simple. I have played a bit of COD myself and the maps always seem so simple, and kind of poorly designed. Again, just saying.
Physics: Now this is a short paragraph. Just saying BFBC2 has bullet gravity, and also there are some cool stuff with your clothing as well. Your clothing will actually depending on how you move. With the sniper, the fake grass on it moves very well. When you turn to the left it blows back to the right slightly because from you turning the air is hitting them, and pushing them back. But when you turn to the right they collapse because of the same reason. COD has some physics with it, but they seem realistic, and not realistic. The knife: yeah I'm sure knives do that. The rest of it is good though.
Animations: Again another hands down to: BFBC2. The animations in this game are very fluid, and go at a very nice frame rate. The animations on characters actually flow from one animation to another, instead of just jumping from one animation to another. This is the one thing that really makes me annoyed in COD is that when you see someone run by you they don't seem to run properly, move properly, or even look like an actual person. It confuses me to see other players in COD because they move irregularly.
Overall: This is just my opinion so no flaming. In my opinion BFBC2 is the better game. COD may be fun, but most fanboys seem to skip all of the problems with COD and call it a perfect game. BFBC2 isn't a perfect game, but certainly is a good game. COD is a good game too, but it is absolutely ugly to watch. So I guess it depends if you really care about how good looking your game is. So yeah. Done with my banter.
Battlefield bad company 2:
Modern Warfare 2