This topic is locked from further discussion.
Initially i was turned off by the control layout of bf:bc but after a while i got comfortable with it (with the exeption of the sprint button). Your squads and the enemy's ai is pretty crappy tho. Online its alot of fun but its so laggy but thats no surprise bf games always start of buggy. a patch or 2 should fix it
Which one was better in your opinion? I only want to DL one since they take a long time to DL?brad52
Okay... let me offer this opinion. Maybe I'm being a little hard on BF:BC, but I'm very disappointed. I can't believe that I've been waiting over a year to play this abomination! I am going to Gamestop today and cancelling my reserved copy and putting the money toward Unreal Tournament 3 in hopes that some f-tard didn't jack up the formula to that franchise as well.
BF2MC was a great game, not perfect, but fun. Sure it had its share of problems (like the ability to glitch into walls, the poor voice communication system and the good chance that you'll play Backstab and Bridge Too Far a million times in a row without seeing another map), but the problems on BF2MC just had a few minor things that needed to be cleaned up. The whole gameplay formula didn't need to be changed. For example, the vehicles all handled very well, each weapons kit in the game was extremely effective, you could parachute from high elevations to get across the map faster and take vantage points and you had the ability to go prone. It included a fun arcade element along with strategies that required some pretty good improvising (IE. Loading up 3 C4s on a jeep to ghost ride it into a tank that is pounding your team). All DICE had to do was fix a couple of the problems, add a new feature or two and create 15 new maps. I would have bought that package in a second!
BF:BC has done to the Battlefield franchise as Joel Schoemacher had done to the Batman movie franchise. It tweeked the basic gameplay formula (which didn't need to be tweeked) and tried to jam too many things into one game. I like having new features, however do them right. The gameplay in BFBC sucks. The vehicles handle like crap. You are limited in the ability to take the same vantage points as you did in BF2MC, and though there are more guns.... most of them have the exact same statistics (they just look different... its like, "Hey, I'm going to give you 100 cars to choose from, only they are all Hyundai Excels... but they come in different colors... OOOOHHHH!").
The only good thing about BFBC is the destructive environment. Much like communism, it looked great on paper but was poor in execution. So in summary, I can knock down trees and walls while driving a vehicle that handles horribly in a pathetic game. If you want to waste your money on something slightly better, go rent Freddy Got Fingered from Blockbuster. That bomb of a movie isn't half the abortion of a production as Bad Company.
I would go with BF:BC demo as it has online and offline play.
torontomapleafs
Civilization Revolution ALSO has online and offline play. When someone is wondering which demo is better, why would you bother posting a suggestion when you have clearly only played one of them.
Havnt played the Civ demo, but the Battlefield beta and demo where complete trash and the worst shooter on the 360 hands down. Up there with Two Worlds as the worst game on the 360.
I own all the civ games on PC (1-4) though, and no game can be worse then two worlds or this new battlefield game.
Havnt played the Civ demo, but the Battlefield beta and demo where complete trash and the worst shooter on the 360 hands down. Up there with Two Worlds as the worst game on the 360.
I own all the civ games on PC (1-4) though, and no game can be worse then two worlds or this new battlefield game.
kozzy1234
That sounds awfully biased...
[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]Havnt played the Civ demo, but the Battlefield beta and demo where complete trash and the worst shooter on the 360 hands down. Up there with Two Worlds as the worst game on the 360.
I own all the civ games on PC (1-4) though, and no game can be worse then two worlds or this new battlefield game.
spartan----117
That sounds awfully biased...
I played the beta and demo for battlefield and i hated it, not beign biased, just hated it, its a terrible game from what ive played.
I also said that i havnt tried the civ demo, so for all i know the civ demo would be a better bet, as i dont think many games can be worse then battlefield. I am a huge fan of the battlefield series, but i hate this new one, its complete trash imo.
Basically just saying that ive never played a demo or beta as bad as this battlefield one, ever. So the odds are pretty good that id enjoy the civ demo more or hate it less then the battlefield one, because out of thousnads of demos ive played over hte years (on pc and 360), that battlefield one is the worst.
Just my personal opinion
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment