BBC2 or MW2?

Ratchet525 said:

its so funny watching you guys get pissed.

You miss the point ratchet, entirely.  90% of your posts, like this one, contribute NOTHING to the discussion at hand.  You sit there wondering why we don't get your posts, when in reality, you are the one who does not get it.  We understand what “No” means.  We don't understand how that was supposed to contribute to what we are talking about.

@Mojo – okay, I like the picture.  Actually its pretty funny, cause its mostly accurate.  Theres definitely a few maps that don't follow that formula, and the ones that do tend to piss me off because of assloads of snipers watching the bottleneck.  Nonetheless, if you're saying “its a bunch of cod maps stitched together” well,,, at least they're 5 times bigger than COD maps.  The nice thing about them is that in different modes you play different areas, and really the bottlenecks are only a problem in rush mode.  In conquest and deathmatch its much less linear, and I don't really notice that issue.  I also enjoy that theres a consistent mix in the maps between urban and rural warfare – sure theres not buildings all the time, that'd be too easy, since you can blow them up.  The fact that there are sections you have to move up through where your only cover is the camoflauge of the foliage around you can be pretty fun, but also frustrating at times.  Overall they balance those elements well, and it works with the destructibility of the environments.

The Mario 64 glitch I was referring to is that theres a way to run THROUGH the train.  Not just ride the tracks.  Plus it was an example off the top of my head and not the best one.  I'd come up with more but you should get the idea – games have never been glitch free, and never will be.  Thanks to the internet, some of those glitches can be fixed post-release, which is a good thing for the most part – but I'm sure you're right that some developers take advantage of that.  I think IW definitely rode that train, but BFBC2 looks like they really tried to eliminate as many things as they could before release – as they should have, what with the claims of competing with MW2. 

As for the beta, I was not confused.  I was referring to the public ones.  I know, theres internal testing of course.  Hiring a team of people to do testing means paying people.  Lets say thats ~$35,000 per year per person.  Average COD game = 16 players (I think).  Do the math, thats some money right there.  Lets assume they had two full teams of people doing the testing.  Now do that versus having several thousand people do the testing for free.  Sure, the feedback isn't as professional (but I know nerds, they love to complain when something goes wrong), but with more people doing it you are definitely going to find way more glitches to fix – and it shows by the number there were on release day comparing the two games.  I reiterate, on day one of MW2, the servers didn't even work.  On day two, it was glitched to high hell.  On day now, it is still insanely glitched.  BFBC2 on day one had less glitches than MW2 has now.  If that doesn't do it for you, then heres a list of the things that were fixed during BFBC2's public beta:

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/365311.page

Sure its not everything, but damn thats a lot, and some of it is pretty significant.  Public betas are free mass testing, and are effective if the company makes good use of it.  I don't see why the wouldn't, and think it was a huge mistake on IW's part to have not done so.

:::ahhhh::: now that all of that is out there, I will say I stick to my opinion of BFBC2 being better for all the reasons originally cited.  Destructible buildings, Vehicles, Maps that shift to new locations as you play, Classes that encourage team work, the squad spawning system, and the actual potential for tactical warfare to occur.  I can tell a major difference when I play with friends who communicate in BFBC2, because we support each other and balance our classes.  In all CoD games, it has never made a difference in how we play or perform, I just have someone to bullshit with while shooting people.  I guess in the end its still all a matter of preference, and I've made mine incredibly apparent.

Mojo said:

Post edited 5:44 pm – 04/20/2010 by Mojo

---

Games were never fully glitch free, no. But they never had the severity of glitches you find now. When I buy a new game, I expect glitches. I expect game breakers, and I expect to have to wait for a patch.

Thats really why I don't buy many games at launch anymore. I got burnt with Mercs 2 (bought it at launch, which means I can NEVER get tattooed millionaire), so I wait now until I read up on glitches/broken games, etc.

I think you have both made amazing posts in this thread.

I played MW2 online for a while, but the online is broken, especially if the host doesn't have a good connection. It is fun when it worked like it was intended too, but that was maybe 50% of the time.  I haven't played BFBC2 yet, although I did play the demo, and it was awesome (no lag, actual teamwork). I want to get it though, as long as the online is not like MW2, with the P2P garbage.

And do not forget Resistance 2 😀

Ok but Killzone was on another planet and Resistance had alot to do with alien technology so they should have had a different feel to them.

 @Mojo ok man 1. i said it was the conversation 101 definition i didnt care about , so throw that out

 2.So you have to use smaller words next time hey , where in “BBC2 maps are shitty little COD maps stitched together” did you use a big word ?  Together might be a big word for you but not everyone

 The thing is i wasnt trying to have a personal go at you i just knew you couldnt back it up , which you cant.

For anyone else who agree's i was inciting come-backs what about “@dizzel wat?”

I'd love to play BC2 but dont quite have the cash right now. I did love playing MW2 online, but I've just discovered how amazing Uncharted 2 is online!!! can't bloody well wait for new dlc tomorrow!

I773D33MABL3 said:

Post edited 11:31 am – 04/21/2010 by I773D33MABL3

---

@Dizzel

A game doesn't need to be on another planet or involve alien weaponry to feel different. 

BC1 played completely differently to MW1. They were both modern war-based shooters but they still managed to be distinct. 

BC had huge, sprawling maps that invited a range of options for playing the game even when limited to only two game modes. The lower damage done by guns meant shoot-outs weren't always won by the person that started shooting first. You had time to react and fight back. 

BC2 has definitely made some improvements but it's also become a lot more stream-lined and confined.

Sure i agree that maps dont have to be on another planet to feel different , but it definatley helps. With anything based on Earth they really have to keep it to only a few types of area , but with it being on another planet they can just make it up as they go.

So then i guess the question that should have been asked a page or 2 ago is “is BBC2 distinct from MW2?” (even though we were only talking about the maps i'll run with this) and it is there are way too many differences between the 2 (maps and otherwise) for it not to be known as distinctly different.

BigWoopMagazine said:

@Mojo – We've kinda run this topic into the ground, but I'd like to note that not all games have this level of severity when it comes to glitches.  Just the multiplayer ones.  Most single player games lately have been pretty good about it – at  least, the ones I buy… and the glitches they do have aren't as in your face game breakingly close.  Games like Infamous, Dead Space (although theres an item duping glitch, but you have to look it up to do it), Red Faction Guerilla, Batman AA, Soul Calibur 4, Tekken 6, Little Big Planet, and God of War 3 (as far as I know).  Even the games we're talking about here, MW2 and BFBC2, if you stay offline theres virtually no glitches.  Same with Uncharted 2 (which while even that has had its glitches, seems to provide the most reliably good online games in the past year), and probably a few others I can't think of right now.  Anyway, my point is that regardless of how well made a game is, as soon as it gets users connecting to eachother, the potential for glitches rises exponentially.  I'm not saying that either game is made really well or really poorly, just that this is an inevitability for what they are trying to accomplish.

I agree that single player games aren't half as bad as multiplayer, but then, maybe that's because there's no one there to exploit the glitches and make them game breaking?

Maybe I'm biased because the last few games I've played have been lacking in polish, but I think that overall, these days, we expect thing to go wrong in a game.

When I was going for my Plat in BC1, all the way through I had my fingers crossed that it wouldn't glitch like so many others. I was lucky to get it, but I know too many people who didn't.

DICE can fix the glitch, or manually give the plat to those who got screwed, but they never did.