question to people who prefer BF:BC to COD/MW

II SAL II · 11-10-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamspy

Console gamers can't coordinate 32 man teams Rail.

Usually a simple match of CTF on XBL turns into a deathmatch.

that’s why BFBC puts you in a 4 man squad so you can talk to just your other 3 teammates and come up with a game plan. Realistically it would be really freaking hard to tell 16 people on your team how to play as a team. So they simplify this process by putting you in a 4 man squad and having each squad come up with there own game plan to attack. The difference and better formula than prior Battlefield games is that you dotn have capture points to take that that are spread all over the place. Everything is right in front of you and the whole team is either attacking or defending 1 flag point not multiples. That is the one flaw that BF1942 and other older version had. And because of that you don’t need 64 people playing an online match. Having 12 vs 12 is perfect because the map size and goal for each side is linear.

KEEBS1984 · 11-10-2009, 10:52 AM

The Battlefield series are known for their expansive maps, vehicular combat, and real-world battle like scenarios. Of which CoD is not. So because of that alone I'd have to side with Battlefield.

Honestly I just prefer to be able to play a game in more ways than one...

Mase · 11-10-2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railven

Gah?

Sorry I didn't play BF1943, refuse to pay for a console version of a great PC game. But BF1942 on the PC was definitely squad based. More so squad based than any CoD could be.

Search and Destroy is fun and all, but trying to take a freaking bunker up a hill heavily fortified with 40 of your mates is FUCKING INSANE! It's like "Aight Jay24, Return2, and Railven flank the left we'll provide cover fire, and hopefully one of you bastards is still alive to plant the charge."

Of course, playing a random match with no friends BF can easily degrade to CoD run and gun style.

Nah, saying BF isn't squad based is like saying Halo has the best cover system known to man.

I need to start clarifying myself more, by squad based I mean small incursions over and over. While BF is a constant battle, very little rest and you always have to be on your guard. Good Snipers can clip you from across the map and you would never know where they were, COD is just small scale war, ie squad based skirmishes

Glow, groundwar is a lot of fun if played with people who treat it as an objective style of game..

11-10-2009, 10:52 AM	#17
KEEBS1984 FIFA 10 > PES 2010 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: PORTLAND!!!... OR Posts: 2,627	The Battlefield series are known for their expansive maps, vehicular combat, and real-world battle like scenarios. Of which CoD is not. So because of that alone I'd have to side with Battlefield. Honestly I just prefer to be able to play a game in more ways than one...