This game recieved quite a hype leading up to release day. How would it stack up against it’s biggest competitor, Modern Warfare 2? The real competition was not waged in single player, but in the competitive based multiplayer. Who would come out victorious: the squad based, tactical method of Battlefield and Dice, or the “run-and-gun” method favoured by Call of Duty fans and Infinity Ward?
First, however, the single player campaign must be adressed.
Modern Warfare 2: The (relatively) short campaign, clocking in at around 8 hours of game play. A fairly solid entry in the COD series Highlights include the entirety of the final level, and the fact the AI won’t keep spawning until you cross “x” tripwire.
Bad Company 2: Still, rather short, clocking in at around 10 hours. The real standout in this is the characters. They are just great. From Haggard’s idiocy, to Sarge’s sternness, they all work together, playing off each other with perfect timing.
Both: Story-wise, it all seems to blend together. “Oh no. [insert terrorist group/member here] has a [insert weapon or knowledge crucial to United States downfall] we must stop them…with a small group of soldiers.
A point to Battlefield.
MW: Not great. Not bad though, just not a standout performance based on some of the bigger name games out there. Many levels seemed a bit cramped, with not much exploration available, no options for better firing positions, etc.
BC: The first thing you see when you load up a mission is the amazing quality of the maps. It’s obvious that the team at EA worked very hard on these, and the fact that they utilized the quality of the hardware available to them really paid off. The draw distance is amazing, allowing you to take in vast vistas and incredible scenes.
One more for Battlefield.
MW: Spec. Ops. This is an awesome addition to the game, and even after finishing the main campaign this mode provides a real challenge (particularly Echo) for you and a friend or online companion. Will definitely improve if they ever get around to releasing the DLC they promised.
BC: No split screen, no points
One to Modern Warfare.
Now, the main affair, Multi-player.
MW: Pretty good. Not stellar, not amazing just “good”. Run of the mill to anyone who has played COD online before, especially Modern warfare 1. Plenty of game modes, generally something for everyone. I just found that the third person modes seemed a bit tacked on, as they looked less polished than the rest of them. Now, the glitch’s keep hitting the game, or the hackers keep coming back. I can’t really blame Infinity Ward, the only suggestion is, next time release a beta and get most of the bugs fixed next time.
BC: A great effort by the team at Dice, I commend them for there success. After a great first game, this has been improved upon over and over. Great class selection, and I particularly enjoyed the squad. If you don’t work together with your squad mates, the entire team begins to suffer, and, to quote Jessica Chobot, “The games called Bad Company for a reason, without Company, all you have is Bad.” My only complaint is that there are limited games modes, compared to the large amount in Modern Warfare, and that during the first few days, I found that the servers were down for a little bit.
Another one to Battlefield.
And now, the final result.
The winner, with a margin of 3 points to 1, is…..Battlefield Bad Company II!
With a stellar multi-player, great characters and amazing presentation, Battlefield comes out victorious, and rightly so.
In the end, Modern Warfare couldn’t live up to the hype that had surrounded it since early in development. If it had been a lesser known franchise, it may have faced less problems than it has, but, in the current situation, the game cannot face it’s competitor and come up victorious.
This article is based on the Xbox 360 versions of these games.