Author Topic: Homefront vs. CoD vs. Battlefield  (Read 2849 times)

real battlefield games > homefront > cod games >>>>> battlefield bad company games

imp

Battlefield 3 looks amazing graphically and fundamentally.

real battlefield games = homefront = cod games = battlefield bad company games

imp

Battlefield Vietnam = Call of Duty games > Battlefield 2 >>>>>>>> Battlefield Bad Company 2

That's all the battlefields I've played.

Gameplay

CoD MW2 is filled with grenade cigarettes, campers, hackers, idiots, noobs, whatever, grenade launcher noobs and so on. At least that's what I recognize when I go to my friend and we play CoD MW2.
I never played Homefront.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a nice physics system, but it's not compatible on low-end computers too much, inspecially when you have a building infront of you and someone shoots it with a rocket launcher. However, thanks to the huge maps, recons (snipers) can indeed camp but it's not much effective as you must advance in the battlefield with every ocassion or such.

Maps

CoD MW2 maps are intended for Close Combat, snipers aren't useful on most of the maps, unless you want to be a quick scoper forgettard and kill a person 2 meters away with a sniper.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 maps are huge, thus allowing vehicles in a easy, useful and yet dangerous (good use of mines etc.) manner.

Graphics

CoD MW2 graphics aren't bad at all and they are compatible with low-end computers.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a better engine which supports better graphics, but they are not compatibile with low-end computers.

Grenades

On CoD MW2 grenades are a serious problem, listed on "Gameplay".
On Battlefield however, grenades aren't much useful, usually used to take down parts (or entire) buildings, same case as C4.

DLC

While CoD MW2 has a DLC to include newer maps, Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a DLC (Vietnam) to include a bunch of new vehicles, maps, weapons, players and a new style of gameplay.

With this I will now leave the forums for today as it's late here... a bit too late...

Battlefield Vietnam = Call of Duty games > Battlefield 2 >>>>>>>> Battlefield Bad Company 2

That's all the battlefields I've played.

none of the above, tbh. i prefer battlefield 2142's gameplay over all of them but it's still flawed

TRIBES 2, TAKE A FOURTH OPTION

CoD MW2 is filled with grenade cigarettes, campers, hackers, idiots, noobs, whatever, grenade launcher noobs and so on.


1- Aka people using the games weapons how they are supposed to be used and utilizing maps for positions that let them get kills.

2- Sure, now there is, but back then, they were only then sprouting out in xbox around may-june noticeably for Xbox, but none of PS3.

This was easily avoidable, but now, yes, there are a lot of hackers. No one really cares about the game anymore though, so what do you expect?

3- AKA free kills

Also, they added grenades for a reason. Unlike 80% of other games where grenades do jack-squat, you actually have to be aware with explosions all around and what-not.


I enjoyed Homefront for about 1 1/2 hours.

Then my mom broke it in half.

I enjoyed Homefront for about 1 1/2 hours.

Then my mom broke it in half.

I'm starting to like your mom.

Also, I don't think that HomeFront should be awarded for it's story. It's so close to the story from HL2 it's just laughable. THe develpoers even stated at E3 that they were "inspired" by HL2.

Wha-?
I mean, I haven't finished HL2 (and haven't played Homefront but I've read about the storyline) so maybe I'm just... I dunno. I just don't see how you could think that. And anyways, it's obvious the singleplayer in Homefront isn't the main selling point of the game, it's the multiplayer.

I enjoyed Homefront for about 1 1/2 hours.

Then my mom broke it in half.
break your mom in half

Real Battlefields=CoD4/CoD2>homefront(im tempted to buy)>bfbc

i lold because its way easier to quickscope in bad compy 2