I've recently herd about the release of Battlefield 2: Bad Comapny, and many of my classmates say that it's going to be better than Modern Warfare 2 (aww . . .). This say this due to the many features it has that MW2 doesn't, like the fact that 90% of the game's environment can be destroyed or "re-shaped" by the player. I'm still loyal to Modern Wafare 2 though, because I belive that MW2 is better than Bad Company. Why?

Modern Warfare 2 has:

  • Fully Customizable weapons
  • An interative but not destructable environment: What fun is a MP match if someone's leveled half the map, along with your favourite sniping spots?
  • Perks
  • Kill/Death Streaks
  • More realisim: MW2 features a RPG-7 with iron sights, but Bad Company 2 features a RPG-7 with a scope. (WTF?) The Battlefield Wiki also says that the M1911 in-game takes "four to three shots to kill".

But Battefield 2: Bad Comapny also features some of my old favourites, such as the M1 Garand, Thompson, and M1911, so there is a good side to it for me. But since I don't own the game (but I have played it once), I'd like to hear your opinions.

Do you think Battefield 2: Bad Comapny is a Modern Warfare 2 Killer?

TacKnifeNarrow Captain Hax 217 T C E 23:44, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

(I know there has been similar blog posts out there; no need to tell me that)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.