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