Bad Co. 2 VS. MW2 (single player)

#1 Posted by Funzzo (951 posts) -

I have both MW2 and bad co 2. I bought them for the single player not the multiplayer.  I was very happy with the SP in MW2. It was fun and I beat it in about 6-8 hours. I then started to play the multiplayer and got my ass kicked. People who play the game non stop and get way good I don't mind, it's the hackers that killed my MW2 experience. You can buy wall hacks and aim mods for fuck sake! Keep in mind I am playing on a PC. Once I got badco2 all of my friends were like "fuck MW2 it sucks balls compaired to badco2" Anyway I started playing the SP on badco2 and I do not like it as much as the SP in MW2, theres just something about it that  feels lazy or rushed. I am now playing the multiplayer in badco2 and I love it. Its hard and I still get my ass kicked but there are no cheaters or hackers that I have seen anyway.  So to sum this up I think both games are great but when it comes to the single player experience  Modern Warfare 2 wins for me anyway. What do you think about the SP in BadCo2 or MW2.

#2 Posted by natetodamax (19415 posts) -
@Funzzo said:
" I bought them for the single player not the multiplayer.   
Then you wasted $120
#3 Posted by Marz (5692 posts) -
@natetodamax said:
" @Funzzo said:
" I bought them for the single player not the multiplayer.   
Then you wasted $120 "
#4 Posted by Funzzo (951 posts) -

How is it a waste? I enjoy both games?
#5 Posted by natetodamax (19415 posts) -
@Funzzo said:
" How is it a waste? I enjoy both games? "
Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2 are primarily multiplayer games, the latter probably more so than the former.
#6 Posted by big_jon (6092 posts) -
@natetodamax:
In your opinion. How is is a waste if he enjoys it?
#7 Posted by l4wd0g (2186 posts) -

Personally, I like BC2 SP better . MW2 wasn’t a slouch by any means, but it was like being lead down corridor after corridor. BC 2 I could relate and enjoy the colorful conversations, the humor, and the overall shooting experience.    

#8 Edited by sandwich_adjustment (703 posts) -

I preferred badcompany 2 single player because of the destruction and seemingly more varied combat. If I started to get clever and take too long to complete the objectives in MW2 i would get shot and killed asap. BC2 I was able to do the scripted sequence and then have a dynamic firefight at a location, which I could complete a few different ways. 

#9 Edited by Hoppondeez420 (46 posts) -

Funzzo, to answer your question and not be a flaming dickhead like some people, I thought both campaigns were good, although MW2 seemed like it had greater set pieces. I loved all the previous Call of Duty multiplayer but for some reason, maybe it was the customizable killstreaks or all the hackers, I just couldnt get into MW2 multi. I love how the battlefield multi demands a greater sense of teamwork if your trying to get the best squad of the round. That and flying around a helo as my buddies spray down machine gun fire will never get old to me.

#10 Posted by REIGN (267 posts) -
@big_jon said:
" @natetodamax: In your opinion. How is is a waste if he enjoys it? "
Because neither of the single player experiences are worth $60 on their own.
#11 Posted by big_jon (6092 posts) -

@REIGN:

In your opinion    

#12 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6805 posts) -
@REIGN said:
" @big_jon said:
" @natetodamax: In your opinion. How is is a waste if he enjoys it? "
Because neither of the single player experiences are worth $60 on their own. "
That's subjective though, it's not a waste if he finds it's worth 60 bucks, not to mention there is also a fun ass split screen mode for MW2 (SpecOps)
#13 Posted by REIGN (267 posts) -
@xobballox said:
" @REIGN said:
" @big_jon said:
" @natetodamax: In your opinion. How is is a waste if he enjoys it? "
Because neither of the single player experiences are worth $60 on their own. "
That's subjective though, it's not a waste if he finds it's worth 60 bucks, not to mention there is also a fun ass split screen mode for MW2 (SpecOps) "
Tru dat duder. Forgot about spec-ops. That is a value-add for sure.
#14 Posted by Hoppondeez420 (46 posts) -
@natetodamax: Dude ever since the first COD there was a Single Player aspect that was arguably better than most FPS. Battlefield 1942 was a multiplayer only game, basically all the way up until BadCompany 1 was there ever a stand alone single player part of the game. So if anything its the other way around, although I would argue nowadays that the single players in both are still better than most FPS.
#15 Posted by Jeffk38uk (725 posts) -

I'd have to agree with the OP that as far as singleplayer is concerned, Modern Warfare 2 is just that much better. There wasn't that sense of urgancy in what Bad Company was trying to accomplish. The russians are invading. Why? How come they had had all of eastern europe and south america under their influence? It's never explained. Even the climatic ending didnt feel that climatic. They revealed the final weapon.....ok. Then its good job, now you got to go somehwere cause the Russians are invading! Not that they weren't since the very beginning.
 
Modern Warfare 2, while waaaaay over the top and piled on way to many of the BIG surprises and set pieces, was still enjoyable because it was so over the top and hollywood about the whole chain of events. The story was just more engaging that way. 
 
Battlefield multiplayer is more enjoyable tho because of its grand size and reliance more on teamwork and passive assistance than MW2's top dog killer motif.

Online
#16 Posted by SilentCommando (607 posts) -

As much as I love BC2, I agree that MW2's singlepalyer was more engaging. I felt more compelled to complete the missions in MW2 than in BC2. However, the multiplayer is an entirely different story.

#17 Posted by YoThatLimp (1997 posts) -
@SilentCommando said:
" As much as I love BC2, I agree that MW2's singlepalyer was more engaging. I felt more compelled to complete the missions in MW2 than in BC2. However, the multiplayer is an entirely different story. "
This, cand CoD4>MW2 story wise IMO
#18 Posted by Meteora (5844 posts) -
Modern Warfare 2 is definitely the better game for singleplayer than Bad Company 2. The production value behind it is clear and obvious, with set pieces after set pieces that make the single player that intense and memorable. Unfortunately, they crammed too much hollywood elements into the game as well as "oh shit" moments that made the experience also exhausting and tiring; being inferior to COD4's single player IMO. It was sorta a shame because I could see the effort put into the game. The developers just went overboard with everything. I suppose its not surpising because it would sell a shitload of copies and had a lot of hype.
 
@Metalideth said:
" @SilentCommando said:
" As much as I love BC2, I agree that MW2's singlepalyer was more engaging. I felt more compelled to complete the missions in MW2 than in BC2. However, the multiplayer is an entirely different story. "
This, cand CoD4>MW2 story wise IMO "
Definitely. COD4 was plausible in real life scenarios. It made me chill at the thoughts of such events taking place. Not by all means entirely realistic, but it had the right settings.
#19 Posted by Ryax (4580 posts) -

i would never ever buy a game that has multiplayer just for he single player

#20 Edited by Hitchenson (4708 posts) -

Modern Warfare 2's campaign was awesome. BF:BC2? Not so much. The multiplayer side of things being the complete opposite though. 

#21 Edited by vividnova (17 posts) -

Modern Warfare 2's single player was much better in my opinion. It felt like a very well made, well thought out and very polished single player experience. The plot itself was a little far fetched, but how they presented it is where MW2 should get praised. BFBC2 however felt like it was slapped together. From the generic 'You can't leave this tightly designated path because the generic claymore's wil getcha' to the randomly teleporting squad mates when they needed to be in place for an upcoming checkpoint, scripting event. It felt like they were trying to de-immerse (!) me at every turn. Not to mention my thoughts of 'Where am I again?' that managed to confuse me on most of the missions. In the end I just gave up with the story and proceeded to finish the game, just because. 
 
I think I fell into the trap of comparing this with MW2 too much. I did not agree with all the pre-hype surrounding this game - "This is going to blow mw2 out of the water" and "MW2 sucked monkey chestnuts!". MW2 was a solid game, very high production values. Every aspect of it was tightly put together. So when I was playing bfbc2 single player I just kept thinking - this ISNT blowing my mw2 experience out of the water and I couldn't help but compare the games events with that of Modern Warfare 2's. Side by side, I just don't see how BFBC2 can compete. 
  

By the way - I'm a tech nerd. I like heart beat monitors on my weapons, and gun fights on snow mobiles...yes please!
 
Edit: For the record, I love the multiplayer on both games. (Both on PC) *standard 'p2p pc gaming here in Australia makes mw2 multi painful though' comment*

#22 Posted by Seppli (11233 posts) -

I enjoyed singleplayer quite a bit. Actually am on my second playthrough. Boot it up when servers are down. 
 
Nothing out of the ordinary, but very competent and well made. I just wish every mission was similar to 'Sangre del Toro', which is clearly the best SP mission. If there was some chopper and tank action thrown in the mix on that map, it'd be the perfect blueprint on how to design a SP mission feeling distinctly Battlefield.

#23 Posted by evanbrau (1178 posts) -

I felt that the single player of BC2 was pretty bad compared to the first game. Only one level offers the expansive open world styled roaming that the first game did and even then its a poor enough level. They seemed to have completely forgotten what made the first games single player good. Its just lucky that the multiplayer is so good.

#24 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5094 posts) -

I enjoyed MW2's campaign much more than BC2's.  In MW2 there was some really intense moments and some plot twists.  In BC2, the plot was extremely boring, and I literally couldn't wait for it to end (I always play through the campaign before hitting up multiplayer).
#25 Posted by carlthenimrod (1600 posts) -

BC 2's campaign is a big step backwards. It is much shorter and linear compared to the first BC. It's not terrible or anything but it just comes off as being a lesser Modern Warfare. Even the box-art looks like that of Call of Duty 4. 
 
Love the multi-player though.

#26 Posted by Jayross (2647 posts) -

BC2 single-player was meh at best, but the fact that they threw away the story from the first game ruined it. I was playing a second-playthrough and I couldn't wait for it to end.

#27 Posted by TheHBK (5657 posts) -

Thats a lesson for ya, dont get stuf on PC, same for any game if you can help it unless you do get it for single player, like Half-Life.
 
Anyway, the thing about BadCo SP is that the characters are supposed to be these edgy guys working for themselves suddenly dropped into this story about saving the world and good vs evil.  Which wasnt what they were trying to do in the first game and it is a response to how good and serious the story in the first MW was, not so much MW2.  So they feel out of place.  Plus I think the characters are retarded.
 
And Sweetwater and Sarge have sex.  That part disturbs me.

#28 Posted by MjHealy (1948 posts) -

BC2's campaign was very A to B to C. MW2 sook things up a bit even if it was over the top, but so is BC2. The characters may be better in BC2 but the SP in MW2 is a lot more exciting and action movie-esque.

#29 Posted by Bindings1 (101 posts) -

Dude if you enjoy the games that's all you need. 1 game has to have a better SP over the other, like 1 game has better MP over the other. It's the way things work. Just enjoy and play

#30 Posted by DCFGS3 (1084 posts) -

I seem to be bucking the trend here, I liked BC2's singleplayer better than MW2's. Mostly because it was as "HOLY SHIT THIS IS CRAZY AWESOME 110% OF THE TIME!!!!1!!!" I like me some just plain shooting, shit don't need to explode every two minutes. In any case, both were WAY too short.

#31 Edited by JiuJitsuka85 (379 posts) -

I remember the times when it was blasphemy that a game would be "multiplayer only".
Singleplayer is what makes a game great imo, not multiplayer. ( hence MW2 not winning Game of the Year, yet singleplayer games like Uncharted and Batman do win such awards )

#32 Posted by Jadeskye (4392 posts) -

honestly i think they could get these games out faster if they just for-went a singleplayer campaign all-together. 
 
make the game just multiplayer, state that on the back of the box and drop the price 10 bucks and you've got a winner. Thats basically what battlefield always has been until bad company and it worked!

#33 Posted by Tennmuerti (8226 posts) -
@Jiujitsuka: Some people only play one or the other some play both types, a game can be great regardless of having only one or both components. Uncharted 2 and Batman won awards because of the quality experience they delivered. Lets not forget that Uncharted 2 also had really good multiplayer.
@jadeskye: Singleplayer even in multiplayer centered games can really help with the sales. For example in MW2 their budget for marketing outstripped their costs for actually making the game itself and majority of promotional videos showed off moments from singleplayer rather then multiplayer. It can generate hype and get people more attached to the franchise and characers. MW2 would have sold less if it did not have singleplayer even if it is such a multiplayer centered game. It also helps get casuals in. They do it for the money, basically is the bottom line.
 
As to the original topic, I would agree the BFBC2 singleplayer was pretty meh. However multiplayer be awesome!
While MW2 campaign was a WTF in terms of storyline and logic, it was very well produced.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.