If you don’t think you can make it through 500 words I’ve summarised at the bottom, it’s definitely appreciated if you read the wall of text explaining my experiences and thoughts on the Bad Company and Modern Warfare franchises.
 
So I’ve been playing Call of Duty for a fair few years and since release I’ve spent 10 days (ish) playing Modern Warfare 2’s multiplayer. Still enjoying it, but a large part of that is down to the people I play with*.
 
I’ve much less experience with Battlefield. Bad Company was the first one I played and I hated it, (although in hindsight I probably should have given it more than 30 minutes,) so I was surprised when I tried Bad Company 2 on my brother’s 360 a few days ago and absolutely loved it, and am now considering purchasing it for my PS3. I was much better than I thought I’d be too, was racking up 3000+ xp per game (I’m sure that’s not very good by some of your standards but was nice for me.) I’ve tried it a few more times over the last few days and it’s still just as enjoyable, although it’s left my a little confused. The first thing I don’t understand is this ‘either/or’ mentality when it comes to online shooters, MW2 and BC2 in particular. Yes they’re both first person shooters, yes they both have a modern setting but as far as I’m concerned that’s about as far as the similarities go. The ‘feel’ of each game is completely unique. I’m yet to play on a map that resembles one from the other, game types are different, I had to bump up my sensitivity to 10 when I started playing BC2. Those are pretty bad examples but I find it hard to explain, they just aren’t the same game, and they should be treated like that rather than this attitude of shunning one game because you play the other.
 
The other thing that I was surprised about was the lack, yes the lack of ‘teamwork’ in BC2. I’d heard a lot about it on these forums, so was looking forward to seeing it in action for myself, but I was left disappointed. I had to keep asking my brother why the dudes sitting behind a wall shooting dudes, a few miles away from the targets had more XP than me when I’d planted 4 bombs. Don’t like that you can only talk to the dudes in your own squad either, although that wasn’t too much of a problem because no one had mics. I’m hoping these are isolated cases, and in all fairness, the only playlist I tried was rush. Don’t get the mic thing though, when I had a 360 everyone and their grandmother had a mic. The lack of killstreaks are a nice change, but it still doesn’t stop that kills over objectives mindset than many players adopt nowadays.
 
So to summarise, what’s with this one or other mindset when it comes to Bad Company and Modern Warfare? Is it just the lack of time to play both? Are you a huge fanboy? Or do you just not like one of the games?  
 
*Shib, btman, Girdz, Samir, Hazik, Steve, Fishy, Laharl, I love you all.

If you don’t think you can make it through 500 words I’ve summarised at the bottom, it’s definitely appreciated if you read the wall of text explaining my experiences and thoughts on the Bad Company and Modern Warfare franchises.
 
So I’ve been playing Call of Duty for a fair few years and since release I’ve spent 10 days (ish) playing Modern Warfare 2’s multiplayer. Still enjoying it, but a large part of that is down to the people I play with*.
 
I’ve much less experience with Battlefield. Bad Company was the first one I played and I hated it, (although in hindsight I probably should have given it more than 30 minutes,) so I was surprised when I tried Bad Company 2 on my brother’s 360 a few days ago and absolutely loved it, and am now considering purchasing it for my PS3. I was much better than I thought I’d be too, was racking up 3000+ xp per game (I’m sure that’s not very good by some of your standards but was nice for me.) I’ve tried it a few more times over the last few days and it’s still just as enjoyable, although it’s left my a little confused. The first thing I don’t understand is this ‘either/or’ mentality when it comes to online shooters, MW2 and BC2 in particular. Yes they’re both first person shooters, yes they both have a modern setting but as far as I’m concerned that’s about as far as the similarities go. The ‘feel’ of each game is completely unique. I’m yet to play on a map that resembles one from the other, game types are different, I had to bump up my sensitivity to 10 when I started playing BC2. Those are pretty bad examples but I find it hard to explain, they just aren’t the same game, and they should be treated like that rather than this attitude of shunning one game because you play the other.
 
The other thing that I was surprised about was the lack, yes the lack of ‘teamwork’ in BC2. I’d heard a lot about it on these forums, so was looking forward to seeing it in action for myself, but I was left disappointed. I had to keep asking my brother why the dudes sitting behind a wall shooting dudes, a few miles away from the targets had more XP than me when I’d planted 4 bombs. Don’t like that you can only talk to the dudes in your own squad either, although that wasn’t too much of a problem because no one had mics. I’m hoping these are isolated cases, and in all fairness, the only playlist I tried was rush. Don’t get the mic thing though, when I had a 360 everyone and their grandmother had a mic. The lack of killstreaks are a nice change, but it still doesn’t stop that kills over objectives mindset than many players adopt nowadays.
 
So to summarise, what’s with this one or other mindset when it comes to Bad Company and Modern Warfare? Is it just the lack of time to play both? Are you a huge fanboy? Or do you just not like one of the games?  
 
*Shib, btman, Girdz, Samir, Hazik, Steve, Fishy, Laharl, I love you all.

I played MW2 with a friend tonight for the first time after buying BC2 about a week and a half a go. and wow are they different, not in a bad way at all but it felt completely alien. MW2 is really floaty in comparison, and there are also huge gamechanging subtleties like how in MW2 you have to put your main weapon away before bringing out your secondary.. making quick switching a bad idea in the middle of a fight, whereas in BC2 as soon as i'm reaching the end of my clip i tap Y and continue firing straight away with my pistol.. first few rounds back in MW2 i could not count the number of times i slwoly switched weapons in the middle of a close range fight and got mullered. 
 
either way, MW2 is an arcadey experience which i loved for many many days, got ridiculously good at and played alot with my friends. BC2 you actually have to aim, there's proper movement to your running and is generally a more realistic experience. Which in the end makes it mre satisfying. however i don't have any online peeps so it's not quite as fun in that regard. Also yeah, no-one helps each other out as much as i thought they would have, i bloody give an arm and a leg for everyone else but am left a bit underwhelmed by everyones elses teamwork. The differences also make them impossible to play at the same time i feel, i used to get 2.00 KD at least in MW2 games, i went back tonight and couldnt get over 1.00

To me it's one over other because they share the same setting, despite being different games. One is a on a fast-track to be this generations definitive twitch-shooter, while the other is just more Battlefield.

I'm not sure my answer is represntative of the average player, but heres where I see the divide between MW2 and BC2.
 
In MW2, pure physical reaction seems to be rewarded above thought and strategy. If you keep your head on a swivel and can aim faster than the other guy, you'll win. Where you decide to go on a map doesn't make that much difference because with good aim, any player can kill any person anywhere with pretty much any gun so long as they're in line of sight. Dual-weilding shotguns, shotgunning with sniper rifles, and sniping with pistols are all byproducts of this philosophy.
 
In BC2, strategic elements such as positioning and weapon selection play an infinitely larger role. In BC2 there are plenty of situations where no amount of twitch skill will let you win. If you have an SMG and someone starts sniping at you, from the other end of the map, you cannot just shoot them. The result, to me at least, is that BC2 rewards thought and planning far more than skill with a controller. The way I play is more akin to an RTS than a shooter. Depending on the situation, I might spend ten minutes stealthing from cover to cover, bypassing obvious targets because I can't afford for anyone to know I'm there. I might have to hang back and bombard a  base with smokescreens to cover the rest of my team. And yes, there are times when I simply have to rush in and shoot everyone I can, as fast as I can. 
 
In short, Modern Warfare 2 rewards physical skill over intelligence and foresight. Bad Company 2 rewards intelligence and foresight over physical skill. Personally, I take way more pride in out-thinking opponents rather than outshooting them, because shooting involves so many variables out of my control. As such, I find BC2 way more satisfying than MW2, which is why I play the former and gave up the latter.

They are definitely completely different kinds of games.  The only similarity is the setting, the shooting feels completely different, play styles have to be completely different, maps look and feel completely different.  I love them both, though I haven't put much time into Bad Company 2 (and only 3 days in MW2).  I'm just a bit burnt out on shooters at the moment, but I love them both to death.  People who make comparisons are probably just trying to start up a flame war between fans on the games. 
 
Also, I don't think I'll ever truly burn out on the modern military setting, because I'm a bit of a gun-nut, and love reading about new guns and military equipment, and using those guns and equipment in games. 

Because no matter how much fanboys kick and scream they are 90% the same.  I stuck with MW2 longer due to lack of helicopter god mode.  Even if I didn't sell MW2 i'd barely play it now, let alone both games.

" MW2 is really floaty in comparison,

Ok so this is how i see it and I will be fair to both Developers.  
  
The game play of both games is significantly different. CoD is more of a run and gun shooter where you do not have to work as a squad, so you can be Rambo. BC2 has a lot of strategy build into the maps and you are placed in a squad to work together to achieve the reward. When I play CoD i feel as if I am playing an arcade game where when I play BC2 I feel it is more like real life. 
 
Guns : Both developers did a great job with unlocks and guns you get to use. Although both games react differently when it comes to firing them. CoD allows you to fire an SMG miles away and strait as an arrow while in BC2 an SMG travels only so far and has nice bullet drop. When it comes down to sniping I like CoD so much better. Hold your breath and shoot. While in BC2 its just aim and shoot but allow for the bullet drop. BC2 also has a lot of nice "perks" if you will : armor, magnum ammo, heath pack upgrades, light weight packs, grenade packs, and much more. When you break down the gun selection BC2 has more of a variety to choose from which is nice.  
 
Maps : As a person that has played both games I see an even playing field. Graphically both games have beautiful maps. The pace of gameplay and settings are great. I can't say much more than that when it comes to the maps. One thing i have noticed is that in CoD it's hard to hide in a bush because you are still visible and do not really blend in, when in BC2 you blend into the bush really well. That is for everyone who likes to camp I for one prefer not to.  
 
Vehicles : BC2 has some really nice vehicles to utilize in the maps and game modes. Helicopters are by far the most lethal. I am not saying thats a good thing or bad thing. For those of you out their that can fly them I applaud you because I for one cannot. CoD only has vehicles as perks but they are not something you really get to experience the true power and mobility of. Again not saying that is good nor bad.  
 
Community : From what I have noticed both communities are fun people. You have your fanboys for each developer. I agree both games should be allowed to exist and the rift people are causing between others is disturbing. I am tired of the "this games better" no  "this one is" It is really annoying. It's too early to tell but BC2 has not been infected with hacks like what I have seen and witnessed in CoD. I think it is a matter of time before we see that in the BC2 world. While I love video games, I think that anyone who hacks for their benefit is cowardly and is not good enough to compete in a fair environment. (Personal Opinion)  
 
BAD THINGS : Both games have bad elements to them. Right now its the hackers in CoD. In BC2 it's the overpowered M60 and 40MM Grenade Noobtubers.  
 
Conclusion : Both games have their Ups and Downs. I play both, I like both. If I am in the mood for a No Thinking Shooter I play CoD, but if I want to play something with depth I pop in BC2. Right now BC2 is filled with CoD players like myself that have yet to break the habit of running around by yourself trying to get things down instead of working as a team like it is meant to be played. Luckily I have plenty of friends that yell at me when I am doing that lol. Anyways these are my thoughts and I know some of you out their are going to haggle me and bash me because of my views on both games. 

Not a fan of kill-streaks or the maps or the stupid party chat restriction or the glitches (among many other little things) in MW2, COD4 was a great, MW2 not so much  

I'm pretty much done with MW2. It feels old school in a not so good way to me - in that everyone moves too fast, the controls aren't very precise (as long as you shoot in the general vicinity of someone you hit them), the glitchiness and builds that grant advantages that feel unnatural (soldiers dashing around a modern battlefield racking up kills with a knife or two shotguns), short matches, very little cohesion or feeling of team play while in PUGs (which I attribute to game design but I admit I could just suck), etc. It's hard to explain,  it feels very much like a solo experience within a short-lived sandbox or something, if that makes sense. Aside from the visuals it just feels so dated.
 
BF feels much more modern, and it controls a lot better - in my opinion. The more natural physics and unit movement is a major plus, same goes for the destructible enviornments and vehicles. 
 
Oh, and after playing BF the maps feel tiny in MW2 now.

How dare you take that Jeff Gerstmann icon. Only I can grace the forums with that awesomeness. I command you to remove it.

I simply find myself enjoying BC2 much more than COD4 and since I imagine that wouldn't change with MW2 I just stick to what I enjoy the most. 
I respect people who prefer MW2, it's simply a matter of taste and BC2 is much more my taste...

I'm gonna go out and say it: BC2 is really, really good.
 
Honestly, we would probably have more fun playing BC2 than we would MW2-the problem is, will people be willing/able to buy BC2? I don't want to, because there are a fair amount of games I want to buy anyway. I know Hazik wouldn't, since most the people who bought it in our class 'don't have swagguh'. I doubt Joe would buy it for the same reason. These may all not be great points, but they're big enough points for the people not to buy them.
 I obviously can't talk for the GB duders, but I doubt that they love you enough to go out and get a game because you asked them to. But hey, 'tis my opinion.
 As much as I love you Pessh, I cannot do it.
 Now wake up. It is 2:15pm, I am having my lunch and you are still dreaming of Hazik and Balrog together forever.

<3 You too Pessh! 
 
Anyhoos, I was thinking about picking up BC2 as well since I've always had a thing for the Battlefield series but 1) I'm pretty poor now and 2) I've got shit loads of work to do along with college exams coming up soon so I won't get the chance to play MW2 much let alone games in general. If I get the chance though I'll be on MW2 shooting gentleman in the goolies. 
 
I intend to prestige before I go out on holiday for the Summer too.

im  just terrible at mw2 and thats the reason im not a fan but i love bc2 (im not as bad at that lol)

COD = Solo
BC2 = Team
 
I enjoy both, it's a nice change of pace between games.

BC2 is designed to encourage teamwork a lot more than ModernWarfare is. The majority of your progression points come from capturing objectives, healing, and resupplying your comrades. I mainly like Battlefield games more because it funnels everyone into the same general area, and yo never run into a game were half the guys are snipers camping in various spots. It's fairly easy to counter a Sniper in BC2.

" @bhhawks78:  I don't have a problem with the air vehicles in BCBC2, I think they are more God Moded in MW2.  I am fairly proficient at rocketing them down now, not to mention anyone can just hop on a gun and shoot them down.  In you have to be equipped to take them out, and not to be spotted for instant death. "

The BC2 Demo was great, but MW2 still works and I can spend probably years playing with the multiplayer.

Call of Duty is sort of a lowest common denominator kind of game, which is why it's so successful.  If you're only going to buy one FPS per year, it might as well be COD, however for somebody who plays a lot of FPS, like myself, it ends up feeling a bit vanilla.  Battlefield games just offer more depth for somebody who needs more than just the basics of the first-person shooter.

Killstreak stuff is too spammy and I don't consider it fun facerolling the enemy team with 40:7 stats or something because I'm actually hosting a damn multiplayer game.

Theres a divide between the 2 games cause of so many people being disappointed by MW2 which had a ton of hype behind it and was following an AMAZING cod4. The game was twitch gameplay to begin with but it seemed to get worse in mw2(along with getting a little more casual.) BC2 is a lot more team tactical time thing where going rambo is just gonna get you killed in a second and a lot of people just prefer it, course this is the internet so people HAVE to argue and compare.
 
Anyway i only played a demo of BC2 but i do remember LOVING the futuristic BF, 2042 i think it was called(im awful at remembering things lol) and i would be willing to get bc2 if i wasnt broke and wanting to buy like 8 other games(i saw you got GOW3 as well you rich fuck.) 
Either way i still consider BF to be much better as a pc game than a console game, the demo on the ps3 seemed a little meh, with all the vehicles and strategy things like picking your spawn point and pointing out enemies as scout it just seems like a keyboard would be better. Course my computer sucks balls(still using windows 2k  to give you an idea of the suck) so i wouldnt be able to play bc2 on pc.