Reading others comments, I realize I must be very different in opinion than most others. When I play these two games, they feel almost the same. I can't see nor feel these differences that your talking about, not at all. So whats causing me to have the opinion that these games are quite similar, I guess is because I experience them in a different way that the rest of you do.
I'll also say this: I don't have a console. I've played the console-exclusives at friends consoles, all games that are for PC I've played for the PC.
Khaun said:
Just to clarify I hole heartedly agree with everything but the copying CoD part.
Maybe iam miss-interpriting what you put but you get alot more than a map pack and they probly could have released this as a stand alone DL title like 1943. The reason BC2 is alot easyer its due to people moaning about the amount of bullets it took to kill people even though I liked it ment people had to aim rather than spray.
I guess so, but it still doesn't make me want to pay for it. I'm among those who didn't want to buy the expansions for 2142 and 2, just waited patiently for them to become available for free. Good content and all, but in my opinion not something I'd want to spend money on beyond what I've already played for the original game.
The little-damage thing doesn't really cause people to have to aim more, well maybe in the console world. But if you remember how the previous Battlefield games have done it, firing your weapon on fully automatic was a complete no-no on most distances. Semi-auto and a few well-placed shots would win the battle, much more realistic rather than the "empty 30 rounds down there and hope he drops dead".
