Originally Posted by jackeyjoe
Bf2 > bc2. This is cold hard fact, bc2 was a terrible game compared to bf2 (which I'd played religiously for over a year). The lack of prone was one of the biggest flaws in bc2, as well as no mods (although it was an engine limitation it wasn't smart not giving any thought to it when making it).
As for the black ops versus bc2, it is just opinionated crap, both games cater to different people and both are reasonably well made games (nothing comparedto the likes of cod4 or bf2 but they are ok games).
Sent using tapatalk. Get over it
played bf2 religiously also since release, and still do once in a while.
BF2 is better than BC2 for 1 reason. It is a full vehicle oriented game, with jets, choppers, tanks, jeeps, apcs etc across huge maps. BC2 is basically karkand 24/7 as the focus of the game is on smaller sized maps forcing you down a fairly narrow chokepoint(for a battlefield game). BC2 is an infantry game with vehicle support, while most maps on bf2 are vehicle maps with infantry support.
If bc2 had bf2s maps and all the vehicles and with the destruction on them. No doubt bc2 would be the better game.
The lack of prone doesnt matter, it was a good design decision. There is way more cover in bc2 than any bf2 map. As such crouch works just fine, there arent long spaces of coverless land like bf2, there are bushes, tall grass, rocks, trees, etc. The terrain in bc2 is leagues ahead of bf2 in terms of design and tactical usability.