Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

MW2 vs. BFBC II


Carolina Husker

Recommended Posts

Yeah I dont agree. BC2 is hands down a better game. Maps are better and bigger, vehicles you get to drive/fly and hardly any screamy little kids.

MW2 requires very little team work, BC2 it's a must if you want to win. MW2 players only care about K/D ratio and camping long enough to get a nuke.

Add in the new maps to Rush, squad matches and the new maps just released (for free) its winner winner chicken dinner.

Fully destructible is super nice. It can change how you play or have to play.

Not a big fan of conquest, I like rush and squad death match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush is extremely conducive to campers, which was the biggest knock I heard about MW2.

I don't have that problem much. Once snipers realize they arent leveling up much they change what they do. Kills only net 50 points, unless you get a headshot or if its a mcom station defense kill.

It's also very hard to camp and be productive. The maps being so large that flanking and getting behind them is easy. Most snipers I see are newbs that don't contribute to the team.

Now recently I have been taking the recon kit and using the G3 assault rifle. I run around throwing out sensors while getting plenty of kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back to playing MW2 yesterday after playing BC2 since its release. It was so hard to adapt back to the overly cautious, camping mentality of MW2. I was getting owned left and right.

If the next Call of Duty somehow integrated full destructible environments, it'd make it a far superior game. Destructible environments eliminates a lot of camping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I originally hated the Miller deal but with the cap projected to rise nearly $10M next season the Canes struck some pretty good deals between Miller and Ehlers. Most of the team is locked in for the next few years. Nikishin will need an extension probably in the $6M AAV range. And Blake will need one if we don’t move him. Personally I’d move Blake, picks, and any prospect not named Nikishin/Nadeau/Artamonov for McTavish as I don’t see any any of the big time players moving teams next year. Realistically the Hurricanes should just target Gustavsson next year to fix the goal tending issue. But I’m all for moving Blake, picks, and prospects for McTavish this year. Ehlers - Aho - Jarvis Svechnikov - McTavish - Stankoven Martinook - Staal - Carrier Hall - Kotkaniemi - Robinson Jost - Jankowski Slavin - Miller Nikishin - Chatfield Gostisbehere - Walker Reilly Andersen Kochetkov I’d do Blake, Felix-Unger-Sorum, and 27 2nd for McTavish.
    • Very true on the length but stuff like this is never where we shine. We aren’t a good team at drafting.
    • Homerism aside, the more I see from Dan, the more impressed I am.  His player evaluation instincts. Last year his 2 premier FA signings, Hunt and Lewis COMPLETELY changed the line and I have a feeling his success in choosing blue chip guys will continue.  Look at the panthers’s rep for FA signings in the past. By and large, it’s been guys 1 year past their prime who had an injury and suckered our GM in to a crippling contract. We never get nice things. When was the last time this team signed 2 young blue chip studs  in the same offseason to contracts worthy of their impact? Ever?  Im telling y’all, players respect and trust Morgan. 
×
×
  • Create New...