Comments on: Battlefield: Bad Company vs Call Of Duty 4

By: Really...

Really... — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:12:43 +0000

Hey SUCK YOUR MOTHER 1st guy!!! WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING!?!?!?!?!? IN RED FACTION THE DEMOLITION IT WAS A PIECE OF SHIT IF YOU COMPARE IT TO BFBC2, IT WAS A PIECE OF SHIT!!! AND BFBC 2 DOES HAVE A GOOOD MULTIPLAYER! witch cod doesnt have….bb

By: Moeg113

Moeg113 — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:05:27 +0000

You are going to like the game your better at. Battlefield is more realistic but I like both. Nazi Zombie is my thing right now.

By: ProBall1212

ProBall1212 — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:38:56 +0000

BBF/BC 1 AND 2 ARE BOTH KICK ASS GAMESS COD MW 2 AND MW ARE BOTH GOOD GAMES BUT TAKE NO SKILL AND AFTER YOU PLAY THE FOR A WHILE IT GETS INCREDABLY BORING ESPECIALLY AFTER LIKE 2ND PRESTIGE

By: steven

steven — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:43:56 +0000

This comparison and the comments really motivated me to buy BC2 in March. I can’t wait for the demo. It sounds awesome. I’ve played CoD since CoD2, and in my opinion InfinityWard completely ruined MW2. It couldve been SO MUCH better, but they made it an absolute noob haven that doesn’t take any skill at all. And BC/BC2 look really awesome.

By: alex

alex — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:50:44 +0000

bf bad company kicks ass the realistic war and guns kick cod 4 ass anyday

By: Adolph Korn

Adolph Korn — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:39:05 +0000

Overall, I agree BF:BC is much better. CoD4 was addicting for a good 6 months or so, but every match seems to be just “run, shoot, die, respawn.” In BF, there are bigger maps, more realistic environments, vehicles, and not as much “spray and pray” as CoD4. BF:BC just has so much more to offer than CoD4.

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:49:05 +0000

I just finished BF BC and I also played COD4 when it came out. I LOVED BF2 MC but when the EA servers disappeared I bought BF 1943 to continue MP action. I then saw BF BC for $17 used, perfect condition, so I said, wtf. I played it and I am so so so sorry I didn’t pick this up earlier, I was just satisified with Modern Combat being way ahead of COD series, I had no desire….. BC is superior in terms of MP. I would give COD4 and edge over BC only because the SP was just so incredible, what and experience that was. BC was fun, almost would consider the SP game non-comparible to COD4s. But, then again, I am playing through BCs SP campaign again, didn’t do COD4s SP again, just rented the game.

I am not a big deathmatch fan, never have been since Quake. I prefer the more strategic tactical MP games and maps.

I think both games offer players a nice mix, so I really cannot compare one greater than the other in the end. I am glad they are both different, who wants every developer making the same damn game with countless articles comparing and re-comparing them……

By: Jerry

Jerry — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:39:23 +0000

BFBC is AWESOME. I’ve played COD4 for hours on end and I enjoy the fast pace and customization of weapons, but the destructible environment, the realism, and the huge maps of BFBC just kicks COD4′s butt!

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:40:09 +0000

bad company is an awesome game, just dusted it off and played it again after quite a few months and it whoops CoD4 and CoD5 as a multiplayer game!!

By: zion2012

zion2012 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:11:12 +0000

After years of playing COD4, i picked up BFBC. It hands down wins. It is way more realistic when it comes to a modern war sim. You can be a sniper, get 12 kills without people getting a hint of where you are. that is realism. more epic battles in BC. Dont get me wrong i LOVE cod4. Ive played it non stop online for a year+. I’m addicted to BC’s realism.