» Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:01 am
I just brought Bad Company 2 new for $24.95 a couple of days ago and compared to Crysis 2 for $98, got all the DLC for free with it and feel it was waaaaay better value (even at full market place price it would be too), and I have to say while Crysis 2 had a better campaign length and story(despite massive bugs), BC2 wins in MP because it works, and shows the xbox can have massive area FPS and look pretty. and once the campaign is done MP is what counts.
Take note Crytek.
I totally agree that Crysis 2 has the better campaign. It was the best done part of the game imo.
BFBC2 works well on consoles because they don't have all the RAM consuming **** like extra textures and dynamic lighting that Crysis 2 has. C2 is a hell of a lot prettier, and the detail on your weapon is vastly superior to BFBC2, but BFBC2 goes for size and performance instead.
Tbh, I could handle C2 being less pretty if the framerate and map sizes went up.
Agreed, there is a lot of detail they could of cut out of MP to increase performance, like a lot of the "rubbish" around the maps. I mean do we really care about a lot of trash that helps the game in no way, because it makes it look more realistic?
But I'll stick with my major complaint, I'd be happy if they'd actually fix the game so I can play it. It's why I am still here, so I can notify my friends who have given up on Crytek that it's fixed, and try to get them playing again if they haven't sold their copies already.