Battlefield 1 vs Bad Company 2: 5 Reasons Why Bad Company 2 Is Still The King

Battlefield 1 vs Battlefield Bad Company 2 Comparison

Battlefield 1 requires no introduction. It was the biggest game launch of 2016 and everybody knows how it holds up against its rivals. Battlefield 1 gave a taste of the WW1 era and managed to make the gameplay really fun. In times where FPS games are leaning more towards the future, Battlefield 1 took a risk and put us in the frontlines if WW1. It proved that risks are worth taking. But, when it is put into the arena with other Battlefield games like Bad Company 2, does it stand a chance ? Let's find out.

Battlefield 1 vs Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Comparison

5 Mistakes Battlefield 1 Made, Why Bad Company 2 Is Still The King


The map design plays a crucial role in the feel of the game. The feeling of freshness every time you play a game, the way you tactically kill your opponents, depends on the map design. The more the variety in maps the better it feels to play the game, as there is something to be explored, almost every time.

Battlefield 1 offers a variety of maps, and each map has its own style of combat. Like Ballroom Blitz is focused towards Close quarter combat. On the other hand, the Sinai Desert is better suited for long range/ vehicular combat. But, sometimes the maps don't feel balanced enough. Sinai desert being primarily a vehicular map fails to be that.

The reason I think being, there is not enough cover space for a vehicular fight. The battlefield 1 maps need to be improved in some ways.Bad Company 2 is the favorite Bf game of many fans. As the game is a well-balanced package. The variety and the diversity of the maps are what matters here. The game puts you on hilly mountain tops where sniping is essential and also makes you engage in combats o plane areas.  This diversity in the maps is what made BC2 so enjoyable.


The single player campaign mode was never the main focus of the Battlefield game series. But, the narrative of the Bad Company series was  really good. In Battlefield 1, DICE tried something new. Instead of going for a single character, one main protagonist, they provided us with multiple short stories. This way of story-telling was sort of necessary as they showed us different sides of WW1. By providing multiple short stories, they were able to convey the narratives of different participants of WW1.

But, does it really matter ? I personally loved the campaign of Bad Company 2. The story had a certain personality to it. The characters were well developed and their dialogues were well written. These characteristics gave the linear story telling a depth. I prefer the linear campaign with a single protagonist because as you progress you develop a certain connection with the character and you feel involved. Which is absent in Battlefield 1 campaign.


The online multiplayer is a more polished version of Bad Company 2, as there is no web browser page you have to open in order to play multiplayer. BC2 was better in multiplayer considering the fact that , nearly all of its maps were well balanced and free. The game's diverse maps was a major factor in keeping its multiplayer fresh. Still, the Battlefield 1 multiplayer gameplay is very good and satisfying. Ignoring the fact that some maps are unbalanced.


Battlefield 1 definitely has superior mechanics and physics as compared to BC2 but the place where Battlefield 1 fails is destruction. The ability to level entire maps made BC2 a lot of fun to play.

You barely had to give a though whether a wall is destroyable or not while playing BC2, but that's not the case in Battlefield 1. In BC2 a game where you can destroy an entire building to rubbles is a lot of fun as any wall you see and hit it with a grenade launcher or RPG will be destroyed. But, for some unknown reason, you cannot destroy any building you want in Battlefield 1. The maps cannot be leveled entirely in Battlefield 1. If there would have been this possibility then it would have been a huge plus point for the game.


What made Bad Company 2 great was that the DLCs were completely free. Yes, free. You did not have to pay a single penny for new maps and additional in-game items like the battle packs. Those were the last of the good days, as every Battlefield game after that is plagued with microtransactions. Even gun attachments cost you money. There was no premium version of the game too. The EA which gave you games for a reasonable price and let you have fun is gone. The Battlefield 3,4,5 and 1 all have a lot of microtransactions which will clean your wallet.


Bad Company 2 was and still is available on Steam, how good is that right ? Being forced to download a software just so you can play battlefield is definitely inconvenient. And steam is much more than a place where you buy games, it is a community. And it is huge and much more reliable than Origin.


If you play games just for multiplayer them Battlefield 1 is good for you. But, if EA would have released a Bad Company 2 remastered or a sequel to BC2, then it would have been definitely better than Battlefield 1. Battlefield 1 is a good game, but it is not as great a game as Bad Company 2, as it misses out on many crucial factors. A Battlefield 1 game with the mechanics of Bad Company 2 would have been a perfect package.

Next page

Latest Posts