mmk.
So I've refrained from making a vote in the poll thus far, as my experience with both game is limited at best. I've played both at either EB or Best Buy at one of console stations and I don't think that's a fair assessment.
Now, in the COD franchise I've played both COD2 and COD4 a fair bit, though the gamestyles seemed to me, to be significantly different. COD2 was a team oriented game, something a little more suitable for clan based competitive play, while COD4 on the other hand appeared to be geared towards the individualistic methodology of gaming. As it stands, I believe MW2 is an extension upon the COD4 style, which is popular amongst the casual gamers, Machinima addicts, and other rampant causual gaming collectives amidst the internet. Admittedly though, it's very enjoyable when you can just wreak havoc on opposing teams.
Some Positive points towards MW2 are the lower specifications for computer hardware, the relatively easy basic technique learning curve, and the fundamentally large player base already well grounded into the game.
Some negatives include the 'hey we're already playing COD6, when's COD7 coming out!?', lack of dedicated server support, and just general lack of truly competitive team play, amongst other things.
Now, in the Battlefield franchise I've played BF2 and BF2142, BF2 is just a great game overall, and was (and still may be) highly competitive in team play. There was tremendous vehicle support, and fantastic gameplay for a high number of player-side teams. BF2142 was great as well, though I mainly played it just to take a gander at some of the full game mods designed by the awesome modding community behind that game.
BC2 appears to have done the new era of military FPS a bout of justice with greater implied realism through the use of stunning graphics and diversified, yet realist (to a degree of course) gameplay. Namely, the absolute requirement of utilizing your team during match-play, semi-destructible environments (is this true?), and a flexible class based style of play.
The negatives? Well, I wouldn't really know, as the only game I've played that seems similar to this one (albeit as a surface representation) would be America's Army, and I just didn't enjoy that at all. Thus, my opinion is slightly biased.
Regardless, I would lean toward BC2 being the better choice for the clan overall, though I do slightly detest the idea of moving from one of the most enjoyable and frustrating (though, thats why we play it) games of the decade, to another long standing franchise of military FPS's.
I am not a fan of class based games, strict military FPS etc. and have always proceeded to the stricter fundamentals of FPS gaming, ie. Quake 2/3/L and modestly, even HPC can be thrown in as well. I would try to make a case for QL (and still encourage you to try it), but I realize the tight-knit years old community there is light years ahead of any new player to join the fray. As well as being a primarily one vs one/dual oriented style of play at the very highest levels.
In the end, it's not my choice to make, as I don't know whether I can be the benefactor of competitive clan play in either MW2 or BC2. I await the arrival of the next 'big one', though I'll still do my best to join in on the fun of whichever game has been selected for the resuscitation of [XK]. Remember, majority rules.
Now, I will make note of the fact, that as these are, franchise games, with new installments coming along in the future, we may only play our choice for a relatively brief period of time, before bringing this discussion up again. I simply do not see either of these choices as having the seven year impact that HPC has had, though, would we want to?
HPC is where this clans' origins lie, and that will not change, we can play HPC whensoever we choose, while we branch out as much of a core
group we can muster, to other playing fields. Regardless, of the choice we make, it allows us to become a little freer, and will make short-term transitions, and even the transition into the next 'big one' an easier affair. Though one would think it would be the next generation (that we pick up from other emerging communities) to lead the way, as we all grow a little older, a little more mature, and our responsibilities seem to ever-expand exponentially.
Edit: Elm told me this-
¡G° E!mn@+oR: the only thing that sucks with BC2 is they dont have LAN server support but they do have dedicated servers... but a couple downsides for admins catching hackers is that you can spectate and you can only kick and ban from the server console thru the servers website... you cant do it in rcon
The Remote Administration interface is accessible over a network port on the game server.
