Honestly everywhere I go when it comes to Battlefield I keep seeing people praising the crap out of Bad Company 2 so much while belittling Battlefield 3, people going as far as saying they want Bad Company 3 not Battlefield 4.

But why what makes Bad Company 2 so special? I rented it and its campaign was not that interesting it was the same kind of campaign I play in COD. and I played a bit of Multiplayer and its not that different from Battlefield 3 or early games. Only thing I actually like about it was the Vietnam expansion pack which sadly I could not play.

But honestly why is this game placed on a Silver pedestal?

(Sorry if this thread is pointless, I am just curious)

SP campaign is pure crap, I liked SP from MW3 more, but BC2 MP is much better than MW3. (BC2 and MW3 are only CoD/BF games i have ever played, so yeah, i am not sure what i am talking about).

BC2 vs BF3? Well, BC2 is not origin based and it's not 'dumbed down' sequel, as BF3 is more like BC2++ than true BF. That's how I see it.

I don't know why, despite being so linear and quick timey and not that tactical and at least COD campaigns are fun in a way, heck I never fell asleep playing some games campaign.

I liked it because it was my fist CoD:MW. I had feeling like playing through Tom Clancy books, lil' bit silly and 'over-the-top macho action', BC2 was 'stupid, boring and full of clishes buddy action-comedy', which is kinda sad, because BC1 looked really great and funny (never played it though, i still have to buy my first console).

Bad Company 1's campaign WAS pretty funny. It definitely had its moments, and felt more like that buddy action satire of those other games that while being a caricature of the genre, still attempt to convince you of their seriousness.

BC2 was more of a parody, so, not so much, and definitely not in BF3.

Had a great time with BC2 multiplayer, more than I ever had with BF3 multiplayer for some reason, never seemed to quite get into that one.

Yup really enjoyed BC1´s SP campaign. That whole golf court mission was awesome.

And I also agree that BC2´s MP is just better than BF3´s. Haven´t touched BF3 in months, but at least in the beginning, before all the DLC the game just had too many smaller/close combat maps. Which is what not the original BF's were about. And/or maybe BC2 just in general had better maps.

They're funny to some degree sure, but the gameplay sucked. At least I thought so.

Well, I'm not making the claim that BC1 brought anything new to the genre, and I doubt anyone else is either, but I enjoyed its sense of humor. The gameplay itself was pretty much the same as any other BF game, imo, so if you didn't enjoy that aspect, you're probably not going to enjoy the rest of it either.

The initial multiplayer aspect also had an assload of problems with hackers/points farmers, due to the engineer class being exploited, but it was fixed.

No other Battlefield game ever had singleplayer at the time, so that's a weird comparison.

I could pick up Bad Company 2 used without needing a stupid online pass. (buying it for a second time on PS3 after having it on Xbox)

I think a new game in the 2142 era with the advancements of the later games would be better than either of the current games. Titans closing in to point blank for boarding parties, hover tanks facing off against walkers, and the gadgets such as turrets and cloaking were much more interesting to me. Once I lost interest in Bad Company, BF3 did nothing to really pull me back in. I'd play it with friends if I had it, but nothing is pushing me towards the stage of getting it.

Honestly I don't think the future setting will be a standard from now on, heck COD black ops 2 released and people are still refering it as Modern Military Shooter, so its future setting really did not make a splash

Destructible enviroments?