Battlefield 3 vs Call of Duty

[Jayhmmz]

I'm doing my latest website magazine article on why I think Battlefield 3 will be better than Call of Duty, if Activision's developers don't pull their socks up to challenge EA DICE.

So, I need opinions for my research :)

I have included a poll, and I would like you to state your reasons specifically telling me which game will be better than the other, and why. Please make it as constructive as possible for me to work with, as I will be quoting you :)

Thanks.

[paecmaker]

I like battlefield (3) better than cod because I love vehicle battles and big maps. And now destruction.

And you cant say that the graphics doesnt look epicly awesome.

[Jayhmmz]

I like battlefield (3) better than cod because I love vehicle battles and big maps. And now destruction.

And you cant say that the graphics doesnt look epicly awesome.

Well the Battlefield games have had destructible environments since the first Battlefield: Bad Company game on the consoles, but it still did it before Call of Duty.

So you're saying that you like it that the Battlefield series is expanding with their ideas, instead of keeping everything the same year in year out?

[paecmaker]

Well the Battlefield games have had destructible environments since the first Battlefield: Bad Company game on the consoles, but it still did it before Call of Duty.

So you're saying that you like it that the Battlefield series is expanding with their ideas, instead of keeping everything the same year in year out?

I also like that battlefield is getting more team oriented after bc2.
I also like long campaigns with a slightly more realistic appoach than the cod serie.

[Jayhmmz]

I also like that battlefield is getting more team oriented after bc2.
I also like long campaigns with a slightly more realistic appoach than the cod serie.

Battlefield has been team orientated since Battlefield 2, back in 2005 ;)

[LiNuX]

I've always preferred battlefield over COD. Have been playing since BF2.

I don't know why I like it better, I just have a lot more game time with it so it feels more "homely" with the recons and assaults and whatnot.

[Ilyich Valken]

As much as I suck with the BF controls after playing so much Call of Duty, I prefer Battlefield. It controls better, it's not the same **** every single game with slight touch ups, and it actually looks like a quality product.

[Saph]

CoD used to be AWESOME, since 1942 though it has gone down hill for me. I LOVED CoD: 1942 and ever since then I just couldnt stomach them anymore. It's kinda like Final Fantasy, but where the games get WORSE instead of better....

Battlefield 3 is deffinately my call. Always loved Battlefield, and have pulled countless all nighters playing Battlefield with friends. BF3 is deffinately on my list, and CoD can go **** itself for all I care.

[Jayhmmz]

CoD used to be AWESOME, since 1942 though it has gone down hill for me. I LOVED CoD: 1942 and ever since then I just couldnt stomach them anymore. It's kinda like Final Fantasy, but where the games get WORSE instead of better....

Battlefield 3 is deffinately my call. Always loved Battlefield, and have pulled countless all nighters playing Battlefield with friends. BF3 is deffinately on my list, and CoD can go **** itself for all I care.

CoD 1942? I think you're getting mixed up with Battlefield 1942, there's never been such a CoD game.

Thanks all for your responses :)

[Saph]

Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!

Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p

[Jayhmmz]

Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!

Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p

There has been about five or six, maybe more, WWII Call of Duty games on all platforms, ha ha :D
Was it Call of Duty: World at War by any chance? It was the game that was released after CoD4: Modern Warfare.

[Saph]

Nah it wasnt world of war...I swear it had 1940 or something in the name, I swear it did!

I might be wrong though, I really dont remember what its called :(

[Fr0stByte]

I can see my vote wasn't wasted, judging by all the issues call of duty had in multiplayer and battlefields dedicated servers....im jumping on the battlefield bandwagon.

[Exentenzed]

I can see my vote wasn't wasted, judging by all the issues call of duty had in multiplayer and battlefields dedicated servers....im jumping on the battlefield bandwagon.

Well i still consider CoD to be more of a Singleplayer game above everything else.

As with Battlefield i have the exact opposite opinion.

[paecmaker]

I will choose battlefield over any cod as long as you can FLY helicopters, or jet.

Edit: lol, looks like bf got a little more votes than cod.

[Fr0stByte]

I will choose battlefield over any cod as long as you can FLY helicopters, or jet.

Edit: lol, looks like bf got a little more votes than cod.

I didnt say i wasnt gna buy CoD :P

[paecmaker]

I didnt say i wasnt gna buy CoD :P

I rewrite, I will choose the mp of battlefield oveer any cod mp. The cod campaigns are pretty good, or atleast from those I tried. The only thing is that I dont want to buy an expensive game for a 4-5h campaign.

[Jayhmmz]

Nah it wasnt world of war...I swear it had 1940 or something in the name, I swear it did!

I might be wrong though, I really dont remember what its called :(

Nope, no Call of Duty title had "1940" or anything similar in the title, Just the Battlefield series, with BF1942 and 1943 (arcade)

[Kenoi]

man, I highly regret having to sell back BF2 for ps3. I once had it but then... hopefully I'll get it back, one day.

*reason for selling back: needed the money for college books. . .

[Delta]

Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!

Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p

Its called World at War. Anyways i was the one voter for CoD nvr played Battlefield nvr will. Plus CoD 1, 2, 3, and 5 were all about WWII but MW is totally different. Infinity Ward wanted to take a different direction AWAY from the same damn thing over and over and Black OPS is during the Cold War. But i still hav lil faith in the CoD series if MW3 makes a ginormous hit cuz2 different companies are on multiplayer, Sledgehammer and Raven. Infinity Ward is only makein the campaign. But hopefully all the faggy 9 yr olds will stay off of their mics talkin **** to more experienced ppl.

[paecmaker]

Just for my own twisted use, who voted for MW3?

[Delta]

Just for my own twisted use, who voted for MW3?

I voted for MW3 C:

[Ilyich Valken]

I kind of went back on what I said.. rebought MW2 today for $6.66 (yes, that was the complete total) and preordered MW3 a few weeks ago. I'm gonna be renting and trying BF3 when it comes out, though and going from there.

[Exentenzed]

preordered MW3 a few weeks ago. I'm gonna be renting and trying BF3 when it comes out, though and going from there.

Hah, I've done the exact opposite. :) Preordered BF3 and going to try out MW3. :)
But i have hunch that both are going to be great. :)

[Ilyich Valken]

Hah, I've done the exact opposite. :) Preordered BF3 and going to try out MW3. :)
But i have hunch that both are going to be great. :)

Definitely. I'm just gonna buy MW3 cause I know that's the one I'd be more inclined to play, as I never played BF2 and I didn't care for BC2 (which BF3 is going to be nothing like, hopefully.)

[Exentenzed]

From what Dice is saying they are going for a BF2 approach since Bad Company was a spin off, mainly to get more experience with consoles and singleplayer. :)

Im getting BF3 because im a sucker for big battlefields in multiplayer shooters, i love good singleplayers though, so i will probably pick up MW3 since that has always been the reason for me buying CoD games to begin with.

Haven't checked up on MW3 yet though, i usually wing it when it comes to buying those games after i've read a review.

[Ilyich Valken]

From what Dice is saying they are going for a BF2 approach since Bad Company was a spin off, mainly to get more experience with consoles and singleplayer. :)

Im getting BF3 because im a sucker for big battlefields in multiplayer shooters, i love good singleplayers though, so i will probably pick up MW3 since that has always been the reason for me buying CoD games to begin with.

Haven't checked up on MW3 yet though, i usually wing it when it comes to buying those games after i've read a review.

The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.

[paecmaker]

The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.

Im shore that they have some answer for that to. DICE have too much to prove than to f*** up such a thing.

[Jayhmmz]

The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.

I'm getting it for PC myself, so I am thoroughly looking forward to the multiplayer for this very reason. Console maps though, they will be smaller, for sure; same maps, but they will have a smaller playing zone.

[Exentenzed]

I'm getting it for PC myself, so I am thoroughly looking forward to the multiplayer for this very reason. Console maps though, they will be smaller, for sure; same maps, but they will have a smaller playing zone.

This. + In my oppinion Battlefield games are ment to be played on PC, i dont think i would get the "right" feeling playing battlefield games on consoles. :)

[Delta]

The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.

OH GAWD talk about lag and i thought ground war was awful on CoD i mean 64 holy crap!!!

[Exentenzed]

Battlefield servers are usually run on dedicated servers with sponsor adds to pay for high bandwith.

I say usually, because some try to cheap out, but they tend to be disfavored for proper servers.

[Jayhmmz]

OH GAWD talk about lag and i thought ground war was awful on CoD i mean 64 holy crap!!!

BF3 isn't crappy matchmaking, not on the PC anyway. Each server is a dedicated host server, that a clan or a group can buy for either their clan wars or just for public banter; it works perfectly.

[NeverDeefEated]

Okay. So this is a bit of an old-ish thread, but I'm curious.

I'd like to hear a smart, well reasoned argument for why Modern Warfare 3 (http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/64956/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/) is better than Battlefield 3 (http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/48696/battlefield-3/) or vice versa.

[Synge]

No argument will be truly "well reasoned" until both games are out. BF3 is looking to be a better game, but who knows, maybe it'll blow.

[Jayhmmz]

Okay. So this is a bit of an old-ish thread, but I'm curious.

I'd like to hear a smart, well reasoned argument for why Modern Warfare 3 (http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/64956/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/) is better than Battlefield 3 (http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/48696/battlefield-3/) or vice versa.

BF3 will be better than MW3, because Activision and their respected developers have ran out of ideas on how to make Call of Duty look and feel fresh, compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles, and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically), whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.

Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy, whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects, and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion.

Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money, whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise, as well as making their profit.

[Exentenzed]

BF3 will be better than MW3, because Activision and their respected developers have ran out of ideas on how to make Call of Duty look and feel fresh, compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles, and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically), whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.

Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy, whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects, and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion.

Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money, whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise, as well as making their profit.

Couldnt have said it better myself. :)

[Ilyich Valken]

There are a whole lot of things that Robert Bowling has said that disproves that MW3 isn't going to be the same as Black Ops or MW2, but I don't really feel like arguing, I deal with it enough at GameFAQs.

[Exentenzed]

Well its all assumptions based on previous efforts realy.

I mean, im not realy going to judge MW3 untill i get to play it myself and can make up my own oppinion.

Activision & Co im judging to damnation however.

[Ilyich Valken]

Well its all assumptions based on previous efforts realy.

I mean, im not realy going to judge MW3 untill i get to play it myself and can make up my own oppinion.

Activision & Co im judging to damnation however.

It's not, though. I realize that not everything he says will make it into the final game, but from what I've read, they're developing the game to be like CoD 4, not MW2, that weapon/attachment unlocks will have a unique system, and that OMA/DC/Commando and the nuke are out, and that all of the sound/HUD are just placeholders and will be fixed at the appropriate time.

[Jayhmmz]

It's not, though. I realize that not everything he says will make it into the final game, but from what I've read, they're developing the game to be like CoD 4, not MW2, that weapon/attachment unlocks will have a unique system, and that OMA/DC/Commando and the nuke are out, and that all of the sound/HUD are just placeholders and will be fixed at the appropriate time.

If this is the case, and if it is more like CoD4, then I will get it at some point, as I loved CoD4.

However, Call of Duty is getting demoted from my PC to my console, if and when I buy the next one, because the visuals are insulting to my PC, and just not worth the effort; casual game is casual.

[Ilyich Valken]

If this is the case, and if it is more like CoD4, then I will get it at some point, as I loved CoD4.

However, Call of Duty is getting demoted from my PC to my console, if and when I buy the next one, because the visuals are insulting to my PC, and just not worth the effort; casual game is casual.

Honestly, I never bothered with Call of Duty for the PC. Ever since 4 it was clear PC wasn't their main focus any more, which is a shame (and is part of the reason the graphics have stagnated, I'd imagine.)

[Jayhmmz]

Honestly, I never bothered with Call of Duty for the PC. Ever since 4 it was clear PC wasn't their main focus any more, which is a shame (and is part of the reason the graphics have stagnated, I'd imagine.)

You're absolutely right. The main reason I got WaW and Blops for PC was for the dedicated servers, because matchmaking on a PC is just ****ing stupid. But I got MW2 for the PC for the graphics, because let's be fair, it craps on Blops for graphics, and the player models are much cooler.

In terms of gameplay though, I enjoy it a lot more for the xbox these days, as it just seems more balanced!

[StanTheMan]

For me, the decision all about the game play and achievements. I don't care about graphics, how many levels there are, the number of maps, etc. I will always choose a game where just playing one match is impossible, where I get on at midday, and then I look at the clock and its almost midnight. To me, Battlefield 3 will be that game, just as its predecessor Bad Company 2 was.

[M1xicanBoyy]

bad com 3 because u can actually destoy buildings to kill campers hehehe and the graphics will look amazing!!!! will change gaming in my opinion:D

[NeverDeefEated]

BF3 will be better than MW3 , because Activision and their respected developers have ran out of ideas on how to make Call of Duty look and feel fresh [support this], compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days[support this]. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles[support this. what makes it 'mega-fun?'], and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically)[support this], whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.

Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy[support this], whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us[support this]. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects[award winning? what awards?], and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion[I'm glad you said "in my opinion" here].

Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money[support this], whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise[support this], as well as making their profit.

Mind refining that answer?

[egg-whites333]

Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!

Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p


its world at war and i haven't ever played battlefield but i heard its good i think that black ops was a disappointment but still like it mw2 was probably the best out of them all

[Exentenzed]

Mind refining that answer?

Realy? No, realy???

[Jayhmmz]

Mind refining that answer?

I do mind, so I won't refine my answer :)

[Jokersvirus]

I cant pick between the two. I like both series and ive played both. Battlefield gives you more options and more free area to roam around and kill. Flying the helicopters is pretty sweet. MW its the maps, killstreaks, funny ways of killing people that keep me around. So I Cant pick a winner and I say both.

[Callanrobertson]

Cod WAW or the first 3

[Jayhmmz]

Cod WAW or the first 3

That isn't what this thread is about :P

[Shooter99]

This is how I see it:

Singleplayer: Call of Duty owes Battlefield in this area. BC2 even tried to copy MW and MW2. Call of Duty has always had great singleplayer's.

Graphics: I prefer Call of Duty. Its graphics are somewhat more realistic than Battlefield's.

Physics and effects: While Battlefield has destructible enviornment and everything in the game can be destroyed, Call of Duty has soda cans that are immune to explosions. I prefer Battlefield in this case.

Multiplayer: The older Call of Duty games had fantastic multiplayers (with 2 being my favourite). But the new Call of Duty releases just don't feel good. They're all run and gun games, with insane weapon combinations and perks. I don't like the way Call of Duty's multiplayer has evolved. Battlefield on the other hand, offers much more freedom, more options, and team-work is essential. Apart from BF2, there were no unbalanced Battlefield games. So I prefer Battlefield.

I can’t really decide which one is a better game. I buy Call of Duty games for their singleplayer and co-op modes (co-op campaign, spec-ops and zombies) and I buy Battlefield games for their unique mulyiplayer. :)

[Psychotray]

Not much people are going for COD, that's strange. I thought there were more COD fans than Battlefield.

[Shooter99]

Not much people are going for COD, that's strange. I thought there were more COD fans than Battlefield.

There are - But not on this forum. :D
Console gamers and people who are new to gaming, usually prefer Call of Duty's multiplayer because it's easy to play (or they haven't played Battlefield yet :P).

[Psychotray]

Oh true, is Battlefield any good?

[paecmaker]

Oh true, is Battlefield any good?

I would say so yes, of course we cant say much about BF3 but I really loved BC2, and all other too:p(My favourite is still battlefield vietnam, the feeling is just unbeatable)

[Psychotray]

I played one on a Ps2 demo once, it was alright. I haven't gotten around to playing COD yet though, I haven't even played COD before :azn:

[Shooter99]

My favourite is still battlefield vietnam, the feeling is just unbeatable

Hue Gunship, Fortunate Son, hunting Vcs... :D Great game. Too bad people don't play online any more.


I haven't gotten around to playing COD yet though, I haven't even played COD before :azn:

You have never played a Call of Duty game in your life???! :O :P

[Psychotray]

You have never played a Call of Duty game in your life???! :O :P

Nope, and Im serious. I've never laid hands on a COD game ever in my life.

[Jayhmmz]

Singleplayer: Call of Duty owns Battlefield in this area. BC2 even tried to copy MW and MW2. Call of Duty has always had great singleplayer's.

Of course Call of Duty owns Battlefield in this area, because EA DICE only started making their Battlefield series a campaign style game when they released Bad Company 2. Also, I heavily disagree with what you said about BC/BC2 trying to copy MW and MW2, as both Bad Company campaigns were completely different and unique compared to the Call of Duty campaigns... I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, it baffles me.


Graphics: I prefer Call of Duty. Its graphics are somewhat more realistic than Battlefield's.

Factually, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has more realistic graphics than any other Call of Duty game, however, past Call of Duty games have always had an edge over the older Battlefield games. With the older Battlefield games being mass-multiplayer action, it meant that back in the day they couldn't really afford to make the visuals in the games any better than they already were. However, having said that, Battlefield 2's visuals for when it was released in 2005 were excellent, but just fell short of the likes of Call of Duty 2, as Infinity Ward's graphics engine owned a lot of game engines around that time.

[NeverDeefEated]

I guess what I'm looking for is kind of a "professional" critique. Something newsworthy and as well-reasoned as possible. Something that could be printed in a legitimate newspaper without somebody getting sued, but something that's still candid.

[Psychotray]

I might go borrow COD out, just to see how it is. Heaps of people say its good, but I want to see for myself.

[Shooter99]

Of course Call of Duty owns Battlefield in this area, because EA DICE only started making their Battlefield series a campaign style game when they released Bad Company 2. Also, I heavily disagree with what you said about BC/BC2 trying to copy MW and MW2, as both Bad Company campaigns were completely different and unique compared to the Call of Duty campaigns... I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, it baffles me.

The story itself is trying to copy MW and MW2 and the level design is no different either. I haven't played BC1, but BC2 was like a MW wannabe. Just play it through and you'll see what I mean - this contains spoilers, so I wouldn't like to post it in this thread. - I'll make another one, maybe.



Factually, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has more realistic graphics than any other Call of Duty game, however, past Call of Duty games have always had an edge over the older Battlefield games. With the older Battlefield games being mass-multiplayer action, it meant that back in the day they couldn't really afford to make the visuals in the games any better than they already were. However, having said that, Battlefield 2's visuals for when it was released in 2005 were excellent, but just fell short of the likes of Call of Duty 2, as Infinity Ward's graphics engine owned a lot of game engines around that time.

Call of Duty's weapons are better looking and the characters look a bit better. Apart from some bad textures at certain areas, Call of Duty's visuals are somewhat better than the ones of BC2.

[Jayhmmz]

The story itself is trying to copy MW and MW2 and the level design is no different either. I haven't played BC1, but BC2 was like a MW wannabe. Just play it through and you'll see what I mean - this contains spoilers, so I wouldn't like to post it in this thread. - I'll make another one, maybe.

What do you mean, "just play it through and you'll see what I mean"? I wouldn't be making such comments if I hadn't already played it through; what would be the point in me even stating my opinion if I hadn't played it through?

I really do not agree with you - not for one second throughout any sequence of the BC2 campaign did I think that it was similar to the MW campaigns, and I haven't come across any one saying what you have said, so you're on your own from where I'm standing.


Call of Duty's weapons are better looking and the characters look a bit better. Apart from some bad textures at certain areas, Call of Duty's visuals are somewhat better than the ones of BC2.

Most of the weapons in Call of Duty do look better than the BC2 weapons, you're right. However, I don't agree that the characters looks better in Call of Duty. The character models in BC2 are of a higher texture resolution and better model shape than the ones seen in Modern Warfare 2. Also, the terrain, buildings, foliage, special effects, sound effects and the general surroundings and background of the map that you're on are all far better than what Call of Duty can offer these days. I can vouch for the visuals side of it, considering that I can have both games at maximum resolution and maximum general settings, with anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing on or above x8.

Just to add, BC2 offer more visual tweaks in the graphics menu than Call of Duty have ever had, and I love it because you can do so much with it to either make the game look better, or to make the performance better; EA DICE know what they're doing.

[paecmaker]

What do you mean, "just play it through and you'll see what I mean"? I wouldn't be making such comments if I hadn't already played it through; what would be the point in me even stating my opinion if I hadn't played it through?

I really do not agree with you - not for one second throughout any sequence of the BC2 campaign did I think that it was similar to the MW campaigns, and I haven't come across any one saying what you have said, so you're on your own from where I'm standing.


Accually I thought that the convoy part feeled a little modern warish.

[Jayhmmz]

Accually I thought that the convoy part feeled a little modern warish.

But regardless of that, BC2 didn't try to copy off the MW campaign, in a general sense.

[Shooter99]

Not for one second throughout any sequence of the BC2 campaign did I think that it was similar to the MW campaigns, and I haven't come across any one saying what you have said, so you're on your own from where I'm standing.

The ending sequence of the first mission - 'Cold War' - was MW itself. Escaping in the back of a truck while enemy vehicles are chasing you. I didn't really notice any of this until the helicopter showed up. And if that wasn't MW enough, your truck (and the helicopter) reach the bridge, just like in the ending of MW.
The level in which you advance upon an enemy town with vehicles (while manning the MG) felt a lot like 'Team Player' from MW2.
There was also a part when you bombard some enemies using a computer (I don't really remember the name of the mission, but you do use a predator drone - like in MW2).
The very end of the game didn't really feel like MW, but the idea of killing the 'boss' in a semi cutscene, was taken from MW.



However, I don't agree that the characters looks better in Call of Duty. The character models in BC2 are of a higher texture resolution and better model shape than the ones seen in Modern Warfare 2. Also, the terrain, buildings, foliage, special effects, sound effects and the general surroundings and background of the map that you're on are all far better than what Call of Duty can offer these days. I can vouch for the visuals side of it, considering that I can have both games at maximum resolution and maximum general settings, with anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing on or above x8.

Just to add, BC2 offer more visual tweaks in the graphics menu than Call of Duty have ever had, and I love it because you can do so much with it to either make the game look better, or to make the performance better; EA DICE know what they're doing.

Yes, BC2 has more visual tweaks than Call of Duty (actually, every game has more visual tweaks than COD - except Crysis 2 :P). But Call of Duty has very low minimum system requirements (you can play MW2 on a single core processor - which is very rare for a 2009 game), which eliminates the need for a lot of visual tweaks to improve performance.
I've played both games with maximum video settings too, but somehow I prefer Call of Duty. BC2's characters look a bit cartoony and the way you kill people doesn't feel as realistic as in COD. I really love the dark, war-like ambient and lighting of WaW, while BC2 has more of a 'major' ambient.

Another thing is the control you have while playing Call of Duty, compared to the one in Battlefield. While everything is clear, smooth and sharp in COD, BC2
doesn't offer that 100% control over the player. There's always some motion blur and mouse delay which give the game a jerky feeling.

[Jayhmmz]

The ending sequence of the first mission - 'Cold War' - was MW itself. Escaping in the back of a truck while enemy vehicles are chasing you. I didn't really notice any of this until the helicopter showed up. And if that wasn't MW enough, your truck (and the helicopter) reach the bridge, just like in the ending of MW.
The level in which you advance upon an enemy town with vehicles (while manning the MG) felt a lot like 'Team Player' from MW2.
There was also a part when you bombard some enemies using a computer (I don't really remember the name of the mission, but you do use a predator drone - like in MW2).
The very end of the game didn't really feel like MW, but the idea of killing the 'boss' in a semi cutscene, was taken from MW.

Yes, BC2 has more visual tweaks than Call of Duty (actually, every game has more visual tweaks than COD - except Crysis 2 :P). But Call of Duty has very low minimum system requirements (you can play MW2 on a single core processor - which is very rare for a 2009 game), which eliminates the need for a lot of visual tweaks to improve performance.
I've played both games with maximum video settings too, but somehow I prefer Call of Duty. BC2's characters look a bit cartoony and the way you kill people doesn't feel as realistic as in COD. I really love the dark, war-like ambient and lighting of WaW, while BC2 has more of a 'major' ambient.

Another thing is the control you have while playing Call of Duty, compared to the one in Battlefield. While everything is clear, smooth and sharp in COD, BC2
doesn't offer that 100% control over the player. There's always some motion blur and mouse delay which give the game a jerky feeling.


I don't agree, because I don't see sense in what you're saying. You're far too hung up on Call of Duty influencing games.

Sure, the campaign had one or two missions in there with vehicles chasing you and a helicopter also on your tail, but it doesn't mean they copied off MW for that, not one bit. The instances where this happened in BC2, it was relevant to the story, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have done it before and after Call of Duty.

OK, so you're saying that every single FPS game that I have played with me rolling into a town in a vehicle copies off Call of Duty? Effectively, you're saying that everyone should walk into the town, for miles and miles, and not use a vehicle... I don't even... that would be a **** game, and it wouldn't be logical. For example, soldiers in Afghanistan don't walk from their base in Helmand Province to get all the way to their target location, because it's far too unsafe in terms of being out in the open and unprotected, and it would heavily fatigue soldiers before they even get to their target.

Also, Call of Duty didn't invent predators, so BC2 didn't copy off Call of Duty in that respect, because it's a military weapon, and BC2 is a military game, so they used it because the situation that you are in on the campaign, you need it! It's like saying that BC2 copied off Call of Duty just because it had the M16 in the game...

I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have a semi-cut scene where you have to kill a boss, so BC2 didn't copy off MW in that respect, because boss fights should always be highlighted.

It is completely your opinion that you prefer Call of Duty graphics over BC2, but don't say that the BC2 player models are cartoony, because they just aren't. Also, explain 'major' ambient?

To round off my side of the debate, I would like to point out that the reason why Call of Duty feels much more fluid and responsive than BC2 is because Call of Duty has become a very arcade orientated game - fact, and you can whizz around as smooth as you like and kill enemies much more easily than in the Battlefield series, because the Battlefield series is much more realistic and Call of Duty is a game that makes noob players look good.

[Shooter99]

I don't agree, because I don't see sense in what you're saying. You're far too hung up on Call of Duty influencing games.

Sure, the campaign had one or two missions in there with vehicles chasing you and a helicopter also on your tail, but it doesn't mean they copied off MW for that, not one bit. The instances where this happened in BC2, it was relevant to the story, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have done it before and after Call of Duty.

OK, so you're saying that every single FPS game that I have played with me rolling into a town in a vehicle copies off Call of Duty? Effectively, you're saying that everyone should walk into the town, for miles and miles, and not use a vehicle... I don't even... that would be a **** game, and it wouldn't be logical. For example, soldiers in Afghanistan don't walk from their base in Helmand Province to get all the way to their target location, because it's far too unsafe in terms of being out in the open and unprotected, and it would heavily fatigue soldiers before they even get to their target.

Also, Call of Duty didn't invent predators, so BC2 didn't copy off Call of Duty in that respect, because it's a military weapon, and BC2 is a military game, so they used it because the situation that you are in on the campaign, you need it! It's like saying that BC2 copied off Call of Duty just because it had the M16 in the game...

I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have a semi-cut scene where you have to kill a boss, so BC2 didn't copy off MW in that respect, because boss fights should always be highlighted.

It is completely your opinion that you prefer Call of Duty graphics over BC2, but don't say that the BC2 player models are cartoony, because they just aren't. Also, explain 'major' ambient?

To round off my side of the debate, I would like to point out that the reason why Call of Duty feels much more fluid and responsive than BC2 is because Call of Duty has become a very arcade orientated game - fact, and you can whizz around as smooth as you like and kill enemies much more easily than in the Battlefield series, because the Battlefield series is much more realistic and Call of Duty is a game that makes noob players look good.

I didn't mean that the fact of driving into the town makes it look like a Call of Duty game. I was saying that the dialogues and shootouts during that sequence are very similar to the ones in MW/MW2.
When it comes to gaming, Infinity Ward invented the predator drone, since they were the first ones to implement it in a game. EA/Dice saw it as a good idea and they used one in BC/2.
As far as I can remember, the first time I saw a semi-cut scene was in a Call of Duty game. After MW, almost every fps started featuring semi-cut scenes and so did BC/2.
What I mean when I say that BC2 tried to copy MW/MW2, is that they tried to make the campaign/story entertaining and fun, while using MW's tricks and effects.

As for the visuals, they seem to be a bit too bright and 'happy' in BC2. I used the music term 'major' about Battlefield, since it does feel like playing a major chord. While I prefer the dark, war-like feeling of Call of Duty, I love the jungles, beaches and open landscapes of BC2, since they look so real. But close quarter combat and town fighting looks much better in Call of Duty.

I know that noobs like Call of Duty games because of their run and gun arcade style, but Call of Duty doesn't make noobs look good at all. It makes noobs look like idiots who can't play. While Battlefield requires team-based action and strategies in order to win, Call of Duty concentrates on speed and reflexes – so it’s not a noob game.

[Yoe]

Factually, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has more realistic graphics than any other Call of Duty game, however, past Call of Duty games have always had an edge over the older Battlefield games. With the older Battlefield games being mass-multiplayer action, it meant that back in the day they couldn't really afford to make the visuals in the games any better than they already were. However, having said that, Battlefield 2's visuals for when it was released in 2005 were excellent, but just fell short of the likes of Call of Duty 2, as Infinity Ward's graphics engine owned a lot of game engines around that time.

I think that hit the nail on the head, BF2 was awesome graphics back in 05, that and 64 players on a server was awesome, if not a bit pushing it

[Jayhmmz]

I think that hit the nail on the head, BF2 was awesome graphics back in 05, that and 64 players on a server was awesome, if not a bit pushing it

Why thank you very much; you know your stuff ;)

[Yoe]

Why thank you very much; you know your stuff ;)

I still enjoy playing BF2 a lot, back when i first started it was hell sometimes

My poor old Dell PC running everything on low, prone to crashing just as i got a chance to go in the Jet, or getting to fly a bit and finding you can't load graphics that far so shooting anything at a distance was impossible.

I can list so many things wrong with how they pushed that game, and yet few games have provided so much fun and even fewer that i still play 6 years after it's release

[susanexpress1]

I like to play Battlefield 3

[Jayhmmz]

I like to play Battlefield 3

that's funny, because it isn't even out yet.

[paecmaker]

that's funny, because it isn't even out yet.

lol, fail..

[podz101]

Battlefield 3 is made from frostbite too which makes the graphics more realistic.. cod will always be cod but battlefield will change everything.

[Jayhmmz]

Battlefield 3 is made from frostbite too which makes the graphics more realistic.. cod will always be cod but battlefield will change everything.

you've got that right!

[Callanrobertson]

Battlefield 3 is going to be awesome I ordered it yesterday can't wait the October I was a Cod person till i Saw the trailer those graphics are amazing and the game play look's great :laugh1:

[paecmaker]

Have you heard how they gonna help solve the camping problem that follows every fps. The small thing that light can be reflected from the snipers scope showing it as a small bright flash for the other players. These small things that when they come you wonder, why not earlier because they can change the gameplay completely. Another thing is that(Ive heard) in the dark flashlights is not used only to light up the surroundings but can also blind the opponent if aimed to his eyes(but if you overuse it they will proably get used to the light).

[Ilyich Valken]

I know this is going to sound fanboyish, which is furthest from the truth, but honestly, I'm getting sick of everyone who is advocating Battlefield 3 thinking that it will be the second coming and will reinvent the entire FPS genre.

IT WILL NOT. Sure, it may be bringing in things that are cool, but most of that has to do with aesthetics, honestly. Not a whole lot to change up the gameplay aside from enhanced destruction.

In the end, it may pull a lot of players away from Call of Duty, but a good amount of still going to buy CoD, enjoy it, and I can guarantee that people are going to try BF3, not like it and go back.

It's definitely not going to be a CoD killer like DICE wants it to be and everyone's going around claiming. At this point, the only thing that can do that is CoD itself.

I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but there's no way in hell, unless every single CoD player skips out on MW3 that BF3 will kill it. And we all know that won't happen.

[Jayhmmz]

I know this is going to sound fanboyish, which is furthest from the truth, but honestly, I'm getting sick of everyone who is advocating Battlefield 3 thinking that it will be the second coming and will reinvent the entire FPS genre.

IT WILL NOT. Sure, it may be bringing in things that are cool, but most of that has to do with aesthetics, honestly. Not a whole lot to change up the gameplay aside from enhanced destruction.

In the end, it may pull a lot of players away from Call of Duty, but a good amount of still going to buy CoD, enjoy it, and I can guarantee that people are going to try BF3, not like it and go back.

It's definitely not going to be a CoD killer like DICE wants it to be and everyone's going around claiming. At this point, the only thing that can do that is CoD itself.

I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but there's no way in hell, unless every single CoD player skips out on MW3 that BF3 will kill it. And we all know that won't happen.

Agreed.

Even though I am pro-BF3, to the max, I definitely do not think that it will kill off CoD (yet), as aforementioned by Ilyich.

However, if Activision and their fellow developers don't pull their fingers out their holes soon though, then in a few years time this unlikely scenario could be an eventuality, for sure.

[Ilyich Valken]

Agreed.

Even though I am pro-BF3, to the max, I definitely do not think that it will kill off CoD (yet), as aforementioned by Ilyich.

However, if Activision and their fellow developers don't pull their fingers out their holes soon though, then in a few years time this unlikely scenario could be an eventuality, for sure.

Totally. It's more than likely not going to happen this year, but maybe 2-3 years down the road, definitely. I've even heard they're going to try alternating MoH and BF every other year to try and compete.. I don't know how well MoH is going to do, though.

[Jayhmmz]

Totally. It's more than likely not going to happen this year, but maybe 2-3 years down the road, definitely. I've even heard they're going to try alternating MoH and BF every other year to try and compete.. I don't know how well MoH is going to do, though.

There hasn't been a good MoH on the PC since Allied Assault, and there hasn't been a good MoH on the console since Rising Sun.

MoH Airborne had the potential to be amazing, even more so for me considering I have an obsession with WWII history and the 101st Airborne, but when my pre-order copy came I was deeply disappointed that they messed up the texture rendering (which made most PCs melt inside, when set to maximum graphics) and released the game with mass-bugs and errors, along with a fail-train multiplayer.... *sigh*

They created MoH Allied Assault, which is one of the most successful and most popular fps multiplayer games of all time... so why did they feel the need to change it all and fail so hard?

[awwnziikte]

I'm doing my latest website magazine article on why I think Battlefield 3 will be better than Call of Duty, if Activision's developers don't pull their socks up to challenge EA DICE.

So, I need opinions for my research :)

I have included a poll, and I would like you to state your reasons specifically telling me which game will be better than the other, and why. Please make it as constructive as possible for me to work with, as I will be quoting you :)

Thanks.

bf3 will win because mw3 is the same as mw2

[paecmaker]

bf3 will win because mw3 is the same as mw2

and mw 2 was the same as mw and still people bought it.;)


@ Jay, I liked Moh pacific assault in the single player campaign.

[Ilyich Valken]

and mw 2 was the same as mw and still people bought it.;)


It wasn't, though.

And neither will MW3. If you actually look at MW and MW2, they're nothing alike aside from the core gameplay. And everything I've heard about MW3 says it's not going to be the same as MW2, core gameplay aside.

[Shooter99]

Have you heard how they gonna help solve the camping problem that follows every fps. The small thing that light can be reflected from the snipers scope showing it as a small bright flash for the other players. These small things that when they come you wonder, why not earlier because they can change the gameplay completely.

The scopes in COD2 and MOHA were reflecting light, so BF3 won't be the first game to feature this.


Another thing is that(Ive heard) in the dark flashlights is not used only to light up the surroundings but can also blind the opponent if aimed to his eyes(but if you overuse it they will proably get used to the light).

That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.


There hasn't been a good MoH on the PC since Allied Assault, and there hasn't been a good MoH on the console since Rising Sun.

IW created Allied Assault, and that's why it was so good.


MoH Airborne had the potential to be amazing, even more so for me considering I have an obsession with WWII history and the 101st Airborne, but when my pre-order copy came I was deeply disappointed that they messed up the texture rendering (which made most PCs melt inside, when set to maximum graphics) and released the game with mass-bugs and errors, along with a fail-train multiplayer.... *sigh*

They created MoH Allied Assault, which is one of the most successful and most popular fps multiplayer games of all time... so why did they feel the need to change it all and fail so hard?

MOHA was an amazing game (and you were with the 82nd btw). It offered a great singleplayer experience (as for the multiplayer, it was you own fault to expect a good multiplayer from a MOH game). The same goes for Pacific Assault - great SP, bad multiplayer.
But when compared to COD or BF, MOH is a terrible game. Medal of Honor 2010 was an awful game, and in my opinion, the MOH franchise is going to fall pretty damn soon.




@ Jay, I liked Moh pacific assault in the single player campaign.

+1 on Pacific Assault's campaing.

[paecmaker]

That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.

Yeah, that is something Im a little worried about too.

[Jayhmmz]

That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.


Yeah, that is something Im a little worried about too.

It won't be a feature in Multiplayer. Do you really think EA DICE are that stupid? They have said that they're sticking to the roots of the Battlefield series, so they won't be adding stupid **** like that to the Multiplayer.

[paecmaker]

It won't be a feature in Multiplayer. Do you really think EA DICE are that stupid? They have said that they're sticking to the roots of the Battlefield series, so they won't be adding stupid **** like that to the Multiplayer.

Accually, it is in the mp. I just saw in a mp video how they get half blinded by a flash light. Now its not as sharp as I thought it be so they can still see, partially.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhBjBy5OOFY&feature=player_embedded
One part in this video shows it.

[Jayhmmz]

Accually, it is in the mp. I just saw in a mp video how they get half blinded by a flash light. Now its not as sharp as I thought it be so they can still see, partially.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhBjBy5OOFY&feature=player_embedded
One part in this video shows it.

That's completely fine, I can deal with that, as it's fair and realistic.

[Shooter99]

That's completely fine, I can deal with that, as it's fair and realistic.

Yeah, that looks ok. It is completely noob-proof.

[Jester]

It's hard to say without getting to play MW3, but based on the beta, Battlefield 3 looks like it has a shot to dethrone CoD IMO, I'm still getting both though

[Jayhmmz]

I've decided that I'm gunna give MW3 a chance, to see if it lives up to it's promise of bringing back multiplayer that mirrors CoD4's.

[Trunks]

I'm definitely sticking with Call of Duty, I've been playing them since the original Call of Duty for computer. They'll always be my favorite shooter. I may get this game with christmas money or something, but I'll have my hands full with Skyrim and MW3 until then.

[CraeSC111]

Battlefield 3 is definitely better in my opinion. I think the story is more in-depth, I think the combat runs smoother than CoD, and Vehicles are definitely a great addition. The multiplayer is definitely superior. More team-based action thanks to squads and defined roles (Engineer FTW). Destructable battlefields for a constantly changing experience. Vehicles that you can go god-mode in (If you have a few engineers). All around Battlefield has always and probably will continue to outperform CoD (CoD World at War is the exception when it comes to the campaign).

[Trunks]

Battlefield 3 is definitely better in my opinion. I think the story is more in-depth, I think the combat runs smoother than CoD, and Vehicles are definitely a great addition. The multiplayer is definitely superior. More team-based action thanks to squads and defined roles (Engineer FTW). Destructable battlefields for a constantly changing experience. Vehicles that you can go god-mode in (If you have a few engineers). All around Battlefield has always and probably will continue to outperform CoD (CoD World at War is the exception when it comes to the campaign).

CoD WaW was the worst call of duty in my opinion lol. MW 1 and 2 along with Black ops both had phenomenal stories along with cut scenes. WaW was the one lacking the story and cut scenes. WaW also had pretty awful multiplayer as well. The graphics were also very unappealing. Going from MW to WaW was a huge let down. The MW story has been going on for 2 games and soon to be 3. Way more in-depth then the BF's un-continuing story. TBH I think you're crazy to think BF's stories are better than CoD. I've played through all of both and it's really easy to say, the CoD series has the best story for any FPS war game. I didn't think BF's campaign were any good. Bad company 1 and 2 was okay, but no where near cod. BF 2 is almost non existing lol.

As for online play, it's more a matter of opinion. Black ops had a terrible engine I thought, but MW and MW2 were both good, very clean and crisp (which is was MW3 will be running from.) The CoD series also has way more choices on classes than BF. Having complete customizable classes and loadouts makes the online experience 10 times better IMO. Picking your own perks, weapons and equipment is something that CoD will always have over BF since they won't have any custom loadouts. The games going to be way more fast paced. The maps in MW3 are way smaller, and the engine MW3 is using is capable of running at a higher FPS. BF3 is running off a whole new system which still has a lot of bugs. If you played the beta you know what I'm talking about.

Another downfall to BF3 is that the game engine was designed to run on a PC and then they are transferring it to console which means it won't run as smooth. The fact that they are having bugs with the beta for PC shows that they are still having troubles with the game engine for PC, so it's not looking good for console players.

All my friend already have MW3 pre ordered. They've never let anybody down before and from the looks of it, this title is going to be a close Mirror to MW ( Widely known as one of the best online FPS ) with a few improvements and changes to gameplay( as far as multiplayer goes.) Plus you can also count on the amazing campaign along with spec ops which is unique to the MW series.

Call me a fanboy if you want, but it's hard to deny the facts.

CoD > BF

The sales tell all, and they will during the release of MW3 and BF3

[CraeSC111]

It's not the cutscenes I'm not fully concerned about with the campaign. Its the gameplay, how they did the objectives, how they develop characters and still show the characters personalities during the game. MW was just running through the level shooting enemies, not really any other objectives or really anything complicated and you never really got to see your allies outside of the cutscenes (and even then there wasn't much character development). I enjoyed the new things that they added to the WaW campaign and they did a good job at creating a great WW2 atmosphere in my opinion. Plus the flamethrower was fun as hell. :D

[Exentenzed]

"Bad company 1 and 2 was okay, but no where near cod. BF2 is almost non existing lol."

BF2 had an almost non existing campaign? There was no campaign at all! Battlefield has mainly been a multiplayer franchise.

Bad company 1 and 2 was DICE, more or less testing themselves as story writers and scripters to create a campaign within the battlefield franchise.
It was a fun and entertaining story and that is what matters.
and at the same time it was also a completely new multiplayer mode within battlefield in those games.

Of course when it comes to Call of Duty my biggest concern is not the singleplayer, which mostly are great. it's the multiplayer and features that are moving forward at a way to slow pace.

And considering one is using 5-15 hours on a FPS's campaign vs the huge amount of time one uses on FPS's multiplayers nowadays. I find battlefield to be much more worth my money.

I usually just borrow the CoD games from a mate or something since i only want the story, and can't be bothered to spend my time on CoD's multiplayer.


The fact that they are having bugs with the beta for PC shows that they are still having troubles with the game engine for PC, so it's not looking good for console players.

Of course there where bugs in the BETA, are you unfamiliar with what a beta is? Besides, at the time of the beta they used a old version of the game to prevent people beeing bothered to rip it and creating hacked servers.
most of the bug's that showed up was allready fixed. and their main goal with the beta was also to stress test the servers.


Picking your own perks, weapons and equipment is something that CoD will always have over BF since they won't have any custom loadouts.
You really need to get your facts updated.


this title is going to be a close Mirror to MW
If a CoD game that is going to be another copy/paste is really what you want then good for you.


Another downfall to BF3 is that the game engine was designed to run on a PC and then they are transferring it to console which means it won't run as smooth.
It is a true sequel to BF2, of course they had to create it on PC, It's something that the BF fans appriciate. And it's looking pretty good on console aswell...


As for online play, it's more a matter of opinion.
This. One of the only thing in your entire post of "facts" that i can agree with.


Call me a fanboy if you want,
It's not that i want to, but from what i've read, i sort of have to.

[Trunks]

BF2 had an almost non existing campaign? There was no campaign at all! Battlefield has mainly been a multiplayer franchise.

Bad company 1 and 2 was DICE, more or less testing themselves as story writers and scripters to create a campaign within the battlefield franchise.
It was a fun and entertaining story and that is what matters.
and at the same time it was also a completely new multiplayer mode within battlefield in those games.

Of course when it comes to Call of Duty my biggest concern is not the singleplayer, which mostly are great. it's the multiplayer and features that are moving forward at a way to slow pace.

And considering one is using 5-15 hours on a FPS's campaign vs the huge amount of time one uses on FPS's multiplayers nowadays. I find battlefield to be much more worth my money.

I usually just borrow the CoD games from a mate or something since i only want the story, and can't be bothered to spend my time on CoD's multiplayer.



Of course there where bugs in the BETA, are you unfamiliar with what a beta is? Besides, at the time of the beta they used a old version of the game to prevent people beeing bothered to rip it and creating hacked servers.
most of the bug's that showed up was allready fixed. and their main goal with the beta was also to stress test the servers.


You really need to get your facts updated.


If a CoD game that is going to be another copy/paste is really what you want then good for you.


It is a true sequel to BF2, of course they had to create it on PC, It's something that the BF fans appriciate. And it's looking pretty good on console aswell...


This. One of the only thing in your entire post of "facts" that i can agree with.


It's not that i want to, but from what i've read, i sort of have to.

Test or not, they were still BF games, how can you compare the two franchises if two of there games were just "test". So you're saying so far BF2 is the only game that is real? Well, looks like were winning by a long shot, because BF series has fail to release a title in 5 years.

Not sure what games you've been playing, but they had way new features every time to the multiplayer. There really isn't much more they can do to it. For FPS games, the best improvements that can be made in my opinion to make the game engine run smoother. That's what they did, they modified MW2 engine for the game, but changed the rest, it's not an exact mirror. Games do it all the time, over 50 games used the quake 3 engine before in the past. Just because it's a mirror doesn't mean it's a copy and paste LOL

and I did check my "facts", BF3 won't have the customizable load outs like MW3 has. Go look it up your self bud, you'll get it to an externes, but nothing like MW3.

I rather have a game created to run onto my system, not another one then "copy and pasted" to console.

you're just telling me how BF3 will be better online, you really didn't give out any points to it at all. You're worried about how CoD will be the same, if you take a look at BF 2 and BF 3, they are not changing much there lol. Looks like you need to get your facts straight.

[Exentenzed]

Test or not, they were still BF games, how can you compare the two franchises if two of there games were just "test". So you're saying so far BF2 is the only game that is real? Well, looks like were winning by a long shot, because BF series has fail to release a title in 5 years.

That's just putting words in my mouth, i never said it was the only "real" BF game, but you stated that we would be crazy to think BF's stories are better than CoD's. And i was simply pointing out that BF is not about singleplayer modes.

And just because they are not publishing a new game every god damn year does not mean that anyone's "winning". I think you have misinterpeted the point of my entire post.


Not sure what games you've been playing, but they had way new features every time to the multiplayer. There really isn't much more they can do to it. For FPS games, the best improvements that can be made in my opinion to make the game engine run smoother. That's what they did, they modified MW2 engine for the game, but changed the rest, it's not an exact mirror. Games do it all the time, over 50 games used the quake 3 engine before in the past. Just because it's a mirror doesn't mean it's a copy and paste LOL
There's been a few new features every year to the multiplayer of CoD. but in my oppinion nothing big enough to release a whole new title for. Sure it's a good buisness plan and i understand completely well that is what it's all about for the developers in the end. But that does not mean i have to like it.


and I did check my "facts", BF3 won't have the customizable load outs like MW3 has. Go look it up your self bud, you'll get it to an externes, but nothing like MW3.
Actually, in you're earlier post you stated that in Battlefield we wont have ANY kind of customizable loadouts, it's easy to debate when you are changing your statements all the time.


I rather have a game created to run onto my system, not another one then "copy and pasted" to console.

The battlefield franchise was born on PC, so it's logical that it's beeing designed for PC aswell.


you're just telling me how BF3 will be better online, you really didn't give out any points to it at all.

Im not giving any points to it because im not trying to convince you one way or another, i like them both as separate games. im just defending the game from your ignorance on the matter while at the same time uttering my oppinion.


You're worried about how CoD will be the same, if you take a look at BF 2 and BF 3, they are not changing much there lol. Looks like you need to get your facts straight.[/QUOTE]

I was comparing them to eachother, this is a BF3 vs Call of Duty thread but let's look at the difference of the changes they've made.

Battlefield 2 and Modern Warfare 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x55fifmC5kk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE46AFOqrC8

Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuufVf3Quo


Note: Again, i like them both, i play CoD for it's singleplayer and i play BF for it's multiplayer. That's me. But as i stated earlier these links are only to see the difference of the changes applied between the games.

[Trunks]

That's just putting words in my mouth, i never said it was the only "real" BF game, but you stated that we would be crazy to think BF's stories are better than CoD's. And i was simply pointing out that BF is not about singleplayer modes.

And just because they are not publishing a new game every god damn year does not mean that anyone's "winning". I think you have misinterpeted the point of my entire post.


There's been a few new features every year to the multiplayer of CoD. but in my oppinion nothing big enough to release a whole new title for. Sure it's a good buisness plan and i understand completely well that is what it's all about for the developers in the end. But that does not mean i have to like it.


Actually, in you're earlier post you stated that in Battlefield we wont have ANY kind of customizable loadouts, it's easy to debate when you are changing your statements all the time.



The battlefield franchise was born on PC, so it's logical that it's beeing designed for PC aswell.



Im not giving any points to it because im not trying to convince you one way or another, i like them both as separate games. im just defending the game from your ignorance on the matter while at the same time uttering my oppinion.



I didn't see a point in your last post, that's probably a good reason why I missed it. Also it was sarcasm when I said CoD was winning because BF failed to release titles. I was simply making a joke to the fact that you said Bad Company 1 & 2 was just a test.

Like you said, they release a title every year for business purposes only, it's the contract that they have with Activision. You have to remember two whole different companies make a different series under the same name. I honestly wish that they had more time to make games, they only have 2 years to make them.

Also when i said they won't have any custom load outs, I meant completely customizable. When I think of custom, I think of being able to have everything the way you want it.

The call of duty franchise as also "born" on PC. It turned more to consoles when MW2 realized. They recognized that gaming was turning to consoles more than PC's. Which also means that more profits will come out of console gaming. So it's only "logical" they would move to console. The thing that sucks for BF3 players that will using a console is that BF3 will only be running at 30 fps where call of duty will be running at 60 fps. That's just something you'll have to deal with when you have superior graphics. With BF3 you'll probably be able to play with 30 fps with out to much of a problem. A game like Call of Duty is way more fast paced and you have a lot more going on. If you went from console to PC with BF3 you would notice a HUGE difference in game play though. IMO I think that MW3 looks amazing for a 5 year old game system.


I'm not going to watch four videos to waste my time, since you said your self that you are not trying to make any points, I don't see any point in watching them. Easy to debate when you don't have to defend your side against there points.

[CraeSC111]

Just because battlefield hasn't released a game in a few years doesn't mean its worse than CoD (look at starcraft, there are a good many years between 1 and two and they are both really awesome). They have big releases with a lot of new features rather than a few new feature a year. CoD kinda wears itself out in my opinion by releases almost the same game every year.

[Valkyr]

Not sure which would be better because I like both CoD and Battlefield. So I didn't vote. D: I would agree that CoD is almost the same every time one comes out, but so what? Its still effing awesome, but thats just me.

[Exentenzed]

I didn't see a point in your last post, that's probably a good reason why I missed it. Also it was sarcasm when I said CoD was winning because BF failed to release titles. I was simply making a joke to the fact that you said Bad Company 1 & 2 was just a test.

Like you said, they release a title every year for business purposes only, it's the contract that they have with Activision. You have to remember two whole different companies make a different series under the same name. I honestly wish that they had more time to make games, they only have 2 years to make them.

Also when i said they won't have any custom load outs, I meant completely customizable. When I think of custom, I think of being able to have everything the way you want it.

The call of duty franchise as also "born" on PC. It turned more to consoles when MW2 realized. They recognized that gaming was turning to consoles more than PC's. Which also means that more profits will come out of console gaming. So it's only "logical" they would move to console. The thing that sucks for BF3 players that will using a console is that BF3 will only be running at 30 fps where call of duty will be running at 60 fps. That's just something you'll have to deal with when you have superior graphics. With BF3 you'll probably be able to play with 30 fps with out to much of a problem. A game like Call of Duty is way more fast paced and you have a lot more going on. If you went from console to PC with BF3 you would notice a HUGE difference in game play though. IMO I think that MW3 looks amazing for a 5 year old game system.


I'm not going to watch four videos to waste my time, since you said your self that you are not trying to make any points, I don't see any point in watching them. Easy to debate when you don't have to defend your side against there points.

My point was that i didn't like that you stated thing's about BF3 that wasnt true. (Even though now you say that you just meant something else than what you wrote, you can ofcourse see my confusion :) .)

I also wish they had more time to create their games, just too bad the head of Activision is a Wh***.
The developers of CoD have done pretty good jobs though considering their time restriction.

Yea, it sucks that console players will have to settle for 30fps, fortunately i will be getting it for PC myself. But as you said, that's the price for superior graphics.

I also think MW3 looks amazing for a 5 year old game systems, but i also think BF3 looks even better on the same systems.

P.S:
When you say a CoD match has "alot more going on" you also have to remember that alot happens in BF too, its just that in CoD the players are crammed into more focused and intense maps. So the feeling of "more going on" is pretty much an illusion.

Well if you won't watch the videos and discuss them i take it our debate is over, so thanks for your views. :)


I would agree that CoD is almost the same every time one comes out, but so what? Its still effing awesome, but thats just me.
It's still awesome sure, but in my oppinion they could just have given their 2-3 latest releases out as expansion packs instead of full games that they charge 50€ for.

[Trunks]

Just because battlefield hasn't released a game in a few years doesn't mean its worse than CoD (look at starcraft, there are a good many years between 1 and two and they are both really awesome). They have big releases with a lot of new features rather than a few new feature a year. CoD kinda wears itself out in my opinion by releases almost the same game every year.

Already said that was sarcasm bro, lol.

The game designers don't have a say in the matter, two companies have a contract with Activison to release a game every 2 years, which means a CoD title every year. I love everyone of them as well.


My point was that i didn't like that you stated thing's about BF3 that wasnt true. (Even though now you say that you just meant something else than what you wrote, you can ofcourse see my confusion :) .)


Sorry about that, I knew what I meant in my head, just didn't explain it well enough in text.


I also wish they had more time to create their games, just too bad the head of Activision is a Wh***.
The developers of CoD have done pretty good jobs though considering their time restriction.
I 100% agree. I'm assuming a good part of the time is creating the campaign as well.


Yea, it sucks that console players will have to settle for 30fps, fortunately i will be getting it for PC myself. But as you said, that's the price for superior graphics.

I also think MW3 looks amazing for a 5 year old game systems, but i also think BF3 looks even better on the same systems.
Sine your getting it for PC it won't really matter to you, but I do have to agree, MW3 doesn't have better looking graphics. It's simply for the reason that there engine is way newer.



When you say a CoD match has "alot more going on" you also have to remember that alot happens in BF too, its just that in CoD the players are crammed into more focused and intense maps. So the feeling of "more going on" is pretty much an illusion.
From the small amount that I played the BF3 beta, I noticed a lot more dry spots with no action going on. It's not really like that when you play call of duty. It is due to the smaller maps, but that doesn't make it illusion, there is still more action going on in the game play.



It's still awesome sure, but in my oppinion they could just have given their 2-3 latest releases out as expansion packs instead of full games that they charge 50€ for.
I'm sure you heard the if it's not broke don't fix it. Call of Duty is still running off its hype from Call of Duty 4. They could keep releasing games of the same caliber just because CoD 4 was so amazing.

The only way were going to get a huge different game out of Activison is if they give them more time to create games. They would need to create a whole new game engine for a huge difference. I really don't see that happening, I mean the sales for CoD have my going up with each release. Plus with the xbox 720 coming out in just a few short years(They plan to show it at e3 2013 with possibly a 2014 holiday launch ) I don't see them making a new engine. After the xbox 720 release and the PS4 they will probably have to create a new engine, I can't even imagine what games are going to look like in 2014, almost 10 years after the 360 and ps3.

Anyway, for me new engine or not, Call of Duty will always be my FPS of choice and I'm always going to think better of it then any other shooter.

[Valkyr]

It's still awesome sure, but in my oppinion they could just have given their 2-3 latest releases out as expansion packs instead of full games that they charge 50€ for.

Huh. Never would of thought about it being expansion packs. That could of been an awesome idea. xD

[CraeSC111]

Huh. Never would of thought about it being expansion packs. That could of been an awesome idea. xD

I know right. I stopped buying CoD after Modern Warfare (With the exception of World at War because I loved the campaign). Didn't want to buy the other games for $50. I really only played the single player though because you have to pay for xbox live. Q_Q

[Trunks]

I know right. I stopped buying CoD after Modern Warfare (With the exception of World at War because I loved the campaign). Didn't want to buy the other games for $50. I really only played the single player though because you have to pay for xbox live. Q_Q

Still don't understand how you though WaW had a good campaign lol. I'm telling you, if you liked WaW, you'd love the MW campaign 10 times better.

anyway, paying for xbox live is what makes the difference from PSN. PSN is always down, at least once a month it seems like it. Xbox Live is rarely down, if it happens to be, it's normally maintenance and it's up within a day.

[Valkyr]

I know right. I stopped buying CoD after Modern Warfare (With the exception of World at War because I loved the campaign). Didn't want to buy the other games for $50. I really only played the single player though because you have to pay for xbox live. Q_Q

Its weird, cause I have never spent $50 for any of my games, not even CoD. :3 This is why I love Trade-A-Game, take a few games in, get a few games back... for free. :D Or even if you wanna buy a good game without trading, they run for at lest 35 bucks tops.
But I do feel ya know the single player part though. No Xbox Live for me, yet.

[Exentenzed]

Anyway, for me new engine or not, Call of Duty will always be my FPS of choice and I'm always going to think better of it then any other shooter.

Whilst there was some minor points in your last post that i don't fully agree with im gonna ignore those for this statement.

I can completely respect the fact that you prefer CoD.
Same for me, Battlefield will be my FPS of choice. Our oppinions is because we obviously looks for different things in a shooter. :)

So i hope you will enjoy MW3. :)

[nagenraman]

Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
BF3 will be better than MW3 , because Activision and their respected developers have ran out of ideas on how to make Call of Duty look and feel fresh [support this], compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days[support this]. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles[support this. what makes it 'mega-fun?'], and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically)[support this], whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.

Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy[support this], whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us[support this]. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects[award winning? what awards?], and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion[I'm glad you said "in my opinion" here].

Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money[support this], whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise[support this], as well as making their profit.


Mind refining that answer?



you know, when I was reading it I already assumed what he was saying was his opinions... this is a gamer's thread not a research paper.. what else? did you what him to source it with APA too? ::-)

[CraeSC111]

No Source it in MLA. Everything is in MLA these days....

[Triton]

I have a feeling that Battlefield will have the lead in this one. It's an all round better war game.

[Trunks]

I have a feeling that Battlefield will have the lead in this one. It's an all round better war game.

lead it in what? No matter how good the game is, CoD sales are going to be better. I'm 99% sure, just simply because it is a CoD title, that's how the world works.

Also I wouldn't say "all around better" the campaign for MW3 is going to be better, if one thing IW has down, it's definitely the campaign. The only thing in my mind that BF3 has a shot with is Multiplayer.

[CraeSC111]

If they add a good campaign into BF 3 then it could compete with CoD's campaign. Their first attempt at it with Bad Company was pretty good. They could have always improved which is generally the case with Battlefield games.

[Trunks]

If they add a good campaign into BF 3 then it could compete with CoD's campaign. Their first attempt at it with Bad Company was pretty good. They could have always improved which is generally the case with Battlefield games.

Battle Field 3 is normally known as online only game as people mentioned above, I don't see this campaign being any better than Bad Company's, Which in my opinion, Bad Company was a decent story line, had some humor in it which made it stand out from other War games. Bad Company 2 became more serious and the story wasn't really there for me to keep my attention. It was kind of dry and without the humor i ended up ignoring a lot of it. BF3 being a PC based game, I don't see them putting a huge amount of effort into it. 90% of the people buying it are probably getting it just for online.

[LemonRising]

Just posting for the polls:
Massive Poll: BF3 Vs MW3 The Results | Gaming News and Opinion at TheSixthAxis.com (http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/07/04/massive-poll-the-results/)
MW3 vs BF3 (Poll) - GameSpot Forums - System Wars (http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28681187/-mw3-vs-bf3-poll)
BF3 or MW3 (http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/913626-BF3-or-MW3)

I don't think bf3 will outsell mw3, but I see them getting some good numbers.
I think both games will be great in their own ways, but I'm personally looking forward to bf3.

[Trunks]

Just posting for the polls:
Massive Poll: BF3 Vs MW3 The Results | Gaming News and Opinion at TheSixthAxis.com (http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/07/04/massive-poll-the-results/)
MW3 vs BF3 (Poll) - GameSpot Forums - System Wars (http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28681187/-mw3-vs-bf3-poll)
BF3 or MW3 (http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/913626-BF3-or-MW3)

I don't think bf3 will outsell mw3, but I see them getting some good numbers.
I think both games will be great in their own ways, but I'm personally looking forward to bf3.




the the thing about the polls is that since BF3 is mostly based around PC, they're going to get more votes. MW3 is more for consoles, not a lot of console gamers get on the PC and go vote for polls on websites.

Americas Pre-Order Chart - VGChartz (http://www.vgchartz.com/preorders.php?date=40818)

Those are the sales for pre-orders. Just the sales for xbox 360 MW3 alone is beating BF3 in 360, PS3 and PC by about 200,000 copies. Not to mention that BF3 is 2 weeks closer to release ( according to those charts ) then MW3 is.

I say for PC only, BF3 will outsell MW3 since BF3 is basically built for the PC. But for the consoles and all together it's going to be a land slide in sales.

[LemonRising]

S'why I said I didn't think bf3 would outsell mw3.

[CraeSC111]

yeah I only play Battlefield online. I have BF 2. No one plays :p

[Exentenzed]

Trunks, you really got to stop attacking everyone oppinions just beacuse they favor, or post info that favors Battlefield. It's getting really annoying reading about you trying to rationalize every piece of information or contradict everyone's oppinions that isn't pro CoD. It just looks bad.

[paecmaker]

I got a bf3 review here if you havent read it already

http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1210387p1.html

If you dont want to read it all here is the grades


IGN RATINGS FOR BATTLEFIELD 3 (PC)
Rating Description
out of 10 Click here for ratings guide
8.0 Presentation
The multiplayer’s robust, the browser-based launcher works well, but those who don’t play online won’t find much meat in the other modes.
9.5 Graphics
Frostbite 2 shines in multiplayer, single-player, and co-op.
9.5 Sound
You’ll hear every bullet whizzing by your head, and the crash of rubble all around you.
8.5 Gameplay
Traversing the enormous world feels great, on foot or in a vehicle, but the single-player’s quicktime events are just lame.
9.5 Lasting Appeal
Multiplayer unlocks will keep you chasing the dragon for months.
9.0
OVERALL
Amazing
(out of 10)

[Trunks]

Trunks, you really got to stop attacking everyone oppinions just beacuse they favor, or post info that favors Battlefield. It's getting really annoying reading about you trying to rationalize every piece of information or contradict everyone's oppinions that isn't pro CoD. It just looks bad.

lol, I'm not attacking, just putting my opinions on what they said, or the information they told me. I even agreed with them in curtain aspects of their post. I said that BF3 has a shot of having a better Multiplayer, I said that the graphics and sound are obviously going to be better then MW3 as well. and I even said it was going to out sell MW3 for PC. You are obviously taking this too personally. I'm not attacking you or anyone else's opinions directly, just putting my thoughts/information that I have about the two games based on the information that they posted.


I got a bf3 review here if you havent read it already

http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1210387p1.html

If you dont want to read it all here is the grades



This is the first non biased review that I read and it actually sounds very good. I may get it for christmas just for the visual appeal. It sounds like it's going to be one of the best looking games out. From the trailers/pictures it looks like it'll have better graphics then crysis even. I guess it'll depend on the money I have.

[CraeSC111]

Psh trunks Battlefield has WAYYYYYY better multiplayer than CoD. Its made for the online! :p (completely biased opinion I absolutely hate CoD's multiplayer.)

[Exentenzed]

Apparantly you just don't see it Trunks. But allright, we can just blame it on me taking it too personally. Even though i can't see how i could even do that.

Anyway, im getting boored with this thread. Ciao.

[DeathstrikeS12]

Well I really can not say which is better. I have only played bf3 like twice and was not feeling it as much as cod which i played a lot.

[paecmaker]

I will get bf3 over mw3. It what suits my gamestyle better, I like cod4 but for me it get boring after a few rounds. However battlefield I can play over and over again.

[CraeSC111]

Well I really can not say which is better. I have only played bf3 like twice and was not feeling it as much as cod which i played a lot.

You probably weren't playing with a good squad. Having a squad that's team oriented is definitely better.

[Trunks]

Well I really can not say which is better. I have only played bf3 like twice and was not feeling it as much as cod which i played a lot.

I agree, I played a couple maps at a friends house, I guess it could be fun if you got into it, but all it really did was make me want to play MW3 more.

[Jayhmmz]

I'm just about to play it now. I have it two days early :) UK aren't supposed to have it until Friday, I'm sure.

[Diefer12]

Battlefield 3 all the way, i liked call of duty up to 3 then after WaW it became the same thing every year with slight upgrades in graphic..... ****!!! is what it became! **** COD and his stupid ass CEO who looks like a little *****, just like the people who play his game.

[CraeSC111]

Whoa man watch the profanity! :p
Call of duty did add some more stuff after WaW. I would agree that MW 2 was pretty much MW. But Black Ops did add some good content.

[BobTD]

wow bf3 was a huge let down. The console version is a huge pile.

let me clarify: The servers are crap. 80% of the servers any of my friends try to join give them a "failed to join" message. The games you can get on drop you for no reason 50% of the time, and playing with your friends is near impossible at the moment.

The single player on any setting higher than easy will be the most broken and frustrating experience you have had all year, with half your bullets not registering, enemies that don't have to see you to shoot you and parts of the single player requiring to to move to a location that almost guaranteeing you get shot on the way there or when you get there.

I can only hope the PC version does not suck balls so furiously.

*Edit: those random game drops wipe out all your progress from your last play session as well, just happened to me again, for probably the fifth time today.

[CraeSC111]

They will probably work on patching the servers up. Often get those problems resolved quickly. Thought they would've gotten that done in the beta though.

[Trunks]

wow bf3 was a huge let down. The console version is a huge pile.

let me clarify: The servers are crap. 80% of the servers any of my friends try to join give them a "failed to join" message. The games you can get on drop you for no reason 50% of the time, and playing with your friends is near impossible at the moment.

The single player on any setting higher than easy will be the most broken and frustrating experience you have had all year, with half your bullets not registering, enemies that don't have to see you to shoot you and parts of the single player requiring to to move to a location that almost guaranteeing you get shot on the way there or when you get there.

I can only hope the PC version does not suck balls so furiously.

*Edit: those random game drops wipe out all your progress from your last play session as well, just happened to me again, for probably the fifth time today.

That'll happen with a new game engine, you would think that the beta would solve that issue though. Sorry about your luck with the game. It's not only you though, I've heard there are a huge amount of hackers for the PC version. There is also a good number of glitches.

I even heard for the xbox 360 slim, the games almost unplayable, you're not able to download the HD graphics and the are a pretty close resembles to a PS1 game without it. Funny how there is a 360 slim and BF3 bundle too.

I remember getting pretty frustrated with getting show through smoke, I came to the conclusion that is was thermal scopes, that was only to ease my anger while playing through veteran though.

All the big glitches should be fixed within a couple days, I wouldn't fret to much about it.

[CraeSC111]

Did BF 3 do beta tests? I remember reading about one game (may have been a CoD) that did no beta testing and was absolutely horrible coming out. And I can understand having problems with a completely new engine. The famous unreal engine wasn't perfected overnight

[Trunks]

Did BF 3 do beta tests? I remember reading about one game (may have been a CoD) that did no beta testing and was absolutely horrible coming out. And I can understand having problems with a completely new engine. The famous unreal engine wasn't perfected overnight

Yeah BF3 did a huge Beta Test, over 8 million played it.

Not sure what game you're thinking about, CoD 4 - MW3 all had a beta.

[CraeSC111]

Don't remember the game. I read about it a year or two ago. Beta tests are important. They allow people like me to wish they had the money to actually buy the game when it comes out

[Synge]

wow bf3 was a huge let down. The console version is a huge pile.

let me clarify: The servers are crap. 80% of the servers any of my friends try to join give them a "failed to join" message. The games you can get on drop you for no reason 50% of the time, and playing with your friends is near impossible at the moment.

The single player on any setting higher than easy will be the most broken and frustrating experience you have had all year, with half your bullets not registering, enemies that don't have to see you to shoot you and parts of the single player requiring to to move to a location that almost guaranteeing you get shot on the way there or when you get there.

I can only hope the PC version does not suck balls so furiously.

*Edit: those random game drops wipe out all your progress from your last play session as well, just happened to me again, for probably the fifth time today.

Damn, that's unfortunate :/

Glad I decided to wait.. I'll probably pick it up in a couple months/this holiday if player feedback is generally positive by then.

Edit: Wait, so your complaints were with the console version? I'll have to do a bit of research and see how people are feeling about the PC release, really hope it's a lot better than your experience with the consoles..

[Trunks]

Damn, that's unfortunate :/

Glad I decided to wait.. I'll probably pick it up in a couple months/this holiday if player feedback is generally positive by then.

Edit: Wait, so your complaints were with the console version? I'll have to do a bit of research and see how people are feeling about the PC release, really hope it's a lot better than your experience with the 360..

That's what I plan on doing, picking it up at christmas if any of the news gets better.

[CraeSC111]

Knowing EA they will probably use their godly dev powers to strike down the evil hackers and restore order to the servers.

[Trunks]

Knowing EA they will probably use their godly dev powers to strike down the evil hackers and restore order to the servers.

haha if only it worked that way, Punkbuster is the anti cheat for BF3, they're normally pretty good. CoD series has been using them since CoD1. I believe they already released an update today even.

[CraeSC111]

Ugh punkbuster. I think it kept banning me because of my antivirus or something.

[Trunks]

Ugh punkbuster. I think it kept banning me because of my antivirus or something.

Lol, yeah some antivirus use to think PnkBstra is a virus so it disables it which makes it so you can't join a PB server. I think that problem is fixed for the majority of the anti viruses.

[gamergurl89]

BF3 hands down. But i also love my old CS

[CraeSC111]

I barely hear anything about counter strike. What is that game? And is it free?

[Jayhmmz]

PC version of BF3 is immaculate. It looks stunning and plays fantastically.

[Kenoi]

man, after playing the campaign... I just wanna go all out on multi-player...
just wanna continue the 'bad company 2' they cant just leave it at a cliff hanger... ugh!

[CraeSC111]

Yeah but their cliffhanger will make sure you buy bad company 3 :p

[Trunks]

EA has called a truce in its war of words with bitter franchise rival Call of Duty.

In a new interview with IGN, EA executive vice president Patrick Soderlund said, "We all respect what Call of Duty brings and what they're going to come with. Right now we're out in the market, and that's all I know. When they come out, they come out, and I wish them the best of luck. They're partners in this industry, and I play all their games and I look forward to many of them, and all I can do is try and make sure that people stay interested and want to have more Battlefield."



In the past, EA has taken a far more aggressive stance in its competition against Modern Warfare 3. Back in April, EA CEO John Riccitiello said Battlefield 3 was "designed to take that game down" when referring to the new Call of Duty game, and added that "we think we have the better product."

EA Games president Frank Gibeau similarly said that "everybody loves a heavyweight fight, and that's what this is going to be. We're here to compete." The company even launched an "Above and Beyond the Call" ad campaign, clearly aimed at Call of Duty.

hmm, EA dishes out all this trash talk before the game is released saying how better BF3 will be then MW3. Then after all the glitches and problems that happen with the online play. Not to mention the sales, which we pretty good, but not anything to call of dutys standards. I mean BF3 sold less copies in a week then Black ops sold in a day. Then on the eve of Call of Duty being released they wish them the best of luck?

Sounds like someone is scared.

[CraeSC111]

Having a new version released every year call of duty gets a lot more publicity than BF. They probably have a bigger advertising budget too because I see way more CoD adds than BF ones.

[paecmaker]

Having a new version released every year call of duty gets a lot more publicity than BF. They probably have a bigger advertising budget too because I see way more CoD adds than BF ones.

strange, I ahve seen WAY more bf3 adverts than mw3(now this might have to do with I was in stockholm and that city is flooding with bf3 commercial, its the same city DICE is in)

[Trunks]

strange, I ahve seen WAY more bf3 adverts than mw3(now this might have to do with I was in stockholm and that city is flooding with bf3 commercial, its the same city DICE is in)

Yeah, I agree, definitely way more BF3 commercials. I find this very amusing. :p

[Kenoi]

I dont know, a lot of people like to compare the 2 games, they're completely different... sure they both got weapons, people killing people, but smaller maps. and... no vehicle use except for one. (bf3)
I think I"ll stick with bf3 for a while.

[CraeSC111]

I enjoy the air battles. Once you get the hang of jets its gg for the other team

[Triton]

After getting into BF3, I prefer this to CoD.

[Trunks]

With just days to go until the global release of Modern Warfare 3, it’s fair to say that many players are still engrossed in Battlefield 3, with EA’s latest effort proving to be a winner. We posed an interesting question earlier this week in relation to players quitting BF3 for MW3, but now EA has had their say on the matter.

Obviously there is going to be some divide here. We’ve heard both sides of the argument in that many players are not too happy with the Battlefield 3 launch amid numerous online server issues with multiplayer, but on the other hand many of you love it and will definitely be still playing when Modern Warfare 3 releases on November 8.

EA has now entered the debate themselves officially, and unsurprisingly, they feel that their new game provides enough quality to see off competing titles in a very busy period, with Modern Warfare 3 specifically mentioned by the company. In a recent inteview with IGN, EA’s executive vice president Patrick Soderlund revealed that while they respect Call of Duty, EA believes that with Battlefield 3, they have the best multiplayer in the games industry.

Here’s a portion of his interview: ”We all respect what Call of Duty brings and what they’re going to come with, and I think that we have an industry-leading multiplayer game that will make people want to stay with us, frankly. If you look at all the reviews that we’ve gotten, not a single one that I’ve seen has been negative towards the multiplayer. In fact, many state that the multiplayer is the multiplayer experience to have, the best in the world. And if I can continue to harness that and work on improving that and give the consumers more of that, then hopefully they’re going to feel loyal to us and stay.”

Those are some strong words indeed, do you agree with him first of all on the basis that Battlefield 3′s multiplayer is the best in the industry? Of course we are all yet to try out Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer for a detailed comparison, but since it is largely the same as MW2 but with many more features, simple conclusions can still be made we feel.

It will be interesting to see if the Battlefield 3 servers will experience a huge drop in numbers come November 8. There’s obviously a huge interest in Modern Warfare 3, and even if you love Battlefield 3, gamers may just want to switch games for a while just to experience the competition and see what MW3 offers this time around in comparison.

Ultimately though, where do your priorities lie? – with Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3? Will you be one of the many gamers who stop playing Battlefield 3 in favor of heading straight into MW3 multiplayer? The plus side for BF veterans is that they may even enjoy the fact that many gamers are quitting for Modern Warfare 3 as gameplay may prove to be more enjoyable – what do you think about this aspect?

I'm really interested to see if the amount of players drop when MW3 comes out. From what I've seen where I lived the people who got BF3 didn't plan on getting MW3, so It may drop a little, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't drop at all.

[CraeSC111]

Yeah I don't really see the point of buying BF3 just to drop it. I might decide to pick it up eventually

[paecmaker]

I will buy bf3 when I hear it has gone a little more stable.

[Exentenzed]

Then not yet. :)

Im still having a blast playing it but it can still be alot more stable.

Also, some tweaks and balance changes must be added after they are finished fixing the crashes and disconnects.

Im guessing that in about a months time of fixing, that game will be divine. :)

Im pretty sure EA must have rushed DICE extremely, because it simply plays as if it's unfinished.

[Trunks]

Then not yet. :)

Im still having a blast playing it but it can still be alot more stable.

Also, some tweaks and balance changes must be added after they are finished fixing the crashes and disconnects.

Im guessing that in about a months time of fixing, that game will be divine. :)

Im pretty sure EA must have rushed DICE extremely, because it simply plays as if it's unfinished.

That's what I expected that they did. I think EA wanted a release before MW3 was released. Smart marketing.

[Exentenzed]

Heah, yea. But i'll give it some time, it's been a week and many bugs are allready fixed.

Still pretty annoying though, giving out a unfinished game.

[Kink3bird]

Has anyone else mentioned that they are completely different games?

Yes they are both shooters but that's it.. This obnoxious fanboyism that is plaguing the internet is getting so old and annoying.

BF3 - Realism/military/team oriented FPS
COD:MW3 - Fast paced arcade shooter

You cannot play the same way in both games and be successful.

No game is better, it all depends on your style of play. I wish we could end it at that but it seems people on the internet only pay attention to the ones arguing and taking sides.

[Trunks]

Has anyone else mentioned that they are completely different games?

Yes they are both shooters but that's it.. This obnoxious fanboyism that is plaguing the internet is getting so old and annoying.

BF3 - Realism/military/team oriented FPS
COD:MW3 - Fast paced arcade shooter

You cannot play the same way in both games and be successful.

No game is better, it all depends on your style of play. I wish we could end it at that but it seems people on the internet only pay attention to the ones arguing and taking sides.

The thing is they will be competing for the same award, Best action game of the year.

[Kink3bird]

The thing is they will be competing for the same award, Best action game of the year.

Nice title there Trunks but I was looking to talk to someone who doesn't have a biased opinion on the subject.

[paecmaker]

Well I would want to try play cod as in battlefield with a few friends. If we cover corners and work together it could be pretty succesfull, until someone calls in an airstrike on us.


But yeah, I think its stupid to compare these two games like people do,

The differences are more than the similarities are.

mw(serie), its a close quarter fast paced game that is suitible for lone wolfs. It mostly counts on kills and killstreaks to lock up bigger stuff to get more killstreaks.

BF(serie) Is a long range mostly vehicle oriented with infantry support game, they rely on team based gameplay. You get earned by kills but also for helping your squad, and no support except the one from other players(and a few small things)

[Trunks]

Nice title there Trunks but I was looking to talk to someone who doesn't have a biased opinion on the subject.

You'd currently be surprised.

[CraeSC111]

Everyone has a biased opinion :p

[Trunks]

IGN rated both BF3 and MW3 as 9's.
G4TV rated MW3 a 5 and BF3 a 4.

[paecmaker]

fz.se thought that mw was 4 (out of five) while BF3 was 5(out of five)

Aftonbladet(newspaper) thought that mw 3 was only 3 stars(out of five) whole BF was 4 stars(out of five)

[Adam5]

In the past, BF has always been plagued by lag, overcrowded maps and oh yeah - LAG.

I do find that this installment has been pretty solid. Well-sized maps, a wide-array of vehicles and weapons, and very little lag.

However, in regards to a true FPS, I find COD has taken the cake year after year. Strong gameplay, great weapons and great longevity.

I'll be playing both most likely, but I expect to gravitate towards COD.

[CraeSC111]

I get a good deal of lag from both games (meaning battlefield games and CoD games not just BF3 and CoD MW3). You'll probably get a varied range of lag depending on the servers you play on, the population, etc

[ChandlerSing]

BF3 came a litle more natural

[CraeSC111]

BF3 came a litle more natural

Could you elaborate more on what you meant by that post? It might just be me but I don't really understand what you mean.

[Jayhmmz]

So I played MW3 at a friends house yesterday. What a pile of wank. It ended up exactly how I thought it was gonna end up; same old, unchanged drivel. I won't be wasting my money on that lazy excuse for a "new" video game.

Activision and their developers need to show me some innovation, new ideas and creativity, and then maybe I will give the Call of Duty series a second look again. They're ruining the franchise with their boring campaigns and age-old graphics engine.

BF3 wins hands-down for me from my experiences. I will continue to play BF3 until EA DICE release their next BF game.

[Fr0stByte]

after playing the BETA for BF3 i was more inclined to MW3. Im not saying BF3 isnt a good game, because it is really realistic and everyone seems to be playing seriously and to the objectives....but i just didnt 'enjoy' playing. Having seen some mw3 footage im deffo gonna buy it over bf3

[CraeSC111]

So I played MW3 at a friends house yesterday. What a pile of wank. It ended up exactly how I thought it was gonna end up; same old, unchanged drivel. I won't be wasting my money on that lazy excuse for a "new" video game.

Activision and their developers need to show me some innovation, new ideas and creativity, and then maybe I will give the Call of Duty series a second look again. They're ruining the franchise with their boring campaigns and age-old graphics engine.

BF3 wins hands-down for me from my experiences. I will continue to play BF3 until EA DICE release their next BF game.

Can you elaborate more on why you feel it is pretty much the same game? Did you check out any of the new features? Are there differences from the previous installment? Also what did EA bring to BF3 that makes it fresh?

[Jayhmmz]

Can you elaborate more on why you feel it is pretty much the same game? Did you check out any of the new features? Are there differences from the previous installment? Also what did EA bring to BF3 that makes it fresh?

They have done nothing to improve the look of the game, the campaign and multiplayer gameplay is getting old, and the new features are not enough. I refuse to pay £40 for MW3. It's worthy of being MW2 expansion pack, and nothing more.

EA DICE have improved the visuals, using a new graphics engine which looks stunning (which IW haven't done with CoD since CoD2), the gameplay feels fresh whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game, the maps are much more intense and well designed, the destructible environments are even more fascinating than in BC2, and unlocks and medals system is much more in depth which offers a massive amount of longevity. The classes in BF3 have an effect on how well squad play works and how the battle is won (more so than in BF2, BC and BC2), and the campaign is much improved upon, with the edition of co-op giving you a nice balance between campaign and multiplayer. The attention to detail is generally phenomenal

[Trunks]

I think MW3 is amazing, the textures they used for the maps look amazing and I haven't played a smoother game before. I'll definitely be sticking with MW3, my opinion the game play for MW and MW2 was amazing and I was hoping for the same feel of game. I wouldn't say it's the same game as MW2, the new kills streak system gives a whole new strategy to playing. People say BF3 is more tactical which may be true for the most part. But if you play with the right people, you can do the same thing on MW3.

So far I honestly think that it is better then MW1.

[CraeSC111]

How does the new killstreak system work?

[Exentenzed]

One of the things i dont like about BF3 is all their horribly designed maps, sure theyre "big" but that dosent help much when they just put all the flags in a cluster somewhere in the middle.

Can't wait for Back to karkand. I really hope they havent ****ed too much with those maps. :)

But im sure i'll prefer it to CoD so. :)

[CraeSC111]

Yeah no point in putting all of the objectives close together. Thats something that got me in BC2. In the capture missions all of the objectives were grouped together in the main street and there was no point to going out into the fringes of the battleground. Even snipers couldn't snipe from that far away. I like the maps how they were on BF2.

[Ilyich Valken]

the campaign is much improved upon

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but seriously? The BF3 campaign (from what I've seen so far) hasn't been too far off from an interactive movie, much less feel like a campaign. (Heavily scripted events, not being able to go outside a certain range of the area you're in, and in some cases, being able to do little more than follow a linear corridor or path and follow an NPC.)

Edit: Not to mention, the story itself is just trying to be Call of Duty-like.

[Exentenzed]

I have to agree with Ilyich, I didnt expect much from a battlefield Campaign but that story was the biggest waste of my time since.... Hell, i cant even come up with anything worse right now.

Booring, predictable, linear and what the hell is up with all those retarded quicktime events?
The biggest plague known to gamers with the exception of the bluescreen.

[paecmaker]

for console I would probably play mw 3 but for pc I would choose Bf3.

There are a few things I dont like about mw 3, I think the graphics are old and even if the textures look good on longer ranges but as soon as you get close they look like ****. The engine doenst support lots of neat visuals and lightning effects as newer ones.

(my personal oppinion)Killstreaks are as op as always, if a player gets the initiative in the beginning he will start launching rockets and helicopters until he just owns everybody with his killstreaks, I personally hate that, I can take it that you upgrade weapons and get neat things, that is helping you but you still need to work up your killstreak on your own. But if you get kills to get a predator missile, and there you got four kills directly, and then you get a chopper that builds up your killstreak and you get bigger and bigger toys to kill even more people in.

Bf3 doesnt get that kind of toys, well it got but you need to control it yourself.

From what Ive seen from kill confirmed it looks like that is fun, but the teamplay that was promised seem to be somewhere else(atleast those videos I saw) Everybody was running as usual as crazy and shooting and if you were lucky there was a glowing badge in your way.

I havent seen any of the other modes except the normal ones but I think infected seems funny, it was in halo atleast.

[Trunks]

I agree with the teamplay thing. Everyone always runs off on there own and die about 20 times. I don't know how many times my teammates would pick up an enemy care package trap after I told everyone 3 times that it was a bomb and not a real care package. The only way it seems I can win games is if I invite my friends or people who I met in game that know what to do. Then it is normally a domination we hardly lose a game.

Also if you shoot down the kilstreaks right away then kill-streaks become useless. Very rarely do people do it unless I'm in a party with people.

Either way, I'm in love with the game, already 1st prestige level 40. If anyone would like to party up sometime, my gamer tag is " l C0ME AT M3 l "

The two lines are a lower case L and the 0 in come is a zero.

[GC_MA]

Just because I've been playing the Call of Duty lineup for so long, BF3 is a nice change of pace. I also think the controls are a little more realistic in terms of combat action.

[-Mw3-]

Hard to say, I enjoy Both Battlefield and Call of Duty, But I prefer Battlefield! :)

[CraeSC111]

Says the Guy with MW3 as the username

[ShadowWhite]

Call of Duty for resting, Battlefield for teamwork! Nuff said

[FreeMcAccounts]

I like bf3 because of the vechiles, and mw3 almost seems to be the same as mw2 except for small changes

[Mexer]

I'm gonna go with Battlefield 3..

[Kink3bird]

Lol well this thread has turned into a "hey it's my first post so I'm just gonna type either BF3 or MW3"

[CraeSC111]

Hey its my first post so I'm gonna go with I still haven't played either of the games. But back to the thread topic. With the patches and fixes that have been released what does everyone think if either of the games now? (Yes it is kind of a bump but I would actually like to know as I might buy one of the games)

[Jayhmmz]

Hey its my first post so I'm gonna go with I still haven't played either of the games. But back to the thread topic. With the patches and fixes that have been released what does everyone think if either of the games now? (Yes it is kind of a bump but I would actually like to know as I might buy one of the games)

I played MW3 for all of an hour at a friends house, and I was sick to death of how boring it was. I'd rather play the original Modern Warfare (CoD 4) because they really haven't changed things up enough for me to waste £40 on a game that I played several years ago, but with a few minor things added into the mix.

In short, I cannot speak for fixes that have been made in MW3, but they will never be able to fix that game enough for me to buy it.

BF3 on the other hand; I can only speak for the PC side of things. When BF3 was released, it came with issues relating to Battlelog and Origin (two services you need to have running in order to play the game). Battlelog is kind of like Facebook, a social network for gamers who play Battlefield 3, with a news feed containing all of the latest things your friends and you have unlocked.

It's pretty cool, and a lot better than Call of Duty Elite. Within Battlelog is the game's launcher. You can access the games Campaign, Co-Op and Multiplayer from here. The server browser was initially a bit sketchy, but since the numerous fixes, it is now responsive and flexible, giving you quick access to your favourite servers in an effective way.

Origin is pretty much EA's version of Steam, which is pointless and annoying. I dislike it, a lot. It means that I have to have both Steam and Origin running at the same time in order to play the games I want to play on a daily basis. There were some communication problems between Origin and Battlelog at first, but those problems were ironed out pretty sharpish. I think it was an issue with everyone wanting to play the same game at exactly the same time upon launch day.

Little glitches and bugs within maps have pretty much been abolished, along with slight graphical glitches and performance issues. Everything is pretty solid now. The only issue that remains is the fact that players will get a crash to desktop error every now and then, which again is a problem with the game communicating with Battlelog, but that is due to be solved soon enough. It isn't that much of a problem anyway, because for most it doesn't happen regularly enough for it to cause stress.

Conclusion:

If you want a quick-launch arcade shooter for herpin' and derpin', then choose MW3, as you will have fun with that one. However, if you would like an authentic fps experience, which looks and feels incredible, then go with BF3.

Take your pick :)

[Exentenzed]

Can't belive how mind numbingly awesome BF3 has become after the Back to Karkand expansion came out.

[gladiatorofroma]

both have same everything but battlefield is better because u are not just an infantry u can be in tanks , helicopters and so on

[StanTheMan]

Post 200 of this thread :).
I kind of think of them as TV shows. MW3 is Sesame Street, where there's really not that much to it, and it starts to become mind-numbing after a while, with occasions of "Wait... wtf just happened?". BF3 is more like Nova, its really cool at first and you have to really think, but after a while it gets to the point where your mind literally starts to hurt.

[Kink3bird]

Post 200 of this thread :).
I kind of think of them as TV shows. MW3 is Sesame Street, where there's really not that much to it, and it starts to become mind-numbing after a while, with occasions of "Wait... wtf just happened?". BF3 is more like Nova, its really cool at first and you have to really think, but after a while it gets to the point where your mind literally starts to hurt.

Uh did you just say there is not much to sesame street? A toddler's entertainment/education program? I think you missed the point of the show lol

[Exentenzed]

HEYHEYHEY!

Don't you dare talk down to sesame street! xD

[KingOfHeroes]

Battlefield 3 always.CoD is sh*t

[CraeSC111]

Played CoD during my vacation and it still felt exactly the same as the previous ones.

[Psychotray]

I've recently played both of these games. Battlefield 3 is the most boring, dull, horrible game ever! I hated playing it. There are only so many reasons why CoD is better than Battlefield 3.

[paecmaker]

There are only so many reasons why CoD is better than Battlefield 3.

like??


I havnt played any of those but I am leaning towards BF3 for now but I want to hear any oppinions toward/against it.

[egg-whites333]

^1 reason is mw3 has way mmore game modes and even tought f you want to fly a plane you need to get lots of kills it is still really fun also mw3 is nice fast pace matches not slow stuff

[paecmaker]

^1 reason is mw3 has way mmore game modes and even tought f you want to fly a plane you need to get lots of kills it is still really fun also mw3 is nice fast pace matches not slow stuff

you know, I think airplanes are to over hyped, everyone is like "airplanes YAYAYAY!!!!!!" I dont feel so interested in that, however helicopters are always fun(sadly they are easy to shoot down)

[Psychotray]

There's nothing special about the planes, a lot of games have them, I don't know why people get so hyped about them. But Battlefield just sucks generally, like the respawn time, the deaths, the list is endless though.

[Kink3bird]

There's nothing special about the planes, a lot of games have them, I don't know why people get so hyped about them. But Battlefield just sucks generally, like the respawn time, the deaths, the list is endless though.

Sounds like you die too much and are just bad at the game lol
Maybe if you had some valid points I'd take you more seriously...

[CraeSC111]

Battlefield 3 is more tactical. You gotta like the game type. Some people enjoy mindless shooters. I enjoy battlefield cause it takes tactics and teamwork (and time cause those games can be long as hell)

[Schimdt|LM]

For a Gamer which love's Immersive Games. Well, I voted for Battlefield (3) than COD (MW3.) But both games are Fun to Play, But my heart goes to Battlefield (3)

Here is the reason why.

>BF3 - Battlefield is somewhat-not-close to rare in our country, I loved it because of It's Immerse Gameplay Mechanics. (IGM.) And It's Multiplayer. Reaaaly Intense. But sadly, It's Cons for me, It's Singleplayer Campaign, If only DICE Polished the SP Campaign..

>MW3 - While COD Is Very Well-Known here, but not beloved by the Gaming Community here (I meant the majority of Gamers.) What stood's out for me in MW3 is it's Modes, SP to MP, To Mp to Spec Ops. It's like a Three Games in one Package game. SP Because it's storyline is veeery good. while it's MP stooded out as the biggest factory of MW. But While it's fun for me, It's not my loved MP, I only blew away of it's SP.

[Exentenzed]

For a Gamer which love's Immersive Games. Well, I voted for Battlefield (3) than COD (MW3.) But both games are Fun to Play, But my heart goes to Battlefield (3)

Here is the reason why.

>BF3 - Battlefield is somewhat-not-close to rare in our country, I loved it because of It's Immerse Gameplay Mechanics. (IGM.) And It's Multiplayer. Reaaaly Intense. But sadly, It's Cons for me, It's Singleplayer Campaign, If only DICE Polished the SP Campaign..

>MW3 - While COD Is Very Well-Known here, but not beloved by the Gaming Community here (I meant the majority of Gamers.) What stood's out for me in MW3 is it's Modes, SP to MP, To Mp to Spec Ops. It's like a Three Games in one Package game. SP Because it's storyline is veeery good. while it's MP stooded out as the biggest factory of MW. But While it's fun for me, It's not my loved MP, I only blew away of it's SP.

Not ripping on you man, but i've seen both people who don't use capital letters, and people who use capital letters at the beginning of every single word. Im just curious as to what you are doing, because where you decide to put capital letters in seems completely random to me. :S

So..... Whats up with that?

[egg-whites333]

sorry but the bf3 using team work is a bunch of BS because i played it everyone was on there own just doing there own thing and they all had mics but none used any comunication and that ws on multipul times not just once so cod mw3 is for me because atleast its not boring and wait... mindless shooter? oka ya if you play tea death match but how about you play a game like domination or S&D then tell me

[CraeSC111]

Find a better server on BF3. Its like with a lot of online games. Find a good set of players and you'll have a good game almost every time. And even the other game modes in CoD are pretty mindless. In search and destroy you just find somewhere to hide and camp the target. And domination is pretty much search and destroy but you're attacking and defending. I'd say the most tactical game mode CoD had was HQ and I believe they took that out.

[Jayhmmz]

I have no issue with teamwork on BF3. I'm more often than not in a squad with a great group of players who do what they're supposed to do within a team. However, this changes when Operation Metro comes on. The Ticket Hall on that map is a free-for-all.

[Trunks]

Find a better server on BF3. Its like with a lot of online games. Find a good set of players and you'll have a good game almost every time. And even the other game modes in CoD are pretty mindless. In search and destroy you just find somewhere to hide and camp the target. And domination is pretty much search and destroy but you're attacking and defending. I'd say the most tactical game mode CoD had was HQ and I believe they took that out.

Yea there is hq, its been around in every cod game. You just said if you find a good set of players it makes the game fun on any game. Don't be a hypocrite about cod lol...domination and search are nothing alike, domination is more like hq but definitely not search. Act like you played the game before, oh wait you haven't.

[egg-whites333]

^ argree cod is more than that but you wouldent know because you just assume if you find a group of people ike you said that play it how it was ment than its good and its more relistic in real life are you going to camp? yes! will you run out going "oh ill resoawn later its okay! no thats why s&D is a good game mode and domination is good just like conquest because in real ife the mission is to get somthing right? thats what you need to get and capture. same with most cod game modes. cod mw3 vs bf3 juery i rest my case.

[CraeSC111]

I have played plenty of Call of Duty before. Played it for about 6 months before my Xbox stopped working. I probably just missed the HQ game mode in multiplayer :p.

[Trunks]

I have played plenty of Call of Duty before. Played it for about 6 months before my Xbox stopped working. I probably just missed the HQ game mode in multiplayer :p.

Games been out for 3 months bro... Lol

[CraeSC111]

Talking about CoD in general sorry.

[Trunks]

Lol hard to omment on game you haven't played before isn't it.

[CraeSC111]

I've also played the new one for a few games (slightly laggy) but besides that I was commenting on the newer call of duty games, like black ops or modern warfare 2. The thread doesn't necessarily specify which game and most people that have played the previous game in the series will play the newer ones and thus use the same or very similar tactics and as has been my experience in just about every S&D and domination game modes camping has been the prominent tactic and I have seen very little teamwork as opposed to battlefield games where most games I play in will have a larger team component and is very reliant on positioning and team composition rather than firepower. Except in bad company which I didn't think was that good anyway. And based on the styles of the games from both series the styles of gameplay that currently exist will continue to be prominent in any new titles. I'm not saying that its necessarily a bad thing to have a game that doesn't rely much on teamwork, as people in general suck at working with each other, but the quality of the game depends on how you like the style and how you're feeling at the time. I myself prefer battlefield as I probably will with future titles. And sometimes I like playing Call of Duty more.

[Trunks]

Must of been your connection, because I never have any lag when I play. Also, it depends who you play with that makes the strategy, in mw2 I played game battles and we used a lot of teamwork for search. Can't speak for Dom, cause I hardly play it. But it's easy to assume that it would work the sameway. Back when I played cal-I for cod1 it was all team work, from where to go and what gun to use. I've said it 100 times before, the players make the game.

You're right that someone can enjoy different styles of gameplay, but the style you are describing can be found in both games, you can still like one over the other, but don't say the other game doesn't have it.

[CraeSC111]

Its much more prominent in one game than the other. At least in my experience. And yes it was my connection. :p

[El Pantera Insano]

The thing about BF3 and MW3 is that they are both very entertaining games, but in totally different ways.

For instance, when I have less than an hour of free time I can do lots in MW3 whilst in BF3 I feel as if you need to have a lot more time to play.

Also MW3 is great when you play on your own and just want some quick kills, where as BF3 is awesome if you play with some mates in a team and plan out the particular game.

So both games are very entertaining but they can be played under different circumstances if you get me :)

[wutsalooter17]

Battlefield is better because it has more stuff than mw3 cant do you can actually respawn where ever you are and the graphics are better on pc rhen mw3

[CraeSC111]

Can you give examples of what BF3 has that CoD doesn't? Besides the obvious, vehicles, destructible terrain, squads. And I'm sure there's a good deal CoD has that BF3 doesnt

[Jayhmmz]

Can you give examples of what BF3 has that CoD doesn't? Besides the obvious, vehicles, destructible terrain, squads. And I'm sure there's a good deal CoD has that BF3 doesnt

Battlefield 3 shows effort. It clearly shows that the staff over at EA DICE have an ambition and a lot of care to make that push to have their games look like a work of art. Battlefield 3 is a perfect example of innovation in the games industry, because DICE are constantly improving their franchise year by year, whilst keeping the overall feel of the game exactly the same; somehow they make it feel fresh with each release.

Activision, their developers, and Call of Duty on the other hand... The game is stale. Same thing year after year, with no creativity or effort evident in their productions. There hasn't been a ground breaking Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 4, fact. Another fun fact for you; they haven't changed the graphics engine they use since before Call of Duty 2. Seriously. Lazy.

Sure, you may argue that point with the sales of the Call of Duty games since then, but all that is bull****. Sales don't mask the fact that a game is stale. People only buy Call of Duty now because of the brand name. When Call of Duty games show some innovation again, then I will be interested. Until then, the games may as well not exist.

[CraeSC111]

So what has DICE added to BF3 that wasn't in previous games?

[paecmaker]

So what has DICE added to BF3 that wasn't in previous games?

The biggest things are of course the graphics, animations and improved destructions(way better than in previous games) as well as the best sounds ever.

More and better unlocks as well as weapon attachments, 64 player mp(I think it was 32 in earlier games), battlelog, new squad respawn system, bipods, lasers, flashlights, better revive system(now the fallen can choose if they want to be revived instead of being forced)

scope reflections to make it harder for campers
You can get blinded by earlier mentioned flashlights, lasers as well as going out from a dark place(I think)

This is the things I know, there are more things.

[CraeSC111]

I believe you could get 64 player games on BF2. How does the new squad respawn work?

[paecmaker]

I believe you could get 64 player games on BF2. How does the new squad respawn work?

Now looking at it its not so much of a change, from what I can tell you can only spawn on your squad leader instead of the whole squad(But I think someone more into the game should tell more)

And I think its only 32 players on bf2, I only saw mods allowing you to play 64 in mp, but I will look some more.

[audun0905]

Battlefield 3. MW is just the same over and over again now.

[earthyearth]

I've always been a Call of Duty Person lol

[[AF]VictorVII]

I think its better because the matches are bigger, there are more weapons, its just basically a better online experience

[paecmaker]

VictorVII;327524']I think its better because the matches are bigger, there are more weapons, its just basically a better online experience

uhm, what is better, Battlefield or call of duty. It doesnt say much calling it it.

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------


VictorVII;327524']I think its better because the matches are bigger, there are more weapons, its just basically a better online experience

uhm, what is better, Battlefield or call of duty. It doesnt say much calling it it.

[BlackEyedJester]

Well, I'm a Battlefield fanboy. But, What I do hate is when people try to compare Call of Duty to Battlefield, For one. Call of Duty Is (In my opinion) An arcade shooter Filled with quick intense gameplay. While battlefield on the other hand is a conquest shooter.

Second of all, In CoD the Killstreaks are ridiculous. I mean, what is the point in killing 25 people in a row just to blow you and everyone else up? Don't get me wrong, CoD Is a great game, for the people it was made for. When people think "Fast intense shooters" they think of CoD But something needs to change, they need to update their graphics, or improve gameplay or just do something that will put them ontop again, because frankly. It's getting old.

Battlefield makes you feel like you're in that war. It blinds you with Flashlights, red dots, and dust... lots and lots of dust. The sounds are the best I've ever heard from a shooter, The Environment is amazing, especially Caspian Border. It's simply amazing to be trying to capture the Forest CP then to look up to see that Tower thing come crashing down. or taking cover behind a building, then the next minute a stray tank shot blasts straight though you. And their are no Killstreaks, Battlefield makes you feel like you had an effect on how it will turn out. I've personally been in matches where my team has been triple capped, with only about 50 tokens left, to make a comeback and snatch victory, it's truly an amazing feeling.

Anyway I think I've rambled on for far too long.

[[AF]VictorVII]

Yes, sorry for being so vague. I, of course, meant BF3

[Jayhmmz]

Well, I'm a Battlefield fanboy. But, What I do hate is when people try to compare Call of Duty to Battlefield, For one. Call of Duty Is (In my opinion) An arcade shooter Filled with quick intense gameplay. While battlefield on the other hand is a conquest shooter.

Second of all, In CoD the Killstreaks are ridiculous. I mean, what is the point in killing 25 people in a row just to blow you and everyone else up? Don't get me wrong, CoD Is a great game, for the people it was made for. When people think "Fast intense shooters" they think of CoD But something needs to change, they need to update their graphics, or improve gameplay or just do something that will put them ontop again, because frankly. It's getting old.

Battlefield makes you feel like you're in that war. It blinds you with Flashlights, red dots, and dust... lots and lots of dust. The sounds are the best I've ever heard from a shooter, The Environment is amazing, especially Caspian Border. It's simply amazing to be trying to capture the Forest CP then to look up to see that Tower thing come crashing down. or taking cover behind a building, then the next minute a stray tank shot blasts straight though you. And their are no Killstreaks, Battlefield makes you feel like you had an effect on how it will turn out. I've personally been in matches where my team has been triple capped, with only about 50 tokens left, to make a comeback and snatch victory, it's truly an amazing feeling.

Anyway I think I've rambled on for far too long.

Agreed. I like putting it this way, for people who are savvy with football (soccer) video games. CoD is Pro Evo Soccer, and BF3 is the FIFA of the two. The latter being the most realistic, of course.

[egg-whites333]

Jay for someone who says this you do seem to knock call of duty quite abit.

[Jayhmmz]

Jay for someone who says this you do seem to knock call of duty quite abit.

You are right, because I don't like what Activision and their developers are doing with the franchise. They're killing it, simply killing it. They need to think back to what their games used to be like, have that foundation, and build on it with innovative ideas. Simples. But they make too much money to care about making any big steps. Why make any more effort when they know people will buy their games anyway? It's sad really, because I miss playing Call of Duty in the old days. The franchise gave me some of my best times on video games, playing in clan wars and things, meeting new people.

I know you like Call of Duty, even in its current state, but you have to admit that there needs to be a change. I'm hoping Black Ops 2 brings that change, but I'm wary that it may be too much change, from reading what they're planning to do with it. But I can always hope and keep an open mind.

[BlackEyedJester]

You are right, because I don't like what Activision and their developers are doing with the franchise. They're killing it, simply killing it. They need to think back to what their games used to be like, have that foundation, and build on it with innovative ideas. Simples. But they make too much money to care about making any big steps. Why make any more effort when they know people will buy their games anyway? It's sad really, because I miss playing Call of Duty in the old days. The franchise gave me some of my best times on video games, playing in clan wars and things, meeting new people.

I know you like Call of Duty, even in its current state, but you have to admit that there needs to be a change. I'm hoping Black Ops 2 brings that change, but I'm wary that it may be too much change, from reading what they're planning to do with it. But I can always hope and keep an open mind.

Honestly, Black Ops 2 is a change but not the change CoD Needs. It seems like a rip off of Ghost Recon. And they are going to be hated for it. I mean, XeroTehHero is a CoD Fanboy. but he even says himself that Black Op 2 will fail big time. Activision have really dug themselves in. If they change their entire fanbase riots. if they don't change they get no more sales. It's sad in a way...

[Jayhmmz]

Honestly, Black Ops 2 is a change but not the change CoD Needs. It seems like a rip off of Ghost Recon. And they are going to be hated for it. I mean, XeroTehHero is a CoD Fanboy. but he even says himself that Black Op 2 will fail big time. Activision have really dug themselves in. If they change their entire fanbase riots. if they don't change they get no more sales. It's sad in a way...

It's very sad. I just don't understand how they could let a massively respected franchise turn into what it has turned into. If Black Ops 2 falls on its arse, then they all need to call it quits. But they won't, because if it's crap, and people still buy it because it's got "Call of Duty" in the title, then Activision will have their developers constantly churning out average games every year.

[egg-whites333]

i dont buy call of duty because of the name i like fast pase i play videogames for fun not realism thats why sitting in a building with a gun shoot a person every once in a while is boring dont get me wrong battlefield is not a bad game but to slow for my liking also how cod never changes battlefield doe not change super lot to. and dont even tart me on activiio being "Money whores" EA is just as bad if not worse

[Jayhmmz]

i dont buy call of duty because of the name i like fast pase i play videogames for fun not realism thats why sitting in a building with a gun shoot a person every once in a while is boring dont get me wrong battlefield is not a bad game but to slow for my liking also how cod never changes battlefield doe not change super lot to. and dont even tart me on activiio being "Money whores" EA is just as bad if not worse

I didn't say EA weren't money whores, but DICE do whatever it takes to make things fresh in whichever game they develop. I just don't get that impression from the CoD developers. Also, your description of BF3 is inaccurate, as the slow-paced gameplay and shooting someone every once in a while is only for when you're a sniper. However, if you're any other class then it's fast-paced, loud and in-your-face awesomeness.

But, if you're not into the realism, then that is fine, and I can obviously accept that. But you have to accept my reasons for not liking the latest productions of Call of Duty, because they're my opinions and I'm entitled to them. Activision and their teams don't do it for me any more, because they have all been showing a distinct lack of effort when it comes to a new CoD game. I want them all to spend more time on just the one perfect CoD game, like it used to be back in the day, and that would fix everything for me.

[egg-whites333]

i never once said you cant like BF 3 i said my oppiuion and im entitled to it... right, my oppiuion is it is slow paced and i can say that as i have playyed every possiion in BF3

[Jayhmmz]

i never once said you cant like BF 3 i said my oppiuion and im entitled to it... right, my oppiuion is it is slow paced and i can say that as i have playyed every possiion in BF3

It's not that you said I can't like BF3, it's because you're coming across as though your opinion is superior, but that isn't the point, and I care not to go into that debate. The point is, I don't like CoD for my reasons, and you don't like BF3 for your reasons. However, don't judge a game, any game, if you've only played as one class, because it isn't an accurate representation of the full experience, and you may actually like it if you put your love for CoD aside.

[egg-whites333]

i can say that as i have playyed every possiion in BF3
please please please read more look i have playyed every positon on BF 3 BF BC2 i still think it is slow pacced i never ever ever implied my oppiuion was better i said my oppiuion was mine. i could say the exact thing about what youve been sayying but i dont because i dont think any of us thought our oppiuions were beter aaperently you dont understand... no point i guess... sigh

[CraeSC111]

Actually Bad company was like CoD in my opinion. The maps were smaller and all of the objectives were grouped up in a small area. With the destructible environment and the vehicles I thought it was a really great alternative to CoD. You still had plenty of snipers but I was never lacking in noobs to pwn