|
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
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=XhBjB...layer_embedded
One part in this video shows it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
That's completely fine, I can deal with that, as it's fair and realistic.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
That's completely fine, I can deal with that, as it's fair and realistic.
Yeah, that looks ok. It is completely noob-proof.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).
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
-
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
-
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|
» Site Navigation
» Friends
» Recent Threads
» Sponsors
|
