|
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
-
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks
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. :)
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkyr
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
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.
|
» Site Navigation
» Friends
» Recent Threads
» Sponsors
|
