|
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
Quote:
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. :)
-
oh boy...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverDeefEated
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? ::-)
-
No Source it in MLA. Everything is in MLA these days....
-
I have a feeling that Battlefield will have the lead in this one. It's an all round better war game.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triton
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Just posting for the polls:
Massive Poll: BF3 Vs MW3 The Results | Gaming News and Opinion at TheSixthAxis.com
MW3 vs BF3 (Poll) - GameSpot Forums - System Wars
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonRising
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
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.
-
S'why I said I didn't think bf3 would outsell mw3.
-
yeah I only play Battlefield online. I have BF 2. No one plays :p
-
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
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.
-
Psh trunks Battlefield has WAYYYYYY better multiplayer than CoD. Its made for the online! :p (completely biased opinion I absolutely hate CoD's multiplayer.)
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
You probably weren't playing with a good squad. Having a squad that's team oriented is definitely better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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..
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synge
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.
-
Knowing EA they will probably use their godly dev powers to strike down the evil hackers and restore order to the servers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
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.
-
Ugh punkbuster. I think it kept banning me because of my antivirus or something.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
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.
-
BF3 hands down. But i also love my old CS
-
I barely hear anything about counter strike. What is that game? And is it free?
-
PC version of BF3 is immaculate. It looks stunning and plays fantastically.
-
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!
-
Yeah but their cliffhanger will make sure you buy bad company 3 :p
-
Quote:
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
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
-
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.
-
I enjoy the air battles. Once you get the hang of jets its gg for the other team
-
After getting into BF3, I prefer this to CoD.
-
Quote:
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.
-
Yeah I don't really see the point of buying BF3 just to drop it. I might decide to pick it up eventually
-
I will buy bf3 when I hear it has gone a little more stable.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
That's what I expected that they did. I think EA wanted a release before MW3 was released. Smart marketing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
The thing is they will be competing for the same award, Best action game of the year.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks
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.
-
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)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kink3bird
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.
-
Everyone has a biased opinion :p
-
IGN rated both BF3 and MW3 as 9's.
G4TV rated MW3 a 5 and BF3 a 4.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
BF3 came a litle more natural
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChandlerSing
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
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
-
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.
-
How does the new killstreak system work?
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hard to say, I enjoy Both Battlefield and Call of Duty, But I prefer Battlefield! :)
-
Says the Guy with MW3 as the username
-
Call of Duty for resting, Battlefield for teamwork! Nuff said
-
I like bf3 because of the vechiles, and mw3 almost seems to be the same as mw2 except for small changes
-
I'm gonna go with Battlefield 3..
-
Lol well this thread has turned into a "hey it's my first post so I'm just gonna type either BF3 or MW3"
-
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)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
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 :)
-
Can't belive how mind numbingly awesome BF3 has become after the Back to Karkand expansion came out.
-
both have same everything but battlefield is better because u are not just an infantry u can be in tanks , helicopters and so on
-
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.
|
» Site Navigation
» Friends
» Recent Threads
» Sponsors
|
