|
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
-
HEYHEYHEY!
Don't you dare talk down to sesame street! xD
-
Battlefield 3 always.CoD is sh*t
-
Played CoD during my vacation and it still felt exactly the same as the previous ones.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotray
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.
-
^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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by egw333
^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)
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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...
-
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)
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
^ 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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Games been out for 3 months bro... Lol
-
Talking about CoD in general sorry.
-
Lol hard to omment on game you haven't played before isn't it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Its much more prominent in one game than the other. At least in my experience. And yes it was my connection. :p
-
Can't pick one
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 :)
-
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
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
So what has DICE added to BF3 that wasn't in previous games?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
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.
-
I believe you could get 64 player games on BF2. How does the new squad respawn work?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
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.
-
Battlefield 3. MW is just the same over and over again now.
-
I've always been a Call of Duty Person lol
-
I think its better because the matches are bigger, there are more weapons, its just basically a better online experience
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by [AF]VictorVII
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by [AF]VictorVII
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, sorry for being so vague. I, of course, meant BF3
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBloodstain
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.
-
Jay for someone who says this you do seem to knock call of duty quite abit.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by egg-whites333
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
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...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBloodstain
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by egg-whites333
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
I simply misread what you said, it's a simple mistake. So wind your neck in.
-
i have no idea what wind your neck in means but i shall do it :p im sorry about this
-
currently i preffer bf3 over cod mw3 because in cod all u do is run and gun... i prefer a game where u NEED team co-op skillz and patience. cod maps are too small and i LOVE the huge maps of the battlefield series
-
Battlefield. Call of Duty has been the same thing for years: shoot bad dudes in a tiny area over and over again. Battlefield has some strategy, much better graphics(in my opinion), cooler weapons...you know. And the combat in Battlefield is much more exciting.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by takezokensai
(Battlefield 3 has) much better graphics(in my opinion)
Your opinion is also fact :)
-
1 Attachment(s)
Meanwhile, at Activision...
Attachment 1397
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhmmz
hahahahahahaahahahahahahaha
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBloodstain
hahahahahahaahahahahahahaha
It's one of the funniest pictures I have ever seen. Every time I look at it, I laugh!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
It's one of the funniest pictures I have ever seen. Every time I look at it, I laugh!
My god yes, I am just recovering from that XD
-
Excellent picture. I bet that's what their brainstorming sessions are like.
-
I Vote BF3
After buying it about a fortnight ago, I am really pleased with BF3. So far the game play has been really good over all :cheesy:
- The AI isn't stupid or that clumsy (like, walking through you and stuff)
- The campaign levels are in depth and exciting but not too long
- Also, there's a nice variety to the game play. You know sniping to fighter jets to tank driving to small covert assaults as well as the larger group assaults (Operation Swordbreaker/Guillotine)
- Most of all, the story is much better than I anticipated :azn:
All of this make BF3 an awesome FPS and better than COD. BF3 has my vote! :p
-
Battlefield 3 looks absolutely amazing.
-
|
» Site Navigation
» Friends
» Recent Threads
» Sponsors
|
