|
-
Battlefield 3 vs Call of Duty
I'm doing my latest website magazine article on why I think Battlefield 3 will be better than Call of Duty, if Activision's developers don't pull their socks up to challenge EA DICE.
So, I need opinions for my research :)
I have included a poll, and I would like you to state your reasons specifically telling me which game will be better than the other, and why. Please make it as constructive as possible for me to work with, as I will be quoting you :)
Thanks.
-
I like battlefield (3) better than cod because I love vehicle battles and big maps. And now destruction.
And you cant say that the graphics doesnt look epicly awesome.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
I like battlefield (3) better than cod because I love vehicle battles and big maps. And now destruction.
And you cant say that the graphics doesnt look epicly awesome.
Well the Battlefield games have had destructible environments since the first Battlefield: Bad Company game on the consoles, but it still did it before Call of Duty.
So you're saying that you like it that the Battlefield series is expanding with their ideas, instead of keeping everything the same year in year out?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Well the Battlefield games have had destructible environments since the first Battlefield: Bad Company game on the consoles, but it still did it before Call of Duty.
So you're saying that you like it that the Battlefield series is expanding with their ideas, instead of keeping everything the same year in year out?
I also like that battlefield is getting more team oriented after bc2.
I also like long campaigns with a slightly more realistic appoach than the cod serie.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
I also like that battlefield is getting more team oriented after bc2.
I also like long campaigns with a slightly more realistic appoach than the cod serie.
Battlefield has been team orientated since Battlefield 2, back in 2005 ;)
-
I've always preferred battlefield over COD. Have been playing since BF2.
I don't know why I like it better, I just have a lot more game time with it so it feels more "homely" with the recons and assaults and whatnot.
-
As much as I suck with the BF controls after playing so much Call of Duty, I prefer Battlefield. It controls better, it's not the same **** every single game with slight touch ups, and it actually looks like a quality product.
-
CoD used to be AWESOME, since 1942 though it has gone down hill for me. I LOVED CoD: 1942 and ever since then I just couldnt stomach them anymore. It's kinda like Final Fantasy, but where the games get WORSE instead of better....
Battlefield 3 is deffinately my call. Always loved Battlefield, and have pulled countless all nighters playing Battlefield with friends. BF3 is deffinately on my list, and CoD can go **** itself for all I care.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph
CoD used to be AWESOME, since 1942 though it has gone down hill for me. I LOVED CoD: 1942 and ever since then I just couldnt stomach them anymore. It's kinda like Final Fantasy, but where the games get WORSE instead of better....
Battlefield 3 is deffinately my call. Always loved Battlefield, and have pulled countless all nighters playing Battlefield with friends. BF3 is deffinately on my list, and CoD can go **** itself for all I care.
CoD 1942? I think you're getting mixed up with Battlefield 1942, there's never been such a CoD game.
Thanks all for your responses :)
-
Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!
Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph
Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!
Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p
There has been about five or six, maybe more, WWII Call of Duty games on all platforms, ha ha :D
Was it Call of Duty: World at War by any chance? It was the game that was released after CoD4: Modern Warfare.
-
Nah it wasnt world of war...I swear it had 1940 or something in the name, I swear it did!
I might be wrong though, I really dont remember what its called :(
-
I can see my vote wasn't wasted, judging by all the issues call of duty had in multiplayer and battlefields dedicated servers....im jumping on the battlefield bandwagon.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by snake_eyes_555
I can see my vote wasn't wasted, judging by all the issues call of duty had in multiplayer and battlefields dedicated servers....im jumping on the battlefield bandwagon.
Well i still consider CoD to be more of a Singleplayer game above everything else.
As with Battlefield i have the exact opposite opinion.
-
I will choose battlefield over any cod as long as you can FLY helicopters, or jet.
Edit: lol, looks like bf got a little more votes than cod.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
I will choose battlefield over any cod as long as you can FLY helicopters, or jet.
Edit: lol, looks like bf got a little more votes than cod.
I didnt say i wasnt gna buy CoD :P
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by snake_eyes_555
I didnt say i wasnt gna buy CoD :P
I rewrite, I will choose the mp of battlefield oveer any cod mp. The cod campaigns are pretty good, or atleast from those I tried. The only thing is that I dont want to buy an expensive game for a 4-5h campaign.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph
Nah it wasnt world of war...I swear it had 1940 or something in the name, I swear it did!
I might be wrong though, I really dont remember what its called :(
Nope, no Call of Duty title had "1940" or anything similar in the title, Just the Battlefield series, with BF1942 and 1943 (arcade)
-
man, I highly regret having to sell back BF2 for ps3. I once had it but then... hopefully I'll get it back, one day.
*reason for selling back: needed the money for college books. . .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph
Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!
Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p
Its called World at War. Anyways i was the one voter for CoD nvr played Battlefield nvr will. Plus CoD 1, 2, 3, and 5 were all about WWII but MW is totally different. Infinity Ward wanted to take a different direction AWAY from the same damn thing over and over and Black OPS is during the Cold War. But i still hav lil faith in the CoD series if MW3 makes a ginormous hit cuz2 different companies are on multiplayer, Sledgehammer and Raven. Infinity Ward is only makein the campaign. But hopefully all the faggy 9 yr olds will stay off of their mics talkin **** to more experienced ppl.
-
Just for my own twisted use, who voted for MW3?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Just for my own twisted use, who voted for MW3?
I voted for MW3 C:
-
I kind of went back on what I said.. rebought MW2 today for $6.66 (yes, that was the complete total) and preordered MW3 a few weeks ago. I'm gonna be renting and trying BF3 when it comes out, though and going from there.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
preordered MW3 a few weeks ago. I'm gonna be renting and trying BF3 when it comes out, though and going from there.
Hah, I've done the exact opposite. :) Preordered BF3 and going to try out MW3. :)
But i have hunch that both are going to be great. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
Hah, I've done the exact opposite. :) Preordered BF3 and going to try out MW3. :)
But i have hunch that both are going to be great. :)
Definitely. I'm just gonna buy MW3 cause I know that's the one I'd be more inclined to play, as I never played BF2 and I didn't care for BC2 (which BF3 is going to be nothing like, hopefully.)
-
From what Dice is saying they are going for a BF2 approach since Bad Company was a spin off, mainly to get more experience with consoles and singleplayer. :)
Im getting BF3 because im a sucker for big battlefields in multiplayer shooters, i love good singleplayers though, so i will probably pick up MW3 since that has always been the reason for me buying CoD games to begin with.
Haven't checked up on MW3 yet though, i usually wing it when it comes to buying those games after i've read a review.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
From what Dice is saying they are going for a BF2 approach since Bad Company was a spin off, mainly to get more experience with consoles and singleplayer. :)
Im getting BF3 because im a sucker for big battlefields in multiplayer shooters, i love good singleplayers though, so i will probably pick up MW3 since that has always been the reason for me buying CoD games to begin with.
Haven't checked up on MW3 yet though, i usually wing it when it comes to buying those games after i've read a review.
The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.
Im shore that they have some answer for that to. DICE have too much to prove than to f*** up such a thing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.
I'm getting it for PC myself, so I am thoroughly looking forward to the multiplayer for this very reason. Console maps though, they will be smaller, for sure; same maps, but they will have a smaller playing zone.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
I'm getting it for PC myself, so I am thoroughly looking forward to the multiplayer for this very reason. Console maps though, they will be smaller, for sure; same maps, but they will have a smaller playing zone.
This. + In my oppinion Battlefield games are ment to be played on PC, i dont think i would get the "right" feeling playing battlefield games on consoles. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
The problem I have with BF3 is.. (and I'm assuming you're getting it for consoles) is that it's going to be 24 player multiplayer. PCs will have 64, but the maps will be identical.
OH GAWD talk about lag and i thought ground war was awful on CoD i mean 64 holy crap!!!
-
Battlefield servers are usually run on dedicated servers with sponsor adds to pay for high bandwith.
I say usually, because some try to cheap out, but they tend to be disfavored for proper servers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta
OH GAWD talk about lag and i thought ground war was awful on CoD i mean 64 holy crap!!!
BF3 isn't crappy matchmaking, not on the PC anyway. Each server is a dedicated host server, that a clan or a group can buy for either their clan wars or just for public banter; it works perfectly.
-
Okay. So this is a bit of an old-ish thread, but I'm curious.
I'd like to hear a smart, well reasoned argument for why Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3 or vice versa.
-
No argument will be truly "well reasoned" until both games are out. BF3 is looking to be a better game, but who knows, maybe it'll blow.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverDeefEated
Okay. So this is a bit of an old-ish thread, but I'm curious.
I'd like to hear a smart, well reasoned argument for why Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3 or vice versa.
BF3 will be better than MW3, because Activision and their respected developers have ran out of ideas on how to make Call of Duty look and feel fresh, compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles, and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically), whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.
Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy, whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects, and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion.
Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money, whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise, as well as making their profit.
-
Quote:
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, compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles, and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically), whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.
Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy, whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects, and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion.
Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money, whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise, as well as making their profit.
Couldnt have said it better myself. :)
-
There are a whole lot of things that Robert Bowling has said that disproves that MW3 isn't going to be the same as Black Ops or MW2, but I don't really feel like arguing, I deal with it enough at GameFAQs.
-
Well its all assumptions based on previous efforts realy.
I mean, im not realy going to judge MW3 untill i get to play it myself and can make up my own oppinion.
Activision & Co im judging to damnation however.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exentenzed
Well its all assumptions based on previous efforts realy.
I mean, im not realy going to judge MW3 untill i get to play it myself and can make up my own oppinion.
Activision & Co im judging to damnation however.
It's not, though. I realize that not everything he says will make it into the final game, but from what I've read, they're developing the game to be like CoD 4, not MW2, that weapon/attachment unlocks will have a unique system, and that OMA/DC/Commando and the nuke are out, and that all of the sound/HUD are just placeholders and will be fixed at the appropriate time.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
It's not, though. I realize that not everything he says will make it into the final game, but from what I've read, they're developing the game to be like CoD 4, not MW2, that weapon/attachment unlocks will have a unique system, and that OMA/DC/Commando and the nuke are out, and that all of the sound/HUD are just placeholders and will be fixed at the appropriate time.
If this is the case, and if it is more like CoD4, then I will get it at some point, as I loved CoD4.
However, Call of Duty is getting demoted from my PC to my console, if and when I buy the next one, because the visuals are insulting to my PC, and just not worth the effort; casual game is casual.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
If this is the case, and if it is more like CoD4, then I will get it at some point, as I loved CoD4.
However, Call of Duty is getting demoted from my PC to my console, if and when I buy the next one, because the visuals are insulting to my PC, and just not worth the effort; casual game is casual.
Honestly, I never bothered with Call of Duty for the PC. Ever since 4 it was clear PC wasn't their main focus any more, which is a shame (and is part of the reason the graphics have stagnated, I'd imagine.)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
Honestly, I never bothered with Call of Duty for the PC. Ever since 4 it was clear PC wasn't their main focus any more, which is a shame (and is part of the reason the graphics have stagnated, I'd imagine.)
You're absolutely right. The main reason I got WaW and Blops for PC was for the dedicated servers, because matchmaking on a PC is just ****ing stupid. But I got MW2 for the PC for the graphics, because let's be fair, it craps on Blops for graphics, and the player models are much cooler.
In terms of gameplay though, I enjoy it a lot more for the xbox these days, as it just seems more balanced!
-
For me, the decision all about the game play and achievements. I don't care about graphics, how many levels there are, the number of maps, etc. I will always choose a game where just playing one match is impossible, where I get on at midday, and then I look at the clock and its almost midnight. To me, Battlefield 3 will be that game, just as its predecessor Bad Company 2 was.
-
bad com 3 because u can actually destoy buildings to kill campers hehehe and the graphics will look amazing!!!! will change gaming in my opinion:D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
BF3 will be better than MW3 , because Activision and their respected developers have ran out of ideas on how to make Call of Duty look and feel fresh [support this], compared to the same thing over and over again, like what they've got into the habit of doing these days[support this]. EA DICE and the Battlefield series have managed to bring us countless mega-fun titles[support this. what makes it 'mega-fun?'], and most of them are significantly better than the last (gameplay and graphically)[support this], whilst still making it feel like a Battlefield game.
Quite simply put, Activision & Co. are lazy[support this], whereas EA DICE put a lot of effort and thought into each title that they bring us[support this]. The graphics are constantly improved upon in Battlefield, as well as the award winning sound effects[award winning? what awards?], and the mass tactical team-play in the Battlefield franchise is second to no game, in my opinion[I'm glad you said "in my opinion" here].
Conclusion: Activision do it purely for the money[support this], whereas EA DICE do it for the fans of the franchise[support this], as well as making their profit.
Mind refining that answer?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph
Ugh what the hell is it called >.< I cant remember anymore!!!
Either way, it was a WWII CoD :p
its world at war and i haven't ever played battlefield but i heard its good i think that black ops was a disappointment but still like it mw2 was probably the best out of them all
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverDeefEated
Mind refining that answer?
Realy? No, realy???
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverDeefEated
Mind refining that answer?
I do mind, so I won't refine my answer :)
-
I cant pick between the two. I like both series and ive played both. Battlefield gives you more options and more free area to roam around and kill. Flying the helicopters is pretty sweet. MW its the maps, killstreaks, funny ways of killing people that keep me around. So I Cant pick a winner and I say both.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callanrobertson
Cod WAW or the first 3
That isn't what this thread is about :P
-
This is how I see it:
Singleplayer: Call of Duty owes Battlefield in this area. BC2 even tried to copy MW and MW2. Call of Duty has always had great singleplayer's.
Graphics: I prefer Call of Duty. Its graphics are somewhat more realistic than Battlefield's.
Physics and effects: While Battlefield has destructible enviornment and everything in the game can be destroyed, Call of Duty has soda cans that are immune to explosions. I prefer Battlefield in this case.
Multiplayer: The older Call of Duty games had fantastic multiplayers (with 2 being my favourite). But the new Call of Duty releases just don't feel good. They're all run and gun games, with insane weapon combinations and perks. I don't like the way Call of Duty's multiplayer has evolved. Battlefield on the other hand, offers much more freedom, more options, and team-work is essential. Apart from BF2, there were no unbalanced Battlefield games. So I prefer Battlefield.
I can’t really decide which one is a better game. I buy Call of Duty games for their singleplayer and co-op modes (co-op campaign, spec-ops and zombies) and I buy Battlefield games for their unique mulyiplayer. :)
-
Not much people are going for COD, that's strange. I thought there were more COD fans than Battlefield.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotray
Not much people are going for COD, that's strange. I thought there were more COD fans than Battlefield.
There are - But not on this forum. :D
Console gamers and people who are new to gaming, usually prefer Call of Duty's multiplayer because it's easy to play (or they haven't played Battlefield yet :P).
-
Oh true, is Battlefield any good?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotray
Oh true, is Battlefield any good?
I would say so yes, of course we cant say much about BF3 but I really loved BC2, and all other too:p(My favourite is still battlefield vietnam, the feeling is just unbeatable)
-
I played one on a Ps2 demo once, it was alright. I haven't gotten around to playing COD yet though, I haven't even played COD before :azn:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
My favourite is still battlefield vietnam, the feeling is just unbeatable
Hue Gunship, Fortunate Son, hunting Vcs... :D Great game. Too bad people don't play online any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotray
I haven't gotten around to playing COD yet though, I haven't even played COD before :azn:
You have never played a Call of Duty game in your life???! :O :P
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
You have never played a Call of Duty game in your life???! :O :P
Nope, and Im serious. I've never laid hands on a COD game ever in my life.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
Singleplayer: Call of Duty owns Battlefield in this area. BC2 even tried to copy MW and MW2. Call of Duty has always had great singleplayer's.
Of course Call of Duty owns Battlefield in this area, because EA DICE only started making their Battlefield series a campaign style game when they released Bad Company 2. Also, I heavily disagree with what you said about BC/BC2 trying to copy MW and MW2, as both Bad Company campaigns were completely different and unique compared to the Call of Duty campaigns... I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, it baffles me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
Graphics: I prefer Call of Duty. Its graphics are somewhat more realistic than Battlefield's.
Factually, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has more realistic graphics than any other Call of Duty game, however, past Call of Duty games have always had an edge over the older Battlefield games. With the older Battlefield games being mass-multiplayer action, it meant that back in the day they couldn't really afford to make the visuals in the games any better than they already were. However, having said that, Battlefield 2's visuals for when it was released in 2005 were excellent, but just fell short of the likes of Call of Duty 2, as Infinity Ward's graphics engine owned a lot of game engines around that time.
-
I guess what I'm looking for is kind of a "professional" critique. Something newsworthy and as well-reasoned as possible. Something that could be printed in a legitimate newspaper without somebody getting sued, but something that's still candid.
-
I might go borrow COD out, just to see how it is. Heaps of people say its good, but I want to see for myself.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Of course Call of Duty owns Battlefield in this area, because EA DICE only started making their Battlefield series a campaign style game when they released Bad Company 2. Also, I heavily disagree with what you said about BC/BC2 trying to copy MW and MW2, as both Bad Company campaigns were completely different and unique compared to the Call of Duty campaigns... I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, it baffles me.
The story itself is trying to copy MW and MW2 and the level design is no different either. I haven't played BC1, but BC2 was like a MW wannabe. Just play it through and you'll see what I mean - this contains spoilers, so I wouldn't like to post it in this thread. - I'll make another one, maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Factually, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has more realistic graphics than any other Call of Duty game, however, past Call of Duty games have always had an edge over the older Battlefield games. With the older Battlefield games being mass-multiplayer action, it meant that back in the day they couldn't really afford to make the visuals in the games any better than they already were. However, having said that, Battlefield 2's visuals for when it was released in 2005 were excellent, but just fell short of the likes of Call of Duty 2, as Infinity Ward's graphics engine owned a lot of game engines around that time.
Call of Duty's weapons are better looking and the characters look a bit better. Apart from some bad textures at certain areas, Call of Duty's visuals are somewhat better than the ones of BC2.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
The story itself is trying to copy MW and MW2 and the level design is no different either. I haven't played BC1, but BC2 was like a MW wannabe. Just play it through and you'll see what I mean - this contains spoilers, so I wouldn't like to post it in this thread. - I'll make another one, maybe.
What do you mean, "just play it through and you'll see what I mean"? I wouldn't be making such comments if I hadn't already played it through; what would be the point in me even stating my opinion if I hadn't played it through?
I really do not agree with you - not for one second throughout any sequence of the BC2 campaign did I think that it was similar to the MW campaigns, and I haven't come across any one saying what you have said, so you're on your own from where I'm standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
Call of Duty's weapons are better looking and the characters look a bit better. Apart from some bad textures at certain areas, Call of Duty's visuals are somewhat better than the ones of BC2.
Most of the weapons in Call of Duty do look better than the BC2 weapons, you're right. However, I don't agree that the characters looks better in Call of Duty. The character models in BC2 are of a higher texture resolution and better model shape than the ones seen in Modern Warfare 2. Also, the terrain, buildings, foliage, special effects, sound effects and the general surroundings and background of the map that you're on are all far better than what Call of Duty can offer these days. I can vouch for the visuals side of it, considering that I can have both games at maximum resolution and maximum general settings, with anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing on or above x8.
Just to add, BC2 offer more visual tweaks in the graphics menu than Call of Duty have ever had, and I love it because you can do so much with it to either make the game look better, or to make the performance better; EA DICE know what they're doing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
What do you mean, "just play it through and you'll see what I mean"? I wouldn't be making such comments if I hadn't already played it through; what would be the point in me even stating my opinion if I hadn't played it through?
I really do not agree with you - not for one second throughout any sequence of the BC2 campaign did I think that it was similar to the MW campaigns, and I haven't come across any one saying what you have said, so you're on your own from where I'm standing.
Accually I thought that the convoy part feeled a little modern warish.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Accually I thought that the convoy part feeled a little modern warish.
But regardless of that, BC2 didn't try to copy off the MW campaign, in a general sense.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Not for one second throughout any sequence of the BC2 campaign did I think that it was similar to the MW campaigns, and I haven't come across any one saying what you have said, so you're on your own from where I'm standing.
The ending sequence of the first mission - 'Cold War' - was MW itself. Escaping in the back of a truck while enemy vehicles are chasing you. I didn't really notice any of this until the helicopter showed up. And if that wasn't MW enough, your truck (and the helicopter) reach the bridge, just like in the ending of MW.
The level in which you advance upon an enemy town with vehicles (while manning the MG) felt a lot like 'Team Player' from MW2.
There was also a part when you bombard some enemies using a computer (I don't really remember the name of the mission, but you do use a predator drone - like in MW2).
The very end of the game didn't really feel like MW, but the idea of killing the 'boss' in a semi cutscene, was taken from MW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
However, I don't agree that the characters looks better in Call of Duty. The character models in BC2 are of a higher texture resolution and better model shape than the ones seen in Modern Warfare 2. Also, the terrain, buildings, foliage, special effects, sound effects and the general surroundings and background of the map that you're on are all far better than what Call of Duty can offer these days. I can vouch for the visuals side of it, considering that I can have both games at maximum resolution and maximum general settings, with anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing on or above x8.
Just to add, BC2 offer more visual tweaks in the graphics menu than Call of Duty have ever had, and I love it because you can do so much with it to either make the game look better, or to make the performance better; EA DICE know what they're doing.
Yes, BC2 has more visual tweaks than Call of Duty (actually, every game has more visual tweaks than COD - except Crysis 2 :P). But Call of Duty has very low minimum system requirements (you can play MW2 on a single core processor - which is very rare for a 2009 game), which eliminates the need for a lot of visual tweaks to improve performance.
I've played both games with maximum video settings too, but somehow I prefer Call of Duty. BC2's characters look a bit cartoony and the way you kill people doesn't feel as realistic as in COD. I really love the dark, war-like ambient and lighting of WaW, while BC2 has more of a 'major' ambient.
Another thing is the control you have while playing Call of Duty, compared to the one in Battlefield. While everything is clear, smooth and sharp in COD, BC2
doesn't offer that 100% control over the player. There's always some motion blur and mouse delay which give the game a jerky feeling.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
The ending sequence of the first mission - 'Cold War' - was MW itself. Escaping in the back of a truck while enemy vehicles are chasing you. I didn't really notice any of this until the helicopter showed up. And if that wasn't MW enough, your truck (and the helicopter) reach the bridge, just like in the ending of MW.
The level in which you advance upon an enemy town with vehicles (while manning the MG) felt a lot like 'Team Player' from MW2.
There was also a part when you bombard some enemies using a computer (I don't really remember the name of the mission, but you do use a predator drone - like in MW2).
The very end of the game didn't really feel like MW, but the idea of killing the 'boss' in a semi cutscene, was taken from MW.
Yes, BC2 has more visual tweaks than Call of Duty (actually, every game has more visual tweaks than COD - except Crysis 2 :P). But Call of Duty has very low minimum system requirements (you can play MW2 on a single core processor - which is very rare for a 2009 game), which eliminates the need for a lot of visual tweaks to improve performance.
I've played both games with maximum video settings too, but somehow I prefer Call of Duty. BC2's characters look a bit cartoony and the way you kill people doesn't feel as realistic as in COD. I really love the dark, war-like ambient and lighting of WaW, while BC2 has more of a 'major' ambient.
Another thing is the control you have while playing Call of Duty, compared to the one in Battlefield. While everything is clear, smooth and sharp in COD, BC2
doesn't offer that 100% control over the player. There's always some motion blur and mouse delay which give the game a jerky feeling.
I don't agree, because I don't see sense in what you're saying. You're far too hung up on Call of Duty influencing games.
Sure, the campaign had one or two missions in there with vehicles chasing you and a helicopter also on your tail, but it doesn't mean they copied off MW for that, not one bit. The instances where this happened in BC2, it was relevant to the story, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have done it before and after Call of Duty.
OK, so you're saying that every single FPS game that I have played with me rolling into a town in a vehicle copies off Call of Duty? Effectively, you're saying that everyone should walk into the town, for miles and miles, and not use a vehicle... I don't even... that would be a **** game, and it wouldn't be logical. For example, soldiers in Afghanistan don't walk from their base in Helmand Province to get all the way to their target location, because it's far too unsafe in terms of being out in the open and unprotected, and it would heavily fatigue soldiers before they even get to their target.
Also, Call of Duty didn't invent predators, so BC2 didn't copy off Call of Duty in that respect, because it's a military weapon, and BC2 is a military game, so they used it because the situation that you are in on the campaign, you need it! It's like saying that BC2 copied off Call of Duty just because it had the M16 in the game...
I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have a semi-cut scene where you have to kill a boss, so BC2 didn't copy off MW in that respect, because boss fights should always be highlighted.
It is completely your opinion that you prefer Call of Duty graphics over BC2, but don't say that the BC2 player models are cartoony, because they just aren't. Also, explain 'major' ambient?
To round off my side of the debate, I would like to point out that the reason why Call of Duty feels much more fluid and responsive than BC2 is because Call of Duty has become a very arcade orientated game - fact, and you can whizz around as smooth as you like and kill enemies much more easily than in the Battlefield series, because the Battlefield series is much more realistic and Call of Duty is a game that makes noob players look good.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
I don't agree, because I don't see sense in what you're saying. You're far too hung up on Call of Duty influencing games.
Sure, the campaign had one or two missions in there with vehicles chasing you and a helicopter also on your tail, but it doesn't mean they copied off MW for that, not one bit. The instances where this happened in BC2, it was relevant to the story, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have done it before and after Call of Duty.
OK, so you're saying that every single FPS game that I have played with me rolling into a town in a vehicle copies off Call of Duty? Effectively, you're saying that everyone should walk into the town, for miles and miles, and not use a vehicle... I don't even... that would be a **** game, and it wouldn't be logical. For example, soldiers in Afghanistan don't walk from their base in Helmand Province to get all the way to their target location, because it's far too unsafe in terms of being out in the open and unprotected, and it would heavily fatigue soldiers before they even get to their target.
Also, Call of Duty didn't invent predators, so BC2 didn't copy off Call of Duty in that respect, because it's a military weapon, and BC2 is a military game, so they used it because the situation that you are in on the campaign, you need it! It's like saying that BC2 copied off Call of Duty just because it had the M16 in the game...
I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have a semi-cut scene where you have to kill a boss, so BC2 didn't copy off MW in that respect, because boss fights should always be highlighted.
It is completely your opinion that you prefer Call of Duty graphics over BC2, but don't say that the BC2 player models are cartoony, because they just aren't. Also, explain 'major' ambient?
To round off my side of the debate, I would like to point out that the reason why Call of Duty feels much more fluid and responsive than BC2 is because Call of Duty has become a very arcade orientated game - fact, and you can whizz around as smooth as you like and kill enemies much more easily than in the Battlefield series, because the Battlefield series is much more realistic and Call of Duty is a game that makes noob players look good.
I didn't mean that the fact of driving into the town makes it look like a Call of Duty game. I was saying that the dialogues and shootouts during that sequence are very similar to the ones in MW/MW2.
When it comes to gaming, Infinity Ward invented the predator drone, since they were the first ones to implement it in a game. EA/Dice saw it as a good idea and they used one in BC/2.
As far as I can remember, the first time I saw a semi-cut scene was in a Call of Duty game. After MW, almost every fps started featuring semi-cut scenes and so did BC/2.
What I mean when I say that BC2 tried to copy MW/MW2, is that they tried to make the campaign/story entertaining and fun, while using MW's tricks and effects.
As for the visuals, they seem to be a bit too bright and 'happy' in BC2. I used the music term 'major' about Battlefield, since it does feel like playing a major chord. While I prefer the dark, war-like feeling of Call of Duty, I love the jungles, beaches and open landscapes of BC2, since they look so real. But close quarter combat and town fighting looks much better in Call of Duty.
I know that noobs like Call of Duty games because of their run and gun arcade style, but Call of Duty doesn't make noobs look good at all. It makes noobs look like idiots who can't play. While Battlefield requires team-based action and strategies in order to win, Call of Duty concentrates on speed and reflexes – so it’s not a noob game.
-
Quote:
Factually, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has more realistic graphics than any other Call of Duty game, however, past Call of Duty games have always had an edge over the older Battlefield games. With the older Battlefield games being mass-multiplayer action, it meant that back in the day they couldn't really afford to make the visuals in the games any better than they already were. However, having said that, Battlefield 2's visuals for when it was released in 2005 were excellent, but just fell short of the likes of Call of Duty 2, as Infinity Ward's graphics engine owned a lot of game engines around that time.
I think that hit the nail on the head, BF2 was awesome graphics back in 05, that and 64 players on a server was awesome, if not a bit pushing it
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoe
I think that hit the nail on the head, BF2 was awesome graphics back in 05, that and 64 players on a server was awesome, if not a bit pushing it
Why thank you very much; you know your stuff ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Why thank you very much; you know your stuff ;)
I still enjoy playing BF2 a lot, back when i first started it was hell sometimes
My poor old Dell PC running everything on low, prone to crashing just as i got a chance to go in the Jet, or getting to fly a bit and finding you can't load graphics that far so shooting anything at a distance was impossible.
I can list so many things wrong with how they pushed that game, and yet few games have provided so much fun and even fewer that i still play 6 years after it's release
-
I like to play Battlefield 3
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by susanexpress1
I like to play Battlefield 3
that's funny, because it isn't even out yet.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
that's funny, because it isn't even out yet.
lol, fail..
-
Battlefield 3 is made from frostbite too which makes the graphics more realistic.. cod will always be cod but battlefield will change everything.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by podz101
Battlefield 3 is made from frostbite too which makes the graphics more realistic.. cod will always be cod but battlefield will change everything.
you've got that right!
-
Battlefield 3 is going to be awesome I ordered it yesterday can't wait the October I was a Cod person till i Saw the trailer those graphics are amazing and the game play look's great :laugh1:
-
Have you heard how they gonna help solve the camping problem that follows every fps. The small thing that light can be reflected from the snipers scope showing it as a small bright flash for the other players. These small things that when they come you wonder, why not earlier because they can change the gameplay completely. Another thing is that(Ive heard) in the dark flashlights is not used only to light up the surroundings but can also blind the opponent if aimed to his eyes(but if you overuse it they will proably get used to the light).
-
I know this is going to sound fanboyish, which is furthest from the truth, but honestly, I'm getting sick of everyone who is advocating Battlefield 3 thinking that it will be the second coming and will reinvent the entire FPS genre.
IT WILL NOT. Sure, it may be bringing in things that are cool, but most of that has to do with aesthetics, honestly. Not a whole lot to change up the gameplay aside from enhanced destruction.
In the end, it may pull a lot of players away from Call of Duty, but a good amount of still going to buy CoD, enjoy it, and I can guarantee that people are going to try BF3, not like it and go back.
It's definitely not going to be a CoD killer like DICE wants it to be and everyone's going around claiming. At this point, the only thing that can do that is CoD itself.
I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but there's no way in hell, unless every single CoD player skips out on MW3 that BF3 will kill it. And we all know that won't happen.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
I know this is going to sound fanboyish, which is furthest from the truth, but honestly, I'm getting sick of everyone who is advocating Battlefield 3 thinking that it will be the second coming and will reinvent the entire FPS genre.
IT WILL NOT. Sure, it may be bringing in things that are cool, but most of that has to do with aesthetics, honestly. Not a whole lot to change up the gameplay aside from enhanced destruction.
In the end, it may pull a lot of players away from Call of Duty, but a good amount of still going to buy CoD, enjoy it, and I can guarantee that people are going to try BF3, not like it and go back.
It's definitely not going to be a CoD killer like DICE wants it to be and everyone's going around claiming. At this point, the only thing that can do that is CoD itself.
I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but there's no way in hell, unless every single CoD player skips out on MW3 that BF3 will kill it. And we all know that won't happen.
Agreed.
Even though I am pro-BF3, to the max, I definitely do not think that it will kill off CoD (yet), as aforementioned by Ilyich.
However, if Activision and their fellow developers don't pull their fingers out their holes soon though, then in a few years time this unlikely scenario could be an eventuality, for sure.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Agreed.
Even though I am pro-BF3, to the max, I definitely do not think that it will kill off CoD (yet), as aforementioned by Ilyich.
However, if Activision and their fellow developers don't pull their fingers out their holes soon though, then in a few years time this unlikely scenario could be an eventuality, for sure.
Totally. It's more than likely not going to happen this year, but maybe 2-3 years down the road, definitely. I've even heard they're going to try alternating MoH and BF every other year to try and compete.. I don't know how well MoH is going to do, though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
Totally. It's more than likely not going to happen this year, but maybe 2-3 years down the road, definitely. I've even heard they're going to try alternating MoH and BF every other year to try and compete.. I don't know how well MoH is going to do, though.
There hasn't been a good MoH on the PC since Allied Assault, and there hasn't been a good MoH on the console since Rising Sun.
MoH Airborne had the potential to be amazing, even more so for me considering I have an obsession with WWII history and the 101st Airborne, but when my pre-order copy came I was deeply disappointed that they messed up the texture rendering (which made most PCs melt inside, when set to maximum graphics) and released the game with mass-bugs and errors, along with a fail-train multiplayer.... *sigh*
They created MoH Allied Assault, which is one of the most successful and most popular fps multiplayer games of all time... so why did they feel the need to change it all and fail so hard?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
I'm doing my latest website magazine article on why I think Battlefield 3 will be better than Call of Duty, if Activision's developers don't pull their socks up to challenge EA DICE.
So, I need opinions for my research :)
I have included a poll, and I would like you to state your reasons specifically telling me which game will be better than the other, and why. Please make it as constructive as possible for me to work with, as I will be quoting you :)
Thanks.
bf3 will win because mw3 is the same as mw2
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by awwnziikte
bf3 will win because mw3 is the same as mw2
and mw 2 was the same as mw and still people bought it.;)
@ Jay, I liked Moh pacific assault in the single player campaign.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
and mw 2 was the same as mw and still people bought it.;)
It wasn't, though.
And neither will MW3. If you actually look at MW and MW2, they're nothing alike aside from the core gameplay. And everything I've heard about MW3 says it's not going to be the same as MW2, core gameplay aside.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Have you heard how they gonna help solve the camping problem that follows every fps. The small thing that light can be reflected from the snipers scope showing it as a small bright flash for the other players. These small things that when they come you wonder, why not earlier because they can change the gameplay completely.
The scopes in COD2 and MOHA were reflecting light, so BF3 won't be the first game to feature this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Another thing is that(Ive heard) in the dark flashlights is not used only to light up the surroundings but can also blind the opponent if aimed to his eyes(but if you overuse it they will proably get used to the light).
That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
There hasn't been a good MoH on the PC since Allied Assault, and there hasn't been a good MoH on the console since Rising Sun.
IW created Allied Assault, and that's why it was so good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
MoH Airborne had the potential to be amazing, even more so for me considering I have an obsession with WWII history and the 101st Airborne, but when my pre-order copy came I was deeply disappointed that they messed up the texture rendering (which made most PCs melt inside, when set to maximum graphics) and released the game with mass-bugs and errors, along with a fail-train multiplayer.... *sigh*
They created MoH Allied Assault, which is one of the most successful and most popular fps multiplayer games of all time... so why did they feel the need to change it all and fail so hard?
MOHA was an amazing game (and you were with the 82nd btw). It offered a great singleplayer experience (as for the multiplayer, it was you own fault to expect a good multiplayer from a MOH game). The same goes for Pacific Assault - great SP, bad multiplayer.
But when compared to COD or BF, MOH is a terrible game. Medal of Honor 2010 was an awful game, and in my opinion, the MOH franchise is going to fall pretty damn soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
@ Jay, I liked Moh pacific assault in the single player campaign.
+1 on Pacific Assault's campaing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.
Yeah, that is something Im a little worried about too.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Yeah, that is something Im a little worried about too.
It won't be a feature in Multiplayer. Do you really think EA DICE are that stupid? They have said that they're sticking to the roots of the Battlefield series, so they won't be adding stupid **** like that to the Multiplayer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
It won't be a feature in Multiplayer. Do you really think EA DICE are that stupid? They have said that they're sticking to the roots of the Battlefield series, so they won't be adding stupid **** like that to the Multiplayer.
Accually, it is in the mp. I just saw in a mp video how they get half blinded by a flash light. Now its not as sharp as I thought it be so they can still see, partially.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhBjB...layer_embedded
One part in this video shows it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
That's completely fine, I can deal with that, as it's fair and realistic.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
That's completely fine, I can deal with that, as it's fair and realistic.
Yeah, that looks ok. It is completely noob-proof.
-
It's hard to say without getting to play MW3, but based on the beta, Battlefield 3 looks like it has a shot to dethrone CoD IMO, I'm still getting both though
-
I've decided that I'm gunna give MW3 a chance, to see if it lives up to it's promise of bringing back multiplayer that mirrors CoD4's.
-
I'm definitely sticking with Call of Duty, I've been playing them since the original Call of Duty for computer. They'll always be my favorite shooter. I may get this game with christmas money or something, but I'll have my hands full with Skyrim and MW3 until then.
-
Battlefield 3 is definitely better in my opinion. I think the story is more in-depth, I think the combat runs smoother than CoD, and Vehicles are definitely a great addition. The multiplayer is definitely superior. More team-based action thanks to squads and defined roles (Engineer FTW). Destructable battlefields for a constantly changing experience. Vehicles that you can go god-mode in (If you have a few engineers). All around Battlefield has always and probably will continue to outperform CoD (CoD World at War is the exception when it comes to the campaign).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraeSC111
Battlefield 3 is definitely better in my opinion. I think the story is more in-depth, I think the combat runs smoother than CoD, and Vehicles are definitely a great addition. The multiplayer is definitely superior. More team-based action thanks to squads and defined roles (Engineer FTW). Destructable battlefields for a constantly changing experience. Vehicles that you can go god-mode in (If you have a few engineers). All around Battlefield has always and probably will continue to outperform CoD (CoD World at War is the exception when it comes to the campaign).
CoD WaW was the worst call of duty in my opinion lol. MW 1 and 2 along with Black ops both had phenomenal stories along with cut scenes. WaW was the one lacking the story and cut scenes. WaW also had pretty awful multiplayer as well. The graphics were also very unappealing. Going from MW to WaW was a huge let down. The MW story has been going on for 2 games and soon to be 3. Way more in-depth then the BF's un-continuing story. TBH I think you're crazy to think BF's stories are better than CoD. I've played through all of both and it's really easy to say, the CoD series has the best story for any FPS war game. I didn't think BF's campaign were any good. Bad company 1 and 2 was okay, but no where near cod. BF 2 is almost non existing lol.
As for online play, it's more a matter of opinion. Black ops had a terrible engine I thought, but MW and MW2 were both good, very clean and crisp (which is was MW3 will be running from.) The CoD series also has way more choices on classes than BF. Having complete customizable classes and loadouts makes the online experience 10 times better IMO. Picking your own perks, weapons and equipment is something that CoD will always have over BF since they won't have any custom loadouts. The games going to be way more fast paced. The maps in MW3 are way smaller, and the engine MW3 is using is capable of running at a higher FPS. BF3 is running off a whole new system which still has a lot of bugs. If you played the beta you know what I'm talking about.
Another downfall to BF3 is that the game engine was designed to run on a PC and then they are transferring it to console which means it won't run as smooth. The fact that they are having bugs with the beta for PC shows that they are still having troubles with the game engine for PC, so it's not looking good for console players.
All my friend already have MW3 pre ordered. They've never let anybody down before and from the looks of it, this title is going to be a close Mirror to MW ( Widely known as one of the best online FPS ) with a few improvements and changes to gameplay( as far as multiplayer goes.) Plus you can also count on the amazing campaign along with spec ops which is unique to the MW series.
Call me a fanboy if you want, but it's hard to deny the facts.
CoD > BF
The sales tell all, and they will during the release of MW3 and BF3
-
It's not the cutscenes I'm not fully concerned about with the campaign. Its the gameplay, how they did the objectives, how they develop characters and still show the characters personalities during the game. MW was just running through the level shooting enemies, not really any other objectives or really anything complicated and you never really got to see your allies outside of the cutscenes (and even then there wasn't much character development). I enjoyed the new things that they added to the WaW campaign and they did a good job at creating a great WW2 atmosphere in my opinion. Plus the flamethrower was fun as hell. :D
-
Quote:
"Bad company 1 and 2 was okay, but no where near cod. BF2 is almost non existing lol."
BF2 had an almost non existing campaign? There was no campaign at all! Battlefield has mainly been a multiplayer franchise.
Bad company 1 and 2 was DICE, more or less testing themselves as story writers and scripters to create a campaign within the battlefield franchise.
It was a fun and entertaining story and that is what matters.
and at the same time it was also a completely new multiplayer mode within battlefield in those games.
Of course when it comes to Call of Duty my biggest concern is not the singleplayer, which mostly are great. it's the multiplayer and features that are moving forward at a way to slow pace.
And considering one is using 5-15 hours on a FPS's campaign vs the huge amount of time one uses on FPS's multiplayers nowadays. I find battlefield to be much more worth my money.
I usually just borrow the CoD games from a mate or something since i only want the story, and can't be bothered to spend my time on CoD's multiplayer.
Quote:
The fact that they are having bugs with the beta for PC shows that they are still having troubles with the game engine for PC, so it's not looking good for console players.
Of course there where bugs in the BETA, are you unfamiliar with what a beta is? Besides, at the time of the beta they used a old version of the game to prevent people beeing bothered to rip it and creating hacked servers.
most of the bug's that showed up was allready fixed. and their main goal with the beta was also to stress test the servers.
Quote:
Picking your own perks, weapons and equipment is something that CoD will always have over BF since they won't have any custom loadouts.
You really need to get your facts updated.
Quote:
this title is going to be a close Mirror to MW
If a CoD game that is going to be another copy/paste is really what you want then good for you.
Quote:
Another downfall to BF3 is that the game engine was designed to run on a PC and then they are transferring it to console which means it won't run as smooth.
It is a true sequel to BF2, of course they had to create it on PC, It's something that the BF fans appriciate. And it's looking pretty good on console aswell...
Quote:
As for online play, it's more a matter of opinion.
This. One of the only thing in your entire post of "facts" that i can agree with.
Quote:
Call me a fanboy if you want,
It's not that i want to, but from what i've read, i sort of have to.
|
» Site Navigation
» Friends
» Recent Threads
» Sponsors
|
