Battlefield 3 vs Call of Duty

[Jayhmmz]

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.

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.

[NeverDeefEated]

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.

[Psychotray]

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.

[Shooter99]

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.

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.

[Jayhmmz]

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.

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.

[paecmaker]

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.

[Jayhmmz]

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.

[Shooter99]

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.

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.

[Jayhmmz]

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.

[Shooter99]

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.