Battlefield 3 vs Call of Duty

[Exentenzed]

I didn't see a point in your last post, that's probably a good reason why I missed it. Also it was sarcasm when I said CoD was winning because BF failed to release titles. I was simply making a joke to the fact that you said Bad Company 1 & 2 was just a test.

Like you said, they release a title every year for business purposes only, it's the contract that they have with Activision. You have to remember two whole different companies make a different series under the same name. I honestly wish that they had more time to make games, they only have 2 years to make them.

Also when i said they won't have any custom load outs, I meant completely customizable. When I think of custom, I think of being able to have everything the way you want it.

The call of duty franchise as also "born" on PC. It turned more to consoles when MW2 realized. They recognized that gaming was turning to consoles more than PC's. Which also means that more profits will come out of console gaming. So it's only "logical" they would move to console. The thing that sucks for BF3 players that will using a console is that BF3 will only be running at 30 fps where call of duty will be running at 60 fps. That's just something you'll have to deal with when you have superior graphics. With BF3 you'll probably be able to play with 30 fps with out to much of a problem. A game like Call of Duty is way more fast paced and you have a lot more going on. If you went from console to PC with BF3 you would notice a HUGE difference in game play though. IMO I think that MW3 looks amazing for a 5 year old game system.


I'm not going to watch four videos to waste my time, since you said your self that you are not trying to make any points, I don't see any point in watching them. Easy to debate when you don't have to defend your side against there points.

My point was that i didn't like that you stated thing's about BF3 that wasnt true. (Even though now you say that you just meant something else than what you wrote, you can ofcourse see my confusion .)

I also wish they had more time to create their games, just too bad the head of Activision is a Wh***.
The developers of CoD have done pretty good jobs though considering their time restriction.

Yea, it sucks that console players will have to settle for 30fps, fortunately i will be getting it for PC myself. But as you said, that's the price for superior graphics.

I also think MW3 looks amazing for a 5 year old game systems, but i also think BF3 looks even better on the same systems.

P.S:
When you say a CoD match has "alot more going on" you also have to remember that alot happens in BF too, its just that in CoD the players are crammed into more focused and intense maps. So the feeling of "more going on" is pretty much an illusion.

Well if you won't watch the videos and discuss them i take it our debate is over, so thanks for your views.

I would agree that CoD is almost the same every time one comes out, but so what? Its still effing awesome, but thats just me.

It's still awesome sure, but in my oppinion they could just have given their 2-3 latest releases out as expansion packs instead of full games that they charge 50€ for.