[Raptor]

I realised that this forum is full of Battlefield 3 fanboys and that the CoD fanboys had no chance to give their opionion to both games
So, I thought it would be pretty evil interesting to start a discussion about both games. Bad and Good thing about both.
There might be some weaknesses at BOTH games and for a guy like me who hasn't played any CoD games before it's hard to believe
that Modern Warfare 3 will fail.. I mean it looks great, but really? Why did CoD became so popular then?

Please post why you think BF3/MW3 is better than the other game and why BF3/MW3 improved since the last games of their creators!
I just want to understand the hate before I condemn Call of Duty


VS

[BouweV]

CoD MW3 should've been called CoD MW2.5

BF3 is overrated.

[Clavus]

Battlefield is qualitative a superior product. Been in development for over 3 years, while a CoD game gets shit out every year to milk the fanbase.

The success of CoD is mainly centered around the success of the first Modern Warfare game, which hit a sweet spot with the masses (and well deserved, CoD4: MW was a beautiful game). But then Activision started milking the fuck out of the franchise. Now you have to shell out full price (with no price drop for the game for over a year) for a game that barely tries to innovate or evolve anywhere in its formula. And lets not get started about the DLC.

Battlefield 3 is a more complex game, plus requires some tactical thinking to be good at it. With what Operation Metro showed and the weapon modding feature, it's a clear sign that DICE is trying to improve on the points where CoD normally outclassed Battlefield (which is gunplay).

I'd love to play the MW3 singleplayer, the multiplayer just isn't my thing, but I don't want to pay full price for it. It's just not worth it.

BouweV, on 09 October 2011 - 21:42, said:

CoD MW3 should've been called CoD MW2.5

BF3 is overrated.

What about it is overrated? It's not going to be the best game ever but it's most certainly a great marriage between BF2's scale and BC2's cinematic battles. Which is what I was expecting at least.

[Raptor]

CoD Fanboy, on 09 October 2011 - 21:44, said:

It's just funny because people complain about the graphics yet if you weren't completely brain-dead you would realise it's called Modern Warfare..3!! For a reason. It's a direct sequal. They don't need an entire new graphics system if it's a fucking sequal of the same game/series. Black Ops had a new engine because it was a entirely new game than CoD WaW. Just face it.. MW2 turned out very successful, and so will MW3. BF3 will fail..just like Bad Company 2

BlueDragon783 (5 Thumbs Up)

If CoD isn't improving why are fanboys even loyal to their game? They won't experience any difference to MW2 I guess,
why is CoD so "great" then?

Edit: Time is wrong, don't know how to create quotes :<

This post has been edited by Raptor: 09 October 2011 - 21:53

[Hundred2]

This can only end in bad things.

[Clavus]

You can't tell people to stop having fun. There are plenty millions of people that are going to buy MW3 when it comes out and don't expect it to be any more than it is. But I just don't find it worth the money. My time is better spend in BF3.

[Shock120]

Shoo, go away versus thread.

[Chikennugget1]

I'll speak my mind.Battlefield 3 looks promising, good graphics, good gameplay blabla...
MW3 will surely be good too, but it's another CoD, that means an awesome campaign, but a multiplayer that is sympathetic at start but boring at the end.
The problem is that these games can be awesome games, they're not in my urge-to-buy- list.
Battlefield 3 looked really good, but I realised that I probably won't buy it, because my pc isn't powerful enough, and from what I've seen/read the game looks poor/cheap on consoles.
If by any chance the console version is "fixed" then I'll buy it (for christmas of course, I already have some games to buy at the moment, muehehe).

MW3 ? Well, that's a CoD.All the CoD's I've had were good, so I'm not concerned about the game's quality, that means it'll go under my christmas tree as Black Ops did last year.Unless it's an epic failure.

I'd say, wait &see. *goes back on Gears of War 3*

This post has been edited by Chikennugget1: 09 October 2011 - 22:16

[BouweV]

Clavus, on 09 October 2011 - 21:44, said:

BouweV, on 09 October 2011 - 21:42, said:

CoD MW3 should've been called CoD MW2.5

BF3 is overrated.

What about it is overrated? It's not going to be the best game ever but it's most certainly a great marriage between BF2's scale and BC2's cinematic battles. Which is what I was expecting at least.

People are expecting too much from BF3, therefor overrated.

I've not heard anyone being happy with the Alpha/Beta versions, and they then just blame it being shit because its Alpha/Beta and then continue thinking the end product will be 100 times better.

All the fanboys will buy their game and the game developers will be happy again, I am not buying either game.(because I'm AC fanboy)


When people are making reviews of the actual finished game and they are saying it's really good, I might buy BF3/MW3.

[xeim]

Bf 3 for me .. just need a better gpu before i buy it

[Corby]

I prefer CoD because even if technically BF beats it in every way, it just doesn't have that fun factor when me and friends are playing online, where-as CoD does.

[xsissel]

BF3>MW3. MW3 Soloplayable game. BF3 TEAMPLAYING GAME. That's all.

[Clavus]

Corby, on 09 October 2011 - 22:33, said:

I prefer CoD because even if technically BF beats it in every way, it just doesn't have that fun factor when me and friends are playing online, where-as CoD does.

BF3 is the better team game though.I remember planting mines on NECRO's flying MAV thingie. Then he went and flew it against a tank at the other side of the map. It was beautiful. Open maps like Caspian Border allow for a lot of experimenting and messing around.

[TheGreenGrasshopper]

You're comparing 2 different types of FPS games with each other.
Modern Warfare 3 is a close quarter combat game that focuses less on teamplay and more on what the individual person can do for it's team. It involves using killstreaks to change the tide. Teamplay and tactics increase the chance of winning but are not necessary.

Battlefield 3 on the other hand uses a wider and of course larger map to play on and focuses a lot more on teamplay. Because of the fact that it's such a large map a variety of vehicles is used which also spices up the gameplay. You can't win by simple going solo and taking out the team because this will only result in failure.

Both games should be handle as games from the top rank (atm) and there should be no hate against either one of them. The only extreem negative thing about the Call of Duty series is that it's overpriced and stays that way for far too long. I think MW2 is still 60bucks on steam or something?

BF3 --> teamplay
MW3 --> 'brainless' playing (in a positive way)

[MiF]

Basicly what Grasshopper said. These 2 are totally different FPS games (Well not totally, but close).


MW3 is quake style (with higher graphics and stuff) FPS, where best aim and fast reflexes win (some tactics too)
BF3 is like war simulation, with vehicles, and where good tactics and teamplay win. No that much need for fast reflexes or epic aim (unless you'r recon).

I like them both equally much in their own ways :3

[Clavus]

MW3 is hardly 'quake-style', that's an insult to professional Quake players. I think the term you're looking for is arcady.

[Griffon]

How can you even call new Cod:MW a new game it is exactly the same.
The Cod eqivalent of a new game is a re-packaged expantion pack, and their equivalent of Dlc has the quality of a valve update at best.

Bf3 on the otherhand tried to follow Cod with Bad company decided "well this is shit"
and then went back to doing what they do best which is make games that push boundries and changes up the gameplay every time.

[Sneed]

i would rather play mw3 (YES) because i hate vehicles

[Nobana]

Chikennugget1, on 09 October 2011 - 22:14, said:

The problem is that these games can be awesome games, they're not in my urge-to-buy- list.
Battlefield 3 looked really good, but I realised that I probably won't buy it, because my pc isn't powerful enough, and from what I've seen/read the game looks poor/cheap on consoles.
If by any chance the console version is "fixed" then I'll buy it

http://battlefieldo....-2nd-disk-xbox/

"The Xbox 360 version of Battlefield 3 will let user’s stream higher resolution textures by installing content found on the game’s second disc, DICE has revealed.” There’s a voluntary install on the 360,” said Battlefield 3 producer Patrick Liu speaking to GamerZines yesterday. We’re pushing that technology to the limit, and compared to our competitors, I would argue that we’re the best looking game.”
According to Liu, the game’s single-player, co-op and multiplayer are also split up between the two discs, although he wouldn’t confirm which modes are present on which disc. It’s not yet known whether the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 will also include the same hi-res textures on the Blu-ray disc."

Raptor, on 09 October 2011 - 21:33, said:

I mean it looks great, but really? Why did CoD became so popular then?

Really, in your opinion MW3 looks great? Take a look at the graphics of MW1, see a difference? I didnt think so.

CoD became popular because Call of Duty 1, 2 and MW1 were absolutely great games, even I still play CoD2 and MW1. Every Call of Duty has been the same after MW1.

This post has been edited by Nobana: 10 October 2011 - 14:49

[MrZunz]

Nobana, on 10 October 2011 - 14:33, said:

Raptor, on 09 October 2011 - 21:33, said:

I mean it looks great, but really? Why did CoD became so popular then?

Really, in your opinion MW3 looks great? Take a look at the graphics of MW1, see a difference? I didnt think so.

CoD became popular because Call of Duty 1, 2 and MW1 were absolutely great games, even I still play CoD2 and MW1. Every Call of Duty has been the same after MW1.

Same engine, same crap...