[MiF]

Clavus, on 10 October 2011 - 12:16, said:

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

Sorry. Arcady is the right word for what i think :3 (basic kill-the-guy-before-he-kills-you game)

[Corby]

MiF, on 10 October 2011 - 15:17, said:

Clavus, on 10 October 2011 - 12:16, said:

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

Sorry. Arcady is the right word for what i think :3 (basic kill-the-guy-before-he-kills-you game)

As opposed to the other type where its let-the-guy-kill-you-before-you-kill-him?

[TheGreenGrasshopper]

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

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

And this is what I meant a while ago when I said that this community mostly consists of BF fanboys, you only critize what you think to be true about MW3 without looking at the possible different sides of the game.

Griffon, on 10 October 2011 - 13:04, said:

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.

Change up gameplay? Sorry what? Gameplay still seems like every battlefield game out there because you know if they would change the entire gameplay behind a game you don't have the same game anymore.
But yeah you're right lets totally change the gameplay of COD and change it to a platformer, while were at it lets add hats. Or do you want COD to become a BF clone?
Oh and please define your idea of an expansion pack. Because if adding new guns, gameplay tactics, gameplay itself, maps, story, customization abilities, challenges, ... to a game is an expansion pack then damn it I payed to much for Assassin's creed (Expansion pack) 2 and (Expansion pack) Brotherhood. Don't forget about Half-life 2(expansion pack) ep1 and ep2, we shouldn't leave portal (expansion pack) 2 out AND OFCOURSE The expansion pack for Left 4 Dead called Left 4 Dead 2.

MrZunz, on 10 October 2011 - 15:12, said:

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...

Quote

This runs on the MW3 engine, which would typically be named IW5 but out of respect of our co-development partners at Sledgehammer games we are simply referring to it as the MW3 engine. It is upgraded from the engine we used in Modern Warfare 2. There have been a lot of advances, mostly in streaming tech to allow us to get the scale of levels we’re doing in Modern Warfare 3 and maintain gameplay consistency with the framerate and smoothness. We’ve got a lot of audio stuff mostly adding situational awareness like bullet wizzbys and other subtle upgrades. A lot of lighting stuff updates as well.

- 1 argument.

One final quote from the Infinity Ward team

Quote

You should be buying both because they both will be stellar games. I refuse to say one ill word of Battlefield 3 or DICE because I think they’re both fantastic and am good friends with several of the guys on the team.

If you are a shooter fan, they are both fantastic games to own because of one reason. They are different.

Each do their own thing in a fantastic way and it is refreshing to have the option for both styles.

[Nobana]

Well what kind of upgrades have they done to the new engine? New graphics? Noup. New physics? Noup. Anything that you can notice while playing?

Sure they say it runs smoother but I'd say that you cant see the difference.

This post has been edited by Nobana: 10 October 2011 - 16:26

[TheGreenGrasshopper]

I'm sorry but I don't notice a whole lot of difference between how Bad Company 2 looks and Battlefield 3 and don't come with your bullshit about how battlefield 2 is different from battlefield 3. There is a 6 year gap between those 2 they'd be fucking retarded to use the same engine. And it's not because you can't be asked to find out how the looks of Call of duty have changed over 4 years that they haven't.

[Corby]

Nobana, on 10 October 2011 - 16:23, said:

Well what kind of upgrades have they done to the new engine? New graphics? Noup. New physics? Noup. Anything that you can notice while playing?

Sure they say it runs smoother but I'd say that you cant see the difference.

How can you even comment when you haven't played it yet? The only game you can really comment on is BF3's beta, which to me, was boring and bland gameplay. Where-as the visuals and sounds were nice.

Edit: bare in mind I'm commentating from a console's perspective as I have given up on all PC FPS's due to inevitable release of hacks that are way too freely available.

This post has been edited by Corby: 10 October 2011 - 17:03

[Nobana]

TheGreenGrasshopper, on 10 October 2011 - 16:51, said:

I'm sorry but I don't notice a whole lot of difference between how Bad Company 2 looks and Battlefield 3 and don't come with your bullshit about how battlefield 2 is different from battlefield 3.
There is a 6 year gap between those 2 they'd be fucking retarded to use the same engine.

And it's not because you can't be asked to find out how the looks of Call of duty have changed over 4 years that they haven't.

Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 dont look so different, and I havent said that they do. But you must admit there's a difference when comparing two games released in 2010 - 2011 and 2007 - 2011. Also, how is Battlefield 3 NOT different from Battlefield 2?

I didnt understand the last sentence so I cant answer to it.

Corby, on 10 October 2011 - 17:02, said:

Nobana, on 10 October 2011 - 16:23, said:

Well what kind of upgrades have they done to the new engine? New graphics? Noup. New physics? Noup. Anything that you can notice while playing?

Sure they say it runs smoother but I'd say that you cant see the difference.

How can you even comment when you haven't played it yet? The only game you can really comment on is BF3's beta, which to me, was boring and bland gameplay. Where-as the visuals and sounds were nice.

Edit: bare in mind I'm commentating from a console's perspective as I have given up on all PC FPS's due to inevitable release of hacks that are way too freely available.

Yea, we'll see. Judging by the videos(yea yea videos tell nothing) it still has the 2D explosions and shit.

This post has been edited by Nobana: 10 October 2011 - 17:06

[Pufulet]

Shall we bring Counterstrike Global offensive as it too has guns and war and explosions and guns?

[Clavus]

The drama is finally picking up pace I see.

[Dr.Minky]

Fuck both of them, Quake LIVE makes them its bitch.

[chezman123]

TheGreenGrasshopper, on 10 October 2011 - 09:18, said:

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)

Basically this.
Based on the comments in this forum, I think I will buy both games (yay). I ENJOY teamplay much more, but nobody ever seems to do that in CoD, so I'll at least try Battlefield 3. I might as well give it a fair shot. I've always liked the MW games MUCH more than the other CoD games, mainly for the innovative qualities each one has produced so far. (For example, I've always loved the Spec. Ops. in MW2, and in MW, the game was much more...polished.) Zombies just hasn't done it for me all this time. It's way too overrated.
Well, I'm starting to get off topic. Those are my thoughts; do with them what you will.

[Lastion]

Why is there always a fight between these two games. Seriously, YES they are the 2 best shooters on the market, however since every1 like different food, why cant we like different games? Im tired of discussions over wich game is the better one. they are bothe just as good, but meant for different players. You don't like one???, then dont play it, but dont QQ over it either.

[Pufulet]

Lastion, on 25 October 2011 - 06:56, said:

Why is there always a fight between these two games. Seriously, YES they are the 2 best shooters on the market, however since every1 like different food, why cant we like different games? Im tired of discussions over wich game is the better one. they are bothe just as good, but meant for different players. You don't like one???, then dont play it, but dont QQ over it either.

What about Counter Strike? thats one of the best shooters too ya know :3

This post has been edited by Pufulet: 25 October 2011 - 08:13

[PEPPER]

theres nothing more satisfying than a good bushwookie hunt

[TechnoNegro]

bf3 is crap on consoles, cod is crap on pc (i have cod7 on pc), they upgraded the graphigs(aka. Bugged em so it wont work), added that shitty Dive to prone thingy and modded the players and weapons skins. But i bet there isint anything new for cod8. And for bf, they have added all kind of stuff, not just add new/old weapons

[Luke Nukem]

To be honest if people are fighting over which game is better they really need to grow up. Yes Battle field is always going to be better graphical wise as COD is still running on a quake engine that makes the graphics only look better due the extreme shadowing. COD will be better as I call it the fashion statement game, oh all my friends have it I NEED IT NOW OTHERWISE I WILL NOT BE COOL!!! So they are just as bad as each other. Battlefield take to the skies and piss off everyone that are fighting on the ground. COD camp in corners and sponge 800 rocket launchers with low health. Guys just face the facts that both games have their own unique capabilities and just buy the one you want to play for christ sake. Also what TechnoNegro said, yes Battlefield was made on the Frostbite 2 engine developed for high-spec PC Gaming, whilst COD was developed on a PC games engine, but later developed for the Xbox. PS3 well no games have been mainly made for the PS3, but just converted.

Peace.

[EmRA]

[Silver Dot]

MODERAN WARFAR IS MUCH BETTER

[EmRA]

TheGreenGrasshopper, on 10 October 2011 - 09:18, said:

BF3 --> teamplay

This whole thread is pure fucking gold hahaha
fighting over opinions

[Clavus]

Time to shoot this bitch out of the sky.