# Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 - Showdown



## RoutedScripter (Jun 10, 2011)

Proving how BF3 will obliterate any chance of MW3 critical success ... i will pick up popcorn and watch the show of journalism of fail when activision will again bribe them for a great score.


Post your own guys 

Today's mine is this, found it on reddit ... i know it's late for this , there's tons of stuff and i like others to contribute what you found,  but just to keep a repository


----------



## Bo$$ (Jun 10, 2011)

Dude! you needed youtube to tell you that retarded kids play COD??

but still nice find and analysis


----------



## erixx (Jun 10, 2011)

hahah, this is beyond fandom, this total submission to a game that owns your ass!!!!!

(can't wait, lol)


----------



## RoutedScripter (Jun 10, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> Dude! you needed youtube to tell you that retarded kids play COD??






> Today's mine is this, *found it on reddit* ... i know it's late for this , there's tons of stuff and i like others to contribute what you found,  but just to keep a repository


 ......


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

Upvote for COD hate.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jun 10, 2011)

last real cod game ever made was cod4 or wm1


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

Pretty much, yeah.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jun 10, 2011)

COD 4, after that DLC killed this shit. Now it's just a milked brand which idiots keep buying and playing

BF3 FTW!


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 10, 2011)

I don't know why so much MW bashing here. Personally I find both games very entertaining (although I didn't play either "hardcore"), but I think MW is much better as a "crowd fun game" and BFBC2 more "serious". Perhaps that is why MW has a younger fanbase, its easier to pick up and be "good" at it. Also, to me, BFBC fans of who compare BFBC with MW insults BFBC to say the least, the game deserves more respect than that, just like people comparing PvZ with Starcraft 2 to prove that Sc2 is superior.


----------



## Flibolito (Jun 10, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> last real cod game ever made was cod4 or wm1



Yup it's the last one I played.


----------



## Rapidfire48 (Jun 10, 2011)

Why even compare? BF3 is in a whole different world.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

thunderising said:


> Now it's just a milked brand which idiots keep buying and playing



Which is not only exactly what Kotick wants but _has actually said that he wants_.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 10, 2011)

against my better judgment im going to allow this obviously trolling thread to continue on the condition people dont start name calling. if you do name call and then i infract you for it and you claim you didnt know i wrote this post then that is your own fault and i will award you another 5 points.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 10, 2011)

anyone notice how COD has twice as many dislikes with only 1/4 of the views?

means 8x as many people don't like COD then those who don't like BF (From a purely statistical point of view)


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jun 10, 2011)

I hate COD.. but the video on the left is french and homemade.. video on the right is English and E3 official


----------



## Shihab (Jun 10, 2011)

CoD FTFW . Don't know why all of you hate the game so much. Might not be the best that could've been made but compared to Battlefield ? naaaah. I like fast paced shooters with a cinematic feel and a good story. Battlefield didn't give me that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> I hate COD.. but the video on the left is french and homemade.. video on the right is English and E3 official


----------



## erocker (Jun 10, 2011)

I can't wait to curl up next to my console, plug my controller in and play the greatest FPS franchise ever MW3. The way it's meant to be played. I'll own some n00bs until Christmas with intense close combat sniper fire.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> I can't wait to curl up next to my console, plug my controller in and play the greatest FPS franchise ever MW3. The way it's meant to be played. I'll own some n00bs until Christmas with intense close combat sniper fire.



impressive, i can't even afford MW3 (and how do you get close combat sniper fire?) + (why don't you have a wireless controller if your using a console)

I see what your doing


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> I can't wait to curl up next to my console, plug my controller in and play the greatest FPS franchise ever MW3. The way it's meant to be played. I'll own some n00bs until Christmas with intense close combat sniper fire.



Is that before or after you call everyone a "faggot-n!#ger" and rage out on Xbox live?


----------



## erocker (Jun 10, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Is that before or after you call everyone a "faggot-n!#ger" and rage out on Xbox live?



No that's what they call me after I own them. There's nothing you can do against: zoom, fire, headshot all in the span of milliseconds. It's very realistic, I do this in real life when I'm taking out turkeys back in the field. I once killed 30 turkeys in the matter of a few minutes doing this. Well.. I ran out of sniper ammo and had to switch to my two handguns at one point. I ran with the pack of turkeys offering up supreme headshots with my dual wielding mastery. CoD/MW is as real as it gets. It's like they know me.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 10, 2011)

COD 1 & 2 had epic SP and good MP, the others where just filler for when im bored with 1942/DC, bf2, 2142 i haven't bought a cod game since cod4 the rest seem like teh same game with an update/mod

Either way they don't compare in my book to begin with COD is a straight up FPS.
The BF series has always been more tactical and made use of squads teamwork and tactics, not to mention throwing player controlled vehicles into the mix and more then 8/16 players in a room.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> No that's what they call me after I own them. There's nothing you can do against: zoom, fire, headshot all in the span of milliseconds. It's very realistic, I do this in real life when I'm taking out turkeys back in the field. I once killed 30 turkeys in the matter of a few minutes doing this. Well.. I ran out of sniper ammo and had to switch to my two handguns at one point. I ran with the pack of turkeys offering up supreme headshots with my dual wielding mastery. CoD/MW is as real as it gets. It's like they know me.



(Blood on the screen) SO REAL!


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> I'm taking out turkeys back in the field. I once killed 30 turkeys in the matter of a few minutes doing this.



that's enough sandwiches for a year, i hope you didn't tea-bag them like most of the Online players do


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

Does the no name-calling stipulation apply to Bobby Kotick?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 10, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Does the no name-calling stipulation apply to Bobby Kotick?



i dont know who that is so no it does not apply.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jun 10, 2011)

why is it that ppl cant see that its 2 entirely different games?

MW3 is fast paced action kapow fun 

while with Battlefield you have to think


----------



## erocker (Jun 10, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Does the no name-calling stipulation apply to Bobby Kotick?



You better not. He's a man-child saint.

Just wook at him:






He's so full of youthful exuberance and joy. He just want's to share it with the world.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jun 10, 2011)

i just had the laugh of the day


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 10, 2011)

Here's official trailer from official uploader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiTJbr9m04&feature=channel_video_title


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont know who that is so no it does not apply.



Good man! The fact you don't know who he is is actually makes you look better!

(In all fairness, Kotick is just a good businessman and always has been and frankly has kind of an interesting life story but as a major video game exec he is an infuriating toolbag.)



erocker said:


> He's so full of youthful exuberance and joy. He just want's to share it with the world.



Actually there's a giant pile of money from MW2 sales next to the photographer.


----------



## Black Haru (Jun 10, 2011)

(FIH) The Don said:


> why is it that ppl cant see that its 2 entirely different games?
> 
> MW3 is fast paced action kapow fun
> 
> while with Battlefield you have to think



they are compared because they are close competitors from a business standpoint. content is irrelevant nest to sales; EA sees MW as an obstacle to gaining supremacy in the FPS genre.

COD hasn't had a new game in years, just the same game rehashed. that is why it gets bashed.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 10, 2011)

Black Haru said:


> COD hasn't had a new game in years, just the same game rehashed. that is why it gets bashed.



Still no reason to bash them though, if they manage to sell the same game to the same customer repeatedly, then they are marketing it right. Bashing them because they have done something right becomes jealous rage. Sensible people who enjoys BFBC more than COD/MW should not engage in such childish activities.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jun 10, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Still no reason to bash them though, if they manage to sell the same game to the same customer repeatedly, then they are marketing it right. Bashing them because they have done something right becomes jealous rage. Sensible people who enjoys BFBC more than COD/MW should not engage in such childish activities.



well said^^^^


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 10, 2011)

Rationale doesn't always work. If it did, there'd be no CoDs that have little more purpose than being verbal punching bags, LOL. I'm loving this thread, it's so funny!

Guys, don't be bleeding hearts and cry for these millionaires for a change, I'm sure they got enough $100 bills to wipe the tears of just 1 thread that tells the truth they don't want to hear.


----------



## Maelstrom (Jun 10, 2011)

Erocker made my day with those comments . Most likely won't get either game at release, but I'd pick up BF3 before MW3.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Jun 10, 2011)

Rapidfire48 said:


> Why even compare? BF3 is in a whole different world.



Well the publisher's are obviously in a showdown, let's join and spice it up a bit  


Technically , i saw the whole IW/ATVI clusterfuck , it was actually the devs them selfs that made MW2 a crap game ... in revenge , on the way out ... they knew they'll makes sales just fine ... but pissed off the PC, it just made activision so bad image, IW itself owned by ATVI so it doesn't make difference at what you bash  ... because , problems at IW started when COD4 was finished, soon after Co-Founder Grant Collier went missing and erased him self from the gaming world, no trace of him. ... so MW2 was developed without grant collier , which was the guy who was promoting the PC version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMfTR8PBrsE


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> Well the publisher's are obviously in a showdown, let's join and spice it up a bit



Hear, hear!


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 10, 2011)

Lol I remember that


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

Ok though I am big and fair enough to give credit where credit is due and this was a great, smart and useful idea on the part of the MW3 devs on a couple of levels. Unlike the 4chan post. 

Though DICE doesn't _need_ to do anything like this to make a kick ass, very well received PC game. 

Edit: Ok this guy seems to not only be smart but a pretty class act. Granted, he's not gonna trash DICE in this thread, that's common sense, but he seems sincere and his answer makes sense. 



> Why should I buy MW3 instead of Battlefield 3?
> 
> 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.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 10, 2011)

LOL, is that 4chan thing really from an activision rep?!
It's hilarious!! Trolling supreme! XD


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 10, 2011)

I heard they were removing dedicated server support with MW3 (again) is this true?


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> LOL, is that 4chan thing really from an activision rep?!
> It's hilarious!! Trolling supreme! XD



It sure is and it thus appears as though that is why the dinosaur appears so prominently at the beginning of the trailer. And it being there doesn't make a whole lot of sense otherwise...

As for dedicated servers, the dude says over at Reddit that he wants them and that they "are in discussions to see how they could and would be supported" (to paraphrase) but that he can't comment officially one way or another at this time. 

I wouldn't hold my breath, but it's possible. Especially as the competition so much fiercer this time around.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 10, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Ok though I am big and fair enough to give credit where credit is due and this was a great, smart and useful idea on the part of the MW3 devs on a couple of levels. Unlike the 4chan post.
> 
> Though DICE doesn't _need_ to do anything like this to make a kick ass, very well received PC game.
> 
> Edit: Ok this guy seems to not only be smart but a pretty class act. Granted, he's not gonna trash DICE in this thread, that's common sense, but he seems sincere and his answer makes sense.



To be fair isn't there a game based on the half life engine where the nazi's have dinosaurs

I have to agree though dinosaurs would be a stupid addition to mw3, now battlefield 3, since it has a destructible environment I would love to smash through buildings on a dino.

If their willing to ask 4 chan do you think they'd listen to us if we made a list of requests for the next one?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 10, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> If their willing to ask 4 chan do you think they'd listen to us if we made a list of requests for the next one?



IMO -- they went to ask 4chan on ideas on how to make MW3 'the best'. 4chan+'serious business' dont mix. the fact that the rep even posted on 4chan and not in tech forums similar to TPU and Guru3d says to me she wasnt going to take suggestions seriously anyway or even looking for serious answers. everyone knows 4chan is full of idiots. and the amount of trolling she got goes to prove my point.

got serious questions? want some serious feedback or suggestions? then post on a forum thats more civilized and has some admins or mods in place to keep everything in suitable order.

posting on 4chan was a stupid idea.


----------



## boise49ers (Jun 10, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> against my better judgment im going to allow this obviously trolling thread to continue on the condition people dont start name calling. if you do name call and then i infract you for it and you claim you didnt know i wrote this post then that is your own fault and i will award you another 5 points.



I wondered when you would tune in  Could get interesting no doubt.
They don't even have my age category in there. Discrimination


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I don't know why so much MW bashing here. Personally I find both games very entertaining (although I didn't play either "hardcore"), but I think MW is much better as a "crowd fun game" and BFBC2 more "serious". Perhaps that is why MW has a younger fanbase, its easier to pick up and be "good" at it. Also, to me, BFBC fans of who compare BFBC with MW insults BFBC to say the least, the game deserves more respect than that, just like people comparing PvZ with Starcraft 2 to prove that Sc2 is superior.



Because the differences between CoD 4 and Black Ops is small, and those games are made years apart. The difference between BC2 and just BF3 are massive. The game is actually making a step forward. Activision got their foot in the door first with the console players, and thats why they are where they are, most people I know that play CoD play it on console and won't even try Battlefield, the ones that have quit playing CoD. So I guess you could say, we hate Activision for what they do to their customers, but the real problem is the customers, but we can't have a thread just making fun of all the idiots who buy the same game year after year, because if we did, then all of you that play would get offended.



(FIH) The Don said:


> why is it that ppl cant see that its 2 entirely different games?
> 
> MW3 is fast paced action kapow fun
> 
> while with Battlefield you have to think



Have you played Arica Harbor Conquest? Or Panama Canal? Theres quite a few fast paced BC2 maps. But they have direction, rotating spawns are stupid. And why use MW3 as an example, CoD 4, CoD WaW, CoD MW 2, CoD MW 3, CoD BO, whats the real differences, not much.



Easy Rhino said:


> i dont know who that is so no it does not apply.



He's the devil of the gaming industry. He's responsible for the Tony Hawk series, Guitar Hero series, and now CoD series, notice the similar trait with them all? Also here's a few qoutes from him....



> "With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us."
> 
> "And again, our strategy, narrow and deep, focus on properties that will sell to a very broad consumer base on the console -- those are strategies that seem to work well."
> 
> ...



Hopefully you read them all, this guy is the devil of the industry.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> IMO -- they went to ask 4chan on ideas on how to make MW3 'the best'. 4chan+'serious business' dont mix. the fact that the rep even posted on 4chan and not in tech forums similar to TPU and Guru3d says to me she wasnt going to take suggestions seriously anyway or even looking for serious answers. everyone knows 4chan is full of idiots. and the amount of trolling she got goes to prove my point.
> 
> got serious questions? want some serious feedback or suggestions? then post on a forum thats more civilized and has some admins or mods in place to keep everything in suitable order.
> 
> posting on 4chan was a stupid idea.



If she would have posted here I would have made it my life long mission to derail that thread to hell and back.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 11, 2011)

Kurgan is essentially right. He is unabashed in his embrace of profit over _all_ else including, essentially, integrity and as such does a fair amount of harm to the industry and genre in terms of what people expect a quality gaming experience to be.



cheesy999 said:


> To be fair isn't there a game based on the half life engine where the nazi's have dinosaurs
> 
> I have to agree though dinosaurs would be a stupid addition to mw3, now battlefield 3, since it has a destructible environment I would love to smash through buildings on a dino.
> 
> If their willing to ask 4 chan do you think they'd listen to us if we made a list of requests for the next one?



Um I really can't tell if you're serious or not so I guess that's all I say about this other than that I can't get Dino D-Day to run on my damn machine and I'm pissed. But that's neither here nor there as far as this thread is concerned either.



TheMailMan78 said:


> If she would have posted here I would have made it my life long mission to derail that thread to hell and back.



Well then let's keep up our smack talk and maybe we'll get our shot. This place has like a quarter million unique page views a day!  (Ok that's no 4chan... )


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 11, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Kurgan is essentially right. He is unabashed in his embrace of profit over _all_ else including, essentially, integrity and as such does a fair amount of harm to the industry and genre in terms of what people expect a quality gaming experience to be.



You do realise that BFBC and COD/MW have different target audiences right? BFBC is primarily targeted at more mature players who value teamwork and realism while COD/MW is targeted at young teens whose parents gave them more money than they can spend sensibly. And from that information, you cannot say that COD/MW harms the industry, but rather train them for the hardships and immense satisfaction they will get when they finally migrate from mindless spraying to educated sniping. 

While the game is similar outwardly, we all can see that the two games are completely different animal all together in terms of gameplay - comparable to the difference between driving a Rolls Royce and a Pagani Zonda. There is no right or wrong here, there is just a matter of opinion. Both of the games are good and fun, but one is clearly superior in pretty much all other category.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> You do realise that BFBC and COD/MW have different target audiences right? BFBC is primarily targeted at more mature players who value teamwork and realism while COD/MW is targeted at young teens whose parents gave them more money than they can spend sensibly. And from that information, you cannot say that COD/MW harms the industry, but rather train them for the hardships and immense satisfaction they will get when they finally migrate from mindless spraying to educated sniping.
> 
> While the game is similar outwardly, we all can see that the two games are completely different animal all together in terms of gameplay - comparable to the difference between driving a Rolls Royce and a Pagani Zonda. There is no right or wrong here, there is just a matter of opinion. Both of the games are good and fun, but one is clearly superior in pretty much all other category.



Thats just stereo typing. I don't really know any teenagers, Almost everyone I know who plays CoD is in their mid 20's, and most of them don't have a decent computer. And most of them plan on continuing eating what Activision puts on the plate regardless.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 11, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Thats just stereo typing. I don't really know any teenagers, Almost everyone I know who plays CoD is in their mid 20's, and most of them don't have a decent computer. And most of them plan on continuing eating what Activision puts on the plate regardless.



Yes, that is excessively stereotyping (my bad on that part), but I think it still (to some extent) true. The people I know and plays both games actively can be easily distinguished, to an extent just by judging them you will more often than not guess whether they play COD/MW or BF if they are playing shooters at all (but harder to tell when they play both).


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If she would have posted here I would have made it my life long mission to derail that thread to hell and back.



and thats what ban sticks are for


----------



## CJCerny (Jun 11, 2011)

This topic is pointless. One side is not going to convince the other side of the merits of their favorite and tossing in a few put downs aimed at the group that likes the game that you don't like doesn't help the situation. Neither game is being threatened by the other. Let's just drop it and move on.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> and thats what ban sticks are for



And thats stopped me when?


----------



## erocker (Jun 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And thats stopped me when?



I could make that happen right now. Especially when those are too arrogant to believe otherwise.


----------



## erixx (Jun 11, 2011)

BOTH GAMES ARE JUST DEGREES OF MASSIVE DECEPTION. PAC-MAN IS THE WAY


----------



## Maelstrom (Jun 11, 2011)

erixx said:


> BOTH GAMES ARE JUST DEGREES OF MASSIVE DECEPTION. PAC-MAN IS THE WAY



PFFFTT! Bloons Tower Defense 4 > Pac-man > BF3 > MW3


----------



## Black Haru (Jun 11, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> You do realise that BFBC and COD/MW have different target audiences right? BFBC is primarily targeted at more mature players who value teamwork and realism while COD/MW is targeted at young teens whose parents gave them more money than they can spend sensibly. And from that information, you cannot say that COD/MW harms the industry, but rather train them for the hardships and immense satisfaction they will get when they finally migrate from mindless spraying to educated sniping.
> 
> While the game is similar outwardly, we all can see that the two games are completely different animal all together in terms of gameplay - comparable to the difference between driving a Rolls Royce and a Pagani Zonda. There is no right or wrong here, there is just a matter of opinion. Both of the games are good and fun, but one is clearly superior in pretty much all other category.



I am sorry, but if another developer made a copy of COD4, everyone would say it was trash and just mimicking a previous game. so what gives activision the right to do it with their own game.

I am sorry, but if you think that is acceptable, you have some low standards.


if DICE made BF4, and it was a rehashed BF3, I would bash on them too. it is not acceptable.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

CJCerny said:


> This topic is pointless. One side is not going to convince the other side of the merits of their favorite and tossing in a few put downs aimed at the group that likes the game that you don't like doesn't help the situation. Neither game is being threatened by the other. Let's just drop it and move on.



Thats what life is, your opinion vs others opinions. So everythings as pointless as you feel it is.



Black Haru said:


> if DICE made BF4, and it was a rehashed BF3, I would bash on them too. it is not acceptable.



Exactly! I would not be happy if BF3 didn't bring more to the table than BC2. Even though BC2 was a great looking game, the reason I am interested in BF3 is because it brings so much more. I owned MW1, there was no reason to go beyond that, very minor changes, plus I didn't like the gameplay to begin with.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 11, 2011)

Black Haru said:


> I am sorry, but if you think that is acceptable, you have some low standards.
> 
> if DICE made BF4, and it was a rehashed BF3, I would bash on them too. it is not acceptable.



Would you bash Angry Birds Seasons and Angry Birds Rio? Would you bash Sims (insert something here)? Would you bash Fifa (insert number here)? Would you bash GT (insert number here)? Or Pokemon (insert colour/gemstone/metal)? "More of the same please" is something that we gamers (your general gamers) want, and Activision does a good job there. Every day we hear players complain how "Oblivion is not as good as Morrowind", or "Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was the best" etc. That is a direct result of the companies tinkering with the formula. However, there will be a point where gamers get tired with COD/MW with too few new things brought to the table the franchise will die out (all the better). 

Lets consider this theoretical scenario where BF3 multiplayer is just the same as BFBC2 with better explosions and pictures and other minor improvements like more modes (other than your standard capture the flag etc). Will you still buy and love it? If you do, then why would you not love COD/MW? COD/MW is still introducing new stuff with each iteration, the only thing which is kept constant is the game engine. If you don't like the BF3 because its the same as BFBC2, then what will make you like the game? More improvements than minor ones? Drastic changes to the game in hopes that the new style will suit the old hardcore fans?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Would you bash Angry Birds Seasons and Angry Birds Rio? Would you bash Sims (insert something here)? Would you bash Fifa (insert number here)? Would you bash GT (insert number here)? Or Pokemon (insert colour/gemstone/metal)? "More of the same please" is something that we gamers (your general gamers) want, and Activision does a good job there. Every day we hear players complain how "Oblivion is not as good as Morrowind", or "Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was the best" etc. That is a direct result of the companies tinkering with the formula. However, there will be a point where gamers get tired with COD/MW with too few new things brought to the table the franchise will die out (all the better).
> 
> Lets consider this theoretical scenario where BF3 multiplayer is just the same as BFBC2 with better explosions and pictures and other minor improvements like more modes (other than your standard capture the flag etc). Will you still buy and love it? If you do, then why would you not love COD/MW? COD/MW is still introducing new stuff with each iteration, the only thing which is kept constant is the game engine. If you don't like the BF3 because its the same as BFBC2, then what will make you like the game? More improvements than minor ones? Drastic changes to the game in hopes that the new style will suit the old hardcore fans?



Dedicated server support. and dev tools for the community so we can make our own mods and maps just like in the good old days of CoD1

---

and also a player cap of 64-100+ players not 16 (last few editions of CoD were woeful in this aspect. -- Im speaking as a PC gamer of course. console gamers probably thought the game was perfect from the start)


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Dedicated server support. and dev tools for the community so we can make our own mods and maps just like in the good old days of CoD
> 
> and also a player cap of 64-100+ players not 16 (last few editions of CoD were woeful in this aspect. -- Im speaking as a PC gamer of course. console gamers probably thought the game was perfect from the start)



Ah yes, the infamous dedicated server support and dev tools. That is a step backwards, but they fixed it in Black Ops, so its not something we should nitpick because they actually fixed it.

Regarding small player pools, I think its to improve the teamwork which the game so severely lacks, and personally I think its a good thing. Not so good when you have lots of buddies to play with, but good if you don't. (I can't see how COD players will have a lot of buddies, if my experience with them are of any indication). Most of my experience on COD came from consoles, and BF from computer, so I my judgement might not ring true in all cases, but should still be valid.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

depends. if you play as part of a clan or just as a good squad/team then it could make all the difference.

Ive been part of a lot of games where it was just my squad doing the capping and the rest was just fucking around and camping with gaymores. and we carried the team to a victory


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Would you bash Angry Birds Seasons and Angry Birds Rio? Would you bash Sims (insert something here)? Would you bash Fifa (insert number here)? Would you bash GT (insert number here)? Or Pokemon (insert colour/gemstone/metal)? "More of the same please" is something that we gamers (your general gamers) want, and Activision does a good job there. Every day we hear players complain how "Oblivion is not as good as Morrowind", or "Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was the best" etc. That is a direct result of the companies tinkering with the formula. However, there will be a point where gamers get tired with COD/MW with too few new things brought to the table the franchise will die out (all the better).
> 
> Lets consider this theoretical scenario where BF3 multiplayer is just the same as BFBC2 with better explosions and pictures and other minor improvements like more modes (other than your standard capture the flag etc). Will you still buy and love it? If you do, then why would you not love COD/MW? COD/MW is still introducing new stuff with each iteration, the only thing which is kept constant is the game engine. If you don't like the BF3 because its the same as BFBC2, then what will make you like the game? More improvements than minor ones? Drastic changes to the game in hopes that the new style will suit the old hardcore fans?



Angry Birds isn't $60 a game, or even $50. I would bash Sims, I buy almost every single one that comes out, my fiancee plays and I have too, and it's the worst coded crap unloaded on the market. But their target audience isn't your average gamer, so to really say much, most Sims players would never hear it. And Fifa or any other Sports game is completely different, they bring roster updates each year and actually try and bring new features, especially Fifa, BF3 actually stole their animation system (probably bad choice to pick on there). Sports fans expect these games for the roster updates and such. And if by GT, you mean Gran Turismo, it's been half a decade since the last one. Pokemon I know crap about, but that was targeted at an extremely young age group, not at your average gamer age. All of these games are different than the CoD series for those reasons, Kotick has said it himself, look at my quotes, "take the fun out of gaming" and "were pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression". You find anyone running any of the companies that you mentioned with quotes saying anything remotely close to anything like that.

Now beyond that, I wouldn't buy your theoretical BF3 until it was $10. And I can bet Haru would say the samething, so your following question gets shot down. I hope that after BF3 releases, that I don't see another BF title for at least 2 years. 1.5 years from BC2 to BF3 was a bit close for me, I'm still getting my moneys worth out of BC2. But with BF3 bringing so much more, 2 years might even be pushing it. If I had a new game every year, I wouldn't be buying them. If DICE starts crapping out BF titles back to back, I will not be happy with them at all. I want them to release BF3, then give us some new maps, maybe some new weapons or some new modes over the next 3 years, while they work on another game. I don't want them to poop out BF3 then start another game right away to get another $60 out of us.


----------



## caleb (Jun 11, 2011)

CODMW1 was fggz. 
I for one BF fan around here expect that BF3 will be the same game as BC2, the only change will be scale and a working friends list. I will never expect a really fun gameplay from large productions anymore. Its like 4staff wrote they tamper with stuff and I'm the kind of person that would rape a single game for 10 years only if it received the decent anticheat support and a few map packs.
WoW somehow manages to survive. I don't know about that Cataclysm expansion but from observing blizzard is VERY careful not to spoil what wow is for players. Shooters is a different market they make new games to make more money its that simple and with new features they fk up the original product that we think was good. The golden solution is the same model as WOW uses for shooters pay subscriptions then we will have quality polished games not games like CODMW2 which was a complete super game to a total disaster change because only then producers will get their cash and leave good games supported as they should be for a long time.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

caleb said:


> CODMW1 was fggz.
> I for one BF fan around here expect that BF3 will be the same game as BC2, the only change will be scale and a working friends list. I will never expect a really fun gameplay from large productions anymore. Its like 4staff wrote they tamper with stuff and I'm the kind of person that would rape a single game for 10 years only if it received the decent anticheat support and a few map packs.
> 
> WoW somehow manages to survive. I don't know about that Cataclysm expansion but from observing blizzard is VERY careful not to spoil what wow is for players. Shooters is a different market they make new games to make more money its that simple and with new features they fk up the original product that we think was good. The golden solution is the same model as WOW uses for shooters pay subscriptions then we will have quality polished games not games like CODMW2 which was a complete super game to a total disaster change because only then producers will get their cash and leave good games supported as they should be for a long time.



Why are you commenting on this if you haven't looked at the ton of BF3 info out there? BF3 has some much more than BC2 it's unreal. Prone, Jets, 64 Player Servers, changed kits, ability to shoot out lights, completely reworked engine. They have changed more going from BC2 to BF3 than has cahnged from CoD 4 to CoD BO. (visit the BF3 clubhouse and check out Gullys posts)

Also being a WoW player, Cata was a large change, but it was a change to more how Vanilla was, and Vanilla is still the best version of WoW there is. All the expansions sucked, Cata after like 5 years has finally got a lot right. And if you think WoW is polished, you are wrong, my 4870x2 ran the game like crap, as did my 2x 5850's, even get horrible frame drops with the 6950. And since Activision has jumped on board, there is now stupid things to buy to milk more money like mounts. Activisions going to sink the great ship that was Blizzard, this is a Kotic ship now, and the flags display money signs.


----------



## Frizz (Jun 11, 2011)

The prices on modern warfare games are an outrage it is sad to see people at my local EB here in Australia spending around 120 AUD (126 U.S. dollars) for the same bloody game they spent 100+ dollars or so on the year before. 

Also Battlefield Company 2 is priced at 19.99 AUD at the moment while CoD 4: Modern Warfare is still priced at 49.99 .. Seriously, there is absolutely no reason for a game this old to be priced this high. I refuse to buy any CoD games for this reason, I only have the original MW (which I bought near release) and then Blops which was given to me as a birthday gift.. Grr my mate may as well have given me a pair of dirty socks as it would of been just as useful but it would have at least saved him 100 bucks.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

erocker said:


> I could make that happen right now. Especially when those are too arrogant to believe otherwise.



Of course you or any other mod can make it happen. I wouldnt expect anything less. 

"I never trolled a man that didnt need trolling"
Clay Allison.


----------



## hat (Jun 11, 2011)

Both games are rehashes upon rehashes... don't like one better than the other.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

hat said:


> Both games are rehashes upon rehashes... don't like one better than the other.



What? BF2 is 6 years old, BC1 was console on, BC2 will be 1.5 years old by the time BF3 is out, and BF has a ton (a freaking ton) of new things, far from a rehash.

MW1 is 4 years old, WaW is 3 years, MW2 is 2 years, and BO is 1 year, see the difference in trend there? Especially considering the amount of change from each game to the next.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 11, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> What? BF2 is 6 years old, BC1 was console on, BC2 will be 1.5 years old by the time BF3 is out, and BF has a ton (a freaking ton) of new things, far from a rehash.
> 
> MW1 is 4 years old, WaW is 3 years, MW2 is 2 years, and BO is 1 year, see the difference in trend there? Especially considering the amount of change from each game to the next.



He is probably thinking the most basic element of both games: Run shoot, drive vehicles etc.

If COD/MW manage to keep itself out of the bargain bin for so long, then there must be a reason why it still haven't hit the bargain bin even up to now. We can run circles and continue to bash how bad COD/MW is, but at the end of the day, it makes money and more people than not like it, and hence Activision being such a douche it is will continue milking. I do not like how Activision treats the franchise, but at the end of the day I (as a regular gamer) am not prejudiced enough to consider the game based on how it is produced, but rather how much entertainment I can get/have gotten from its past editions/versions/prequel/etc. From that standpoint, people will continue to buy COD/MW so long as it introduces enough things to warrant a new purchase, and that will be the magnum opus of milking. 

I disagree with your view that they always introduce new things in the sports section, for every single game franchise there were/will be moments where the only significant update is the roster. And yet year after year sports games sell enough to sustain them, and by extension the skills needed to make games. 

I still have some respect for Blizzard, they are actually still balancing Warcraft 3 ( as of a few months ago, their newest patch), and they are still actively balancing Starcraft 2. While there are a few things which they removed (like LAN) infuriates me, but at the end of the day, they are still balancing the game, constantly bugfixing and support the competitive scene: keeping the game alive. I choose not to care about WoW, because if I actually did care about it I would have boycotted Starcraft 2, and I would have missed out in one of the best games I have ever played.

Edit: I have thought of the best analogy of what my feeling for COD/MW. Have you lost a multiplayer game in such a dominating fashion that rather being angry/cross/frustrated/whatever you feel impressed and taken aback by the skill of your opponent(s)? That is how I feel like about COD/MW, I know that they are clearly bad (being my opponents and all), and they need to be stopped, but the way they completely outplay me is nothing short of pure brilliance.


----------



## snuif09 (Jun 11, 2011)

BF2 may be old but i still play it with joy (project reality and forgotten hope 2 ftw) can't say that I still play any CoD's now.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 11, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> He is probably thinking the most basic element of both games: Run shoot, drive vehicles etc.
> 
> If COD/MW manage to keep itself out of the bargain bin for so long, then there must be a reason why it still haven't hit the bargain bin even up to now. We can run circles and continue to bash how bad COD/MW is, but at the end of the day, it makes money and more people than not like it, and hence Activision being such a douche it is will continue milking. I do not like how Activision treats the franchise, but at the end of the day I (as a regular gamer) am not prejudiced enough to consider the game based on how it is produced, but rather how much entertainment I can get/have gotten from its past editions/versions/prequel/etc. From that standpoint, people will continue to buy COD/MW so long as it introduces enough things to warrant a new purchase, and that will be the magnum opus of milking.
> 
> ...



The reason why is because it's extremely popular on consoles. And the reason why is because BF was the PC FPS, CoD was the first to migrate to consoles, everyone jumped in the ship, shut the hatches and refuses to look outside, ever, and they will buy whatever releases. Most people I know that play CoD (a lot sadly), just go and buy the new game, they don't even know or care what it consists of, it's the new one, more people will be playing it than the last, so they have to buy it. It's a franchise thats living off, "well my friends wont be playing the old one so I need the new one just for that reason".

Also as far as sports games, most people I know that buy the new versions every year, only buy sports games. And they also play in fantasy leagues for money. They are sports simmers, it's what they do, it is not the same as FPS games being repackaged. And just for example, Fifa 2010 added numerous new modes of gameplay, Fifa 2011 added the newer console engines to ps3, refined the modes, added new passing systems, better ai, and a bunch of other things. Which are all far bigger additions than new locations and timeline changes in cod.

Either way, you seem to think we are trying to say because we don't enjoy the game that it means it isn't fun for other people. Which we aren't people enjoy lots of bad things. We are just saying the reasons we don't like the game, or the series. It's the same crap in a new wrapper for each title, and theres no real way to argue against that. Especially when it's landed on the dot 4 years in a row with a new game and the 5th is already planned.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

So i just heard rumors that Activision might be charging a subscription fee to play MW3

read more about it here or just google it

Its an old rumor that has been floating around since late 2010. and even now no-one is sure if they will go ahead with it so it is very much in the boat with fiasco about dedicated server support.

If its true. then its ridiculous.




> Activision Blizzard Inc. plans to launch an online service called Call of Duty Elite this fall that will work with the next major edition of the game, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3," and future installments of the hyper-realistic combat-simulation game. In a move industry executives describe as a first, Activision plans to charge a monthly subscription fee for the service, which will provide extra content that isn't offered on game discs sold in stores, including downloadable map packs that give players new "Call of Duty" levels to play.


----------



## Black Haru (Jun 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> So i just heard rumors that Activision might be charging a subscription fee to play MW3
> 
> read more about it here or just google it
> 
> ...



I thought that was officially announced. if you want certain features of the game you have to pay subscription. 

since COD caters to console (xbox especially) people are used to paying for what should be free anyway.  this will probably go over well, and make activision a lot of money.


----------



## Shihab (Jun 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> So i just heard rumors that Activision might be charging a subscription fee to play MW3
> 
> read more about it here or just google it
> 
> ...



 Doubt that would happen. Don't think te people at Steam will like that. Unless Activision is planning to change DRM again


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

Black Haru said:


> I thought that was officially announced. if you want certain features of the game you have to pay subscription.
> 
> since COD caters to console (xbox especially) people are used to paying for what should be free anyway.  this will probably go over well, and make activision a lot of money.



Yeah, A friend was just telling me Activision CEO just confirmed it. I suppose  they are just out to piss off the PC crowd even more


----------



## bucketface (Jun 11, 2011)

moden warfare is the to games like the tradional hollywood action blockbuster

battlefield is more the blackhawk down, saving private ryan and so on. 

different style, differnet target audience with some overlap. 

on a different note i'm note liking the whole yearly release cycle that is being adopted. the attitude of companys taking an ip and milking it for all its worth/ running it into the ground is starting to get annoying. i thought the whole point of dlc was that they could extend the lifecycle of a game providing easy access to expasion like additions to the game.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 11, 2011)

As much as I want to scream "Kotick strikes again!" we really should have a source on this.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> As much as I want to scream "Kotick strikes again!" we really should have a source on this.



No its official. It was announced a few weeks ago. Almost got an infraction debating someone about it.


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2011)

Here's an article on Ars about it.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...elite-is-a-for-pay-social-content-service.ars


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

Heres the link directly from Activision.

http://www.callofduty.com/elite


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

bucketface said:


> moden warfare is the to games like the tradional hollywood action blockbuster
> 
> battlefield is more the blackhawk down, saving private ryan and so on.
> 
> ...



agreed. there are a lot of people out there which view DLCs with a lot of Skepticism, especially when they announce the availability of DLCs while the games still in development or soon after the games release as it could be that these DLCs are/were part of the original game but were cut away and held back so they could charge people to download it.

I was listening to the bit-tech podcast. and this was one of the topics that was being debated. theres a lot of cloak and dagger tactics surrounding DLC content.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 11, 2011)

LOL 

Copies of Modern Warfare 3 will sell like hot cakes!  The average gamer like myself will own both MW3 and BF3.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jun 11, 2011)

erocker said:


> I can't wait to curl up next to my console, plug my controller in and play the greatest FPS franchise ever MW3. The way it's meant to be played. I'll own some n00bs until Christmas with intense close combat sniper fire.



lol until 2 hours after it comes out then all the hack Scriptures will own you .


----------



## erocker (Jun 11, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> lol until 2 hours after it comes out then all the hack Scriptures will own you .



There are no hack/scripts. Only n00bs.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 11, 2011)

The way I see it, MW3 will probably sell better because the average consumer will see the new trailer, directed by Michael Bay, featuring a new Eminem song, and go bananas for that shit.  From a PC Gaming perspective, BF3 will be the infinitely better game, and should at least gain some ground.  I think the most important thing to realize, is that EA\DICE finally figured out how to beat Activision's CoD series; make a superior product.

If they actually listen, and don't just copy, they will start making infinitely better products, that fans actually *want* to buy.  I have no regrets in buying BFBC2, I technically bought it twice (rebought it with Vietnam DLC through Steam sale for like 66% off) even.  I see it as a much better product than both MW2 and Black Ops were.  It is quite apparent that Activision has focused on Console Gaming, which makes sense considering they are a business.  They are expected to go where the money is, and with their unwillingness to put resources into PC Gaming, that money just isn't there.

From my perspective, the reason so many people bash CoD games, is a combination of many unfavorable aspects.  For starters, they are basically taking the same game, and repackaging it each year.  It's like the Madden of the FPS genre, and people don't like that, especially PC Gamers.  It tells the community, that the game will get a bit of support in the beginning just so people buy it, and then they will largely ignore it after a couple months so they can start pumping out the next game, and expect everyone to just keep buying the new iterations.

Releasing a game each year leads quickly to market saturation.  It happened most obviously with Guitar Hero.  Sure, there were a lot of different elements, but _there was a time when everyone had to have Guitar Hero_, then Activision pumped like 6 GH-related games out in one year, and people saw no reason to keep buying them.  Once people stopped buying them, Activision tossed out the studio working on the next games.  There is a very really possibility a similar situation will happen with CoD games.  It probably won't be as extreme or as fast, but with 4 separate studios (Sledgehammer, IW, Raven Games, Treyarch) working on CoD games, you have to imagine that they are trying to trim down on the time in between games.

The other major reason people tend to hate CoD (from the PC perspective) is that they pretty much ignore the community.  Activision handles CoD like Apple.  You are playing their game, the way they made it, and fuck you if you want to change it.  This was most obviously seen with MW2, where they removed lean, dedicated servers, and mod tools.  They claim all of this was due to balance (in the case of lean) and improving the _accessibility_ of the game.  This of course, was met with massive backlash.  

There are certain things that games these days are expected to have, mostly because it's assumed these features are standard.  Imagine going to buy a brand new 2012 car, and having them tell you that they removed the AC and Radio because it was making the vehicle too complicated.  Wouldn't you feel like they are insulting your intelligence and expecting you to buy and inferior product?  I sure would.  You know what in an interview Robert Bowling said was unique about the PC Version?  Mouse Controls, Text Chat, and Extra Graphics settings.

On the other hand we have DICE, who have continued to improve on their products, and understand that the community is one with the consumer.  That by listening to their demands, and making a superior product, the competitors don't stand a chance.  Gamers don't want to be treated like soccer mom's, with a bunch of paid "social features".  They just want good quality games that are supported by their creators.  You think Blizzard is so loved by chance?  Or because they secretly have a hypno-toad (they do)?  It's because they have held onto this design philosophy for decades.  And it works.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Jun 11, 2011)

I have faith that EA/DICE will do an excellent job with BF3. The way EA handles the FIFA franchise is one of the reasons I believe. The only game I really buy for my PS3 (and only reason I play it) is FIFA. The difference between FIFA 10 and FIFA 11 is gargantuan, and if you played both you'd notice it. DICE is throwing its lot in with the PC crowd, and I think it'll be a success.

I've convinced two of my friends to jump the console ship and COD bandwagon and hop on the PC to play BF3. They're sick of the same rehash as well, and thoroughly enjoyed BC2 even on Xbox.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 11, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> I've convinced two of my friends to jump the console ship and COD bandwagon and hop on the PC to play BF3. They're sick of the same rehash as well, and thoroughly enjoyed BC2 even on Xbox.



its getting them onto BF thats the problem, i have a lot of friends who can't be bothered to buy the same rehash so they all play old CODS cause the new ones arn't worth the money


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Jun 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No its official. It was announced a few weeks ago. Almost got an infraction debating someone about it.



Wow....so xbox players will have to pay for the game + Xbox live + "COD elite" just to play online??

Holy mother....


----------



## Wyverex (Jun 11, 2011)

As far as I understand it, CoD Elite gives you extra maps, etc... sort of like DLCs & Map Packs, but you don't pay for it all at once - instead, you pay a bit every month...

You should still be able to play online without Elite.


As for discussion on topic, I'd just say that BF3 will _win_ on PCs hands down, while CoD:MW3 will _win_ on consoles.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Jun 11, 2011)

Wyverex said:


> As far as I understand it, CoD Elite gives you extra maps, etc... sort of like DLCs & Map Packs, but you don't pay for it all at once - instead, you pay a bit every month...
> 
> You should still be able to play online without Elite.
> 
> ...



Ah, I see. Still though, pretty lame.

If you are talking about sales numbers then I definitely agree with you.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 11, 2011)

*ER said trolling was ok, right?*

Call of Duty, serving as boot-camp for wannabe Battlefield soldiers since 2003.


----------



## snuif09 (Jun 11, 2011)

since when do we measure a game by its sales? saying that CoD sells alot doesnt say anything about the quality of the game itself, just how well it is marketed and how many sheep fell for the marketing. Otherwise we could say that farmville is one of the best games ever, bullshit.

I like battlefield since its actually a challenge to play and requires some thinking, CoD on the other hand doesnt require a frikking brain. And saying "Oh cod isnt supposed to be realistic" then don't copy gun models and make them sound and behave like shit..


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2011)

snuif09 said:


> since when do we measure a game by its sales? saying that CoD sells alot doesnt say anything about the quality of the game itself, just how well it is marketed and how many sheep fell for the marketing. Otherwise we could say that farmville is one of the best games ever, bullshit.


If CoD was utter crap it would not sell no matter the marketing. Or it might sell, but people would not like it. And CoD is not crap, they're just not for everyone.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

Frick said:


> If CoD was utter crap it would not sell no matter the marketing. Or it might sell, but people would not like it. And CoD is not crap, they're just not for everyone.



Black Ops was crap. Even the console players thought so.........it still sold. Marketing is EVERYTHING.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

Frick said:


> If CoD was utter crap it would not sell no matter the marketing. Or it might sell, but people would not like it. And CoD is not crap, they're just for *console junkies*



fixed


----------



## xenocide (Jun 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Black Ops was crap. Even the console players thought so.........it still sold. Marketing is EVERYTHING.



Yup.  Most of my friends that bought it were very disappointed by Black Ops.  Sure the game isn't complete crap, but it wasn't nearly as good as you would think.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 11, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Yup.  Most of my friends that bought it were very disappointed by Black Ops.  Sure the game isn't complete crap, but it wasn't nearly as good as you would think.



thats what you get when you try for a CoD release every year. everything just becomes a rehash with a few weapons, game types and maps thrown in.

CoD2 was released in October , 2005 

CoD:Mw1 = November 2009

it takes time to make quality games. but Duke Nuke'm Forever is an exception.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> thats what you get when you try for a CoD release every year. everything just becomes a rehash with a few weapons, game types and maps thrown in.
> 
> CoD2 was released in October , 2005
> 
> ...



You're British. You do not understand the genius behind Duke Nukem.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You're British. You do not understand the genius behind Duke Nukem.



And I suppose this 'genius' got them reader/player ratings 6.5 on Gamespot and 6.8 on IGN.

last i checked. good games get higher ratings.

So what if i am british? it doesnt make me any less incapable of understanding what a game (or anything in that matter) is about. unless they only released the game in some ancient tribal language. but in that case - no one else would understand it either.


----------



## Frizz (Jun 12, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> last i checked. good games get higher ratings.



Don't forget "okay" or "good" games get a rating from 5.5 to 10, just because its a 6 or 7 doesn't mean it is not a good game. It may also take personal preference for a player to consider it a good game.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 12, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> So what if i am british? it doesnt make me any less incapable of understanding what a game (or anything in that matter) is about. unless they only released the game in some ancient tribal language. but in that case - no one else would understand it either.



I think he meant the whole Duke schtick is targeted at us low-browed Americans.  But, no, that alone doesn't make a good game regardless of where you come from or how nostalgic you are, imo.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 12, 2011)

random said:


> Don't forget "okay" or "good" games get a rating from 5.5 to 10, just because its a 6 or 7 doesn't mean it is not a good game. It may also take personal preference for a player to be consider it a good game.



If it was one person rating the game -- id agree. but in this case its general consensus MANY players have given the game low enough score. for the ratings to reflect it. 

you maybe one person that loves the game. however thousands or millions of people out there do not share the same view. 


If the game was really that good. people wouldnt of scored it so badly badly enough for the ratings to drop blow 7/10


----------



## Frizz (Jun 12, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> you maybe one person that loves the game. however thousands or millions of people out there do not share the same view.




65 User votes from gamespot and 128 from ign doesnt make thousands or millions of people, where else you are getting these numbers I do not care or know. But based on these sites these user ratings were not all negative either.  

Either way you leave out the fact that there are people who love the game despite how many haters there are on the internet bashing it. And no I don't love the game but I'm sure alot of other people do.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 12, 2011)

So 17,6xx people liked it out of 1.2 million ?..  Which most looks like they found it meh.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> *You're British*. You do not understand the genius behind Duke Nukem.



Duuuuude....



FreedomEclipse said:


> And I suppose this 'genius' got them reader/player ratings 6.5 on Gamespot and 6.8 on IGN.
> 
> last i checked. good games get higher ratings.
> 
> So what if i am british? it doesnt make me any less incapable of understanding what a game (or anything in that matter) is about. unless they only released the game in some ancient tribal language. but in that case - no one else would understand it either.



And because a game gets a good rating don't mean you will like it either.  Best way to see if ya like it other than playing it is to read shit load of different reviews\points on the game as shit they don't like  you might love to pieces.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 12, 2011)

please stay on topic: battlefield vs cod


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 12, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> thats what you get when you try for a CoD release every year. everything just becomes a rehash with a few weapons, game types and maps thrown in.
> 
> CoD2 was released in October , 2005
> 
> ...



MW:1 was was released in November 2007 (CoD 4)


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 12, 2011)

Call of Duty October 29th 2003
Call of Duty 2 October 25th 2005
Call of Duty 3 November 7th 2006
Call of Duty 4 MW1 November 7th 2007
Call of Duty 5 WaW June 9th 2008
Call of Duty 6 MW2 November 10th 2009
Call of Duty 7 Black Ops November 9th 2010
Call of Duty 8 MW3 release 2011

now off shoots and other Call of Duty games

Call of Duty Finest Hour
Call of Duty 2 Big Red One
Call of Duty Roads to Victory
Call of Duty World at War Final Fronts
Call of Duty Modern Warfare Mobilized
Call of Duty World at War Zombies

I think there are way to many Call of duty games.

in the span of 7 years we have seen 14 Call of Duty games, 

with the average price of all call of duty games released after 2007 still $30 or greater in price, for 4+ year old games. with extra content still costing an arm and a leg, think about it thats some extremely good marketing and buisness mechanics since people keep buying this shit. I tip my hat to Activision they really know how to milk a franchise and make some serious money. as far as buisness goes and making a profit, there pretty much numero uno at this point. Still kinda shitty tho.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 12, 2011)

Both look amazing.  We are being spoiled this year!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 12, 2011)

Battlefield 3 is going to stomp MW3, and rightfully so. Dice actually took the time to develop a new, and amazing, engine for the game. 

I wish Activision had done the same, but they are making way too much money milking their current engine to consider it right now.

Even if they had though, Battlefield would still win due to it's realism.




HookeyStreet said:


> Both look amazing.  We are being spoiled this year!




Now for something completely off topic: Your manchild pic frightens the hell out of me. Seriously, if Activision hadn't hired him, he would probably be driving a 70's van with a big bag of candy as we speak.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 12, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> Both look amazing.  We are being spoiled this year!



If I look into your avatars eyes longer I may start mummbling the samething and walk off like a zombie


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Battlefield 3 is going to stomp MW3...



We should wait till we get the figures, yes?

COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki. 

I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> We should wait till we get the figures, yes?
> 
> COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.
> 
> I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.



I doubt BF3 will outsell MW3 on a full scale, but on PC, the previous 2 were close, and thats where I realistically expect BF3 to come out on top. And thats all I want to see, console FPS makes me sad, watching my friends play BC2 on PS3 just makes me shake my head, it's just so amazing on PC.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> We should wait till we get the figures, yes?
> 
> COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.
> 
> I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.



i dont care either way, but i think bf3 will sell A TON more than mw3. 

bf3 is totally updated from bf2. 

bf3 is much broader game with a lot more playing depth. bc2 is sorta like bf3 light. 

the graphics in bf3 are x10000 better than anything that crappy dx9 engine used in MW series. 

people have been waiting for a new bf game for a long time while the MW series is old and crappy.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> We should wait till we get the figures, yes?
> 
> COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.
> 
> I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.



I was talking ratings more than sales. Reviewers historically have given fresh games higher scores than rehashes so I see no reason that that won't apply here.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 12, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont care either way, but i think bf3 will sell A TON more than mw3.
> 
> bf3 is totally updated from bf2.
> 
> ...



People don't want variety, MW players are scared to even play a game with vehicles. MW players mostly play on consoles were graphics are limited by the hardware and mostly close on both series. MW is a console game, and that market is just flat out brainwashed sadly.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont care either way, but i think bf3 will sell A TON more than mw3.
> 
> bf3 is totally updated from bf2.
> 
> ...



You are entitled to what you think, so there is nothing I can do other than try to make you think otherwise, and that obviously didn't work. Good graphics will not sell as much, unless it becomes the next Crysis (can my computer run BF3?). People with nice rigs will appreciate BF3, but your average joe with crappy onboard will be limited to COD/MW.



Damn_Smooth said:


> I was talking ratings more than sales. Reviewers historically have given fresh games higher scores than rehashes so I see no reason that that won't apply here.



Ahh, that clears up a lot. But even with the higher scores, people will still buy COD/MW, and that is largely due to marketing done right.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Ahh, that clears up a lot. But even with the higher scores, people will still buy COD/MW, and that is largely due to marketing done right.



True, but if EA throws it's marketing muscle fully behind it, we could have a close battle. Then it will come down to how brainwashed the consolites are.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 12, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> True, but if EA throws it's marketing muscle fully behind it, we could have a close battle. Then it will come down to how brainwashed the consolites are.



Very brainwashed, I expect BF3 to do better than BC2 did, even on consoles. But people will still gobble up MW3.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> True, but if EA throws it's marketing muscle fully behind it, we could have a close battle. Then it will come down to how brainwashed the consolites are.



Not really, I think COD/MW is inherently more suited to console gaming because of its simplicity, and we appreciate BF because of its complexity. The sheer number of people owning consoles should tilt any fight to COD/MW's side.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 12, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Very brainwashed, I expect BF3 to do better than BC2 did, even on consoles. But people will still gobble up MW3.



I find it sad that I have to agree with you. I'm losing more faith in humanity every day.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I find it sad that I have to agree with you. I'm losing more faith in humanity every day.



I am surprised you still have any. We need to cut of humanity's cancer which is stupidity, but sadly killing irl is illegal.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I am surprised you still have any. We need to cut of humanity's cancer which is stupidity, but sadly killing irl is illegal.



If they don't want to fully legalize murder, maybe they could give us a hunting season. Tattoo giant S's somewhere on the sheeple and make summer the season. I'm sure they won't be smart enough to cover up their tattoos.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 12, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> People don't want variety, MW players are scared to even play a game with vehicles. MW players mostly play on consoles were graphics are limited by the hardware and mostly close on both series. MW is a console game, and that market is just flat out brainwashed sadly.



mw3 will sell a lot for sure, but there are a lot of dormant pc gamers waiting and waiting for bf3. expect more sales there because of it.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 12, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> If I look into your avatars eyes longer I may start mummbling the samething and walk off like a zombie



That's the power of The Kotick!!!! 

Seriously, for realism, BF3, for all out action, MW3.  Both shooters, but very different.

COD will sell far more than BF3, that's a fact.  But I predict both games to be must own titles


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 12, 2011)

I think weather MW3 has dedicated server support or not will also make or break the game. IMO i cant believe its a topic that needs to be debated. people were petitioning for dedicated servers ever since news first spread around that they were removing it from MW2 in favour of a game matching system.

and online game play suffered. because either peoples connections or computers were too shit to host the game, which meant an uber laggy game. Or there would be a 30second to 1min lul in the game because the host left.  and i dont know about you or anyone else, but THAT really annoyed me to no end.  not to mention the amount of hackers and botters that dug it an even deeper hole.

people WANT dedicated servers. people have experienced life WITHOUT dedicated servers. and it just makes it even more important to have them.

Knowing Activision. they are most likely going to pull the carpet out of under the PC gamers feet and take it all away again just like they did the first time. I counted no less then 5 petitions each with more then 500k names on them requesting that they put dedicated server support back into the game and they just turned around and totally ignored the community. like a bully on the beach kicking over other kids sandcastles. 

then they give it all this gung ho bullshit talk about how they are in touch with the gaming community.

they have no shame.  and again, console sales will send the game to the top of the charts because THEY DONT KNOW ANY BETTER. and the whole cycle starts all over again.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 12, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Very brainwashed, I expect BF3 to do better than BC2 did, even on consoles. But people will still gobble up MW3.



This is pretty much my thinking.  I think it will start showing a decline though, because there is no way people will buy MW3 as much as they did Black Ops.  If the split between Black Ops and BC2 was 10m\~3m, I expect MW3 and BF3 to split something like ~7.5m\~5m.  We're back in an economic downturn, and people are going to start really looking at BF3 and all those console players that love the best looking game will swap sides, or even buy both.

I have 0 doubt BF3 will be the superior game, and that it will be at least twice as good as MW3 _on the PC_.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 12, 2011)

PC: BF3 > MW3

Console: MW3 > BF3


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 12, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> That's the power of The Kotick!!!!
> 
> Seriously, for realism, BF3, for all out action, MW3.  Both shooters, but very different.



I can't agree with COD being more action. Unless our definition is being thrown in a tiny box with other people. The epic Battlefield moments are impossible to top, like sniping apilot out of a chopper, blowing a chopper up with landmines (I've done it). Parachuting out of a building and c4ing the tank under you as you fly over. Being a Medic and hiding right next to the enemy tank crouch moving with it so they can't shoot you, while you continue to use it for cover and mow down their buddies until they get out and you gank the tank.


----------



## Frizz (Jun 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> The epic Battlefield moments are impossible to top, like sniping apilot out of a chopper, blowing a chopper up with landmines (I've done it). Parachuting out of a building and c4ing the tank under you as you fly over. Being a Medic and hiding right next to the enemy tank crouch moving with it so they can't shoot you, while you continue to use it for cover and mow down their buddies until they get out and you gank the tank.



now THAT is what I call action  ... I gave up convincing my mates about this as they are all head over heels for Blops or MW2.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 13, 2011)

random said:


> now THAT is what I call action  ... I gave up convincing my mates about this as they are all head over heels for Blops or MW2.



I wouldn't sweat it, I got a few friends who never had a PC back when 1942 or BF2 were out to switch over. And those few I got, they won't ever go back, because of those battlefield moments.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 13, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> PC: BF3 > MW3
> 
> Console: MW3 > BF3



PC > Console

=>

BF3 > MW3


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 13, 2011)

kid41212003 said:


> PC > Console
> 
> =>
> 
> BF3 > MW3



Hmm yes it's only logical.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I can't agree with COD being more action. Unless our definition is being thrown in a tiny box with other people. The epic Battlefield moments are impossible to top, like sniping apilot out of a chopper, blowing a chopper up with landmines (I've done it). Parachuting out of a building and c4ing the tank under you as you fly over. Being a Medic and hiding right next to the enemy tank crouch moving with it so they can't shoot you, while you continue to use it for cover and mow down their buddies until they get out and you gank the tank.



I'm talking about the single-player campaign.  Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2, story wise, aren't even in the same league as Modern Warfare 1 & 2.

Battlefield 3 looks like it has a great campaign mode and for all I know, it could be better than that of Modern Warfare 3.....but I doubt it.  I'm already invested in MW because I want to know what happens to Price and Soap on their mission to kill Makarov.  Plus, the idea of WWIII kicking off is one I like.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Jun 13, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Not really, I think COD/MW is inherently more suited to console gaming because of its simplicity, and we appreciate BF because of its complexity. The sheer number of people owning consoles should tilt any fight to COD/MW's side.



Sadly it's true

COD is just a big name because it gets so man mentions in the media.

For the mainstreams, just a name is enough for them to tilt, which is why you see most of advertisments in form of company logos and names. Im not talking about fair sponsorship here, because that's just for honest recognition a company driving something for the good, it's those soccer ads that are big company names just everywhere, that's just a NAME, you don't see it doing, but it does the trick, just because of the awareness.

And when this name is solidified in their brains, they'll be like a filter on the online and elsewhere, imagine a news site similarly to newsmap.jp , let say there's 2 or more equally sized written headlines of articles:  - , Battlefield 3 has been released, Call of Duty MW 3 has been released, they would insta-clicl on cod since less are aware of the name , even tho bf is bette, they didn't click the link, ... they don't know it's actually better.

It's sadly all aboard the sheeple train, as the 50% of mainstreams just follows wha's more popular... 


Popularity never speaks of quality.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 14, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> I'm talking about the single-player campaign.  Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2, story wise, aren't even in the same league as Modern Warfare 1 & 2.
> 
> Battlefield 3 looks like it has a great campaign mode and for all I know, it could be better than that of Modern Warfare 3.....but I doubt it.  I'm already invested in MW because I want to know what happens to Price and Soap on their mission to kill Makarov.  Plus, the idea of WWIII kicking off is one I like.



I have heard MW's SP is actually pretty good. I really liked BC1's SP, I liked the humors aspect and the places the crazy squad took you. But BC2 barely enticed me to play the SP, this does look much improved, but I always felt BF titles were a little bit whacky so I liked BC's humor, I will kinda miss it.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 14, 2011)

Ya I would play the SP of the later MW games but not interested enough to pay to do so...


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Jun 14, 2011)

BF3 > MW3

Console = irrelevant.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 14, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I have heard MW's SP is actually pretty good. I really liked BC1's SP, I liked the humors aspect and the places the crazy squad took you. But BC2 barely enticed me to play the SP, this does look much improved, but I always felt BF titles were a little bit whacky so I liked BC's humor, I will kinda miss it.



You ever watched a Michael Bay movie?  It's the same experience.  Most people like the MW Campaigns because they are so over the top.  Shit loads of explosions and ridiculous chase scenes...


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

yet they have gotten so scripted they really are a MOVIE lol with blackops you can beat it never firing your gun roflmfao so much for a single player campaign.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> yet they have gotten so scripted they really are a MOVIE lol with blackops you can beat it never firing your gun roflmfao so much for a single player campaign.



I remember mentioning that video to a friend and him saying; "Yea, but that's no fun..."

He apparently missed that I was pointing out the fact that you even COULD was ridiculous.


----------



## Shihab (Jun 14, 2011)

Haters still hatin' ?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

yup I'm a hater and I'm still hatin yo


----------



## RoutedScripter (Jun 14, 2011)

So you guys probably know about this



http://www.mcvuk.com/news/44850/Reddit-plots-Battlefield-3-boycott



I think this deserves a separate thread ... yeah pretty much (so i moved everything else there)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 14, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> So you guys probably know about this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol such a waste of time.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 14, 2011)

lol, haters gotta hate somethin', right?
Besides, DICE said the objective was to give players (that pre-ordered) a bigger choice of weapons, not to give any advantage in the game.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jun 14, 2011)

Here's a thought, wouldn't it be awesome if PC games were optimized like console games? As in, wouldn't it be nice to enjoy a $400-$500 video card like console gamers enjoy a Xbox 360 for 6+ years? 

That reason alone is why consoles thrive and have such a huge community. It has nothing to do with being 'brainwashed', it has everything to do with being able to put a disc in and start playing immediately. I honestly get sick and tired of having to buy a new video card every year just to play a piece of shit console port on my PC. 

Now to my point, MW3 will out sale BF3 just like CoD: BO out sold everything that was released all year. DX9 isn't a shitty engine, its a fantastic engine that got utitlized properly. It runs great on consoles and PC's, so dev's eat that shit up. Where the heck is our DX10 optimized games from dev's? Same goes for DX11, wth are the titles (that aren't stupid, *cough* metro *cough*) that make me feel good about spending $500 on your GTX 580? Why do I need two $500 cards to play Crysis at 60+FPS maxed out on my $1,500+ PC build?

I'm actually very anxious to see the next gen consoles because I have a huge feeling they will kick some serious ass once the killer titles follow. If only PC development got the same attention as consoles do now, those days are over and it makes me an upset johnnyfiive.

/me preorders BF3 on Xbox 360.
/me plays it and then throws the controller at the wall because it feels like I've been turned into a cripple.
/me exudes sadness.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

i dont care what consoles have they dont have mouse and keyboard

this means

RPGs
FPS
RTS

are pretty much shit on console untill they offer me mouse and keyboard out of box any console system and its games of the above genres can blow me. lol Ill take unoptimized PC any day, at least im not locked into shitty controls with low sensitivity, with lackluster support and in recent memory worse bugs then PC ports lolz

Ill go BF3 soon as i can afford it... kinda sad i cant pre order it but oh well games still gonna be pretty fucking awesome,

and im sorry to say No Call of Duty isnt that well optimized

it runs at 1000x600 resolution on consoles, andon PC if you look at the graphical quality its 99% unchanged yet going from MW1 to Black Ops sees frame rate drop nearly 50-60fps on the same game engine at max settings at 1920x1080 why is that if its so well optimized why are they losing performance with no real graphical improvements.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i dont care what consoles have they dont have mouse and keyboard
> 
> this means
> 
> ...



+1000


----------



## Shihab (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> and im sorry to say No Call of Duty isnt that well optimized
> 
> it runs at 1000x600 resolution on consoles, andon PC if you look at the graphical quality its 99% unchanged yet going from MW1 to Black Ops sees frame rate drop nearly 50-60fps on the same game engine at max settings at 1920x1080 why is that if its so well optimized why are they losing performance with no real graphical improvements.



Grab a new pair of eyes mate.
If compared by whatever view you have, it goes the same for Bad Company 2. Considering it was so _PC optimized_.



crazyeyesreaper said:


> this means
> RPGs
> >
> are pretty much shit on console



jRPGs suck on PCs. have you played The last Remnant ?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

actually BC2 is  optimized on PC moron run a fucking quadcore vs dual core and presto nearly double the frame rate GPU power helps but isnt the main focus, the game needs cpu grunt, not to mention BC2 in DX9 runs just as good as any Call of Duty title, but looks better oh my see what i did there.

ah last remnant sucked ass in general but it ran fine on PC, just as FF7 and FF8 today run just fine on my PC.

but then i didnt mention just JRPG did I? i said RPG

lets see that would mean...
Oblivion
Fallout 3 + NV
Dragon Age
Dragon Age 2
Sacred 2
Dungeon Siege 3

do i need to list more RPGs for you that everyone already knows look better and play / control better on PC

how about RTS games

Total War franchise
Civilization (yes i played the pos console Civ game its still shit)
Ruse far better on PC then console
Supreme Commander 2 it sucks compared to the original but overall still better on PC

as far as FPS games go
everyone and there mom knows keyboard and mouse + FPS = better lol and that goes for Call of Duty as well

but still

console games are shit anyway 

1000x600 upscaled to 720p stretched across a 42inch 1080p tv looks like shit end of story

as for Optimization and performance Call of duty can suck a big one

at 1000x600 it gets 50-55avg fps on 360 which is good but PS3 gets a whopping 40fps avg and has lower image quality  and in previous titles the difference was more evident,

where as oh joy BattleField Bad Company 2 while only running at 29fps on 360 and PS3 looks better runs smoother then Black Ops does on PS3
not to mention BC2 actually runs at 1280x720p last i checked on console so higher res better graphics better gameplay smoother gameplay overall with less frame dip, hmm yea Call Of Duty is SOOOO optimized compared to Battlefield lolz i wont argue that higher frame rate is better  but a more stable frame rate and equal graphics and frame rate across all platforms shows better optimization then Call of Duty.

I also have to call bullshit on Call of duty because there changes are to textures only for the most part but performance as gotten worse and worse, and in many games today Modded textures look better and offer performance improvement sin many games. so While you may THINK i need my eyes check i can honestly tell you CoD isnt well optimized its engine is based on code written in 1998-1999 they added things to it over time but in general its ancient it feels ancient, and the whole argument of how good call of duty looks is moot because most ppl online run the game at the lowest possible settings on PC to up the frame rate so they can reload move and shoot faster because of how the game engine responds to framerate.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

when activision said they will stick on console market first because they can sell better and make more money. i know COD franchise will be just like this until the current console technology died. 

like what? 3 - 4 years? 

damn it


----------



## Animalpak (Jun 14, 2011)

sure I buy them both but I think this year I focus on modern warfare


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

well i hope that you at least say FU to the monthly subscription to there stupid service


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 14, 2011)

Animalpak said:


> sure I buy them both but I think this year I focus on modern warfare



Why? Your couch is more comfortable? That's the only good reason I could possibly come up with.

(Yeah you can play BF3 on a console but why would you if you also have a good PC?)


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)




----------



## Salsoolo (Jun 14, 2011)

since dice stopped publishing server files they killed the game in alot of places in the world 
EU & US players may have complained but you still could play, but they killed the game in alot of other countries.
the only thing i enjoyed about bc2 is the campaign.
hope the bf3 campaign is little longer.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

Salsoolo said:


> since dice stopped publishing server files they killed the game in alot of places in the world
> EU & US may have complained but you still could play, but they killed the game in alot of countries.
> the only thing i enjoyed about bc2 is the campaign.
> hope the bf3 campaign is little longer.



DICE has stated that BF3's campaign will be up to 10 hours long, dont know if its for n00b or pro's..


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 14, 2011)

Battlefield is NOT about single player.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

true but if theres no real stable servers in his region then Battlefield is kind of fail, lol altho MW3 removing dedicated servers again is also fail, so thats just as bad lol depending on where you live.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i dont care what consoles have they dont have mouse and keyboard
> 
> this means
> 
> ...



When I said optimized, I meant for consoles, not PC. That is my whole point. Devs make games for console first, PC last. That's why framerates PLUMMIT when your raise resolution or enable one feature. Perfect example is ambient occlusion in Brink


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 14, 2011)

I am surprised it's taken nearly 7 pages before the name calling starts, the war between BF and MW continues, periodically it turns into a PC versus Console debate (again) and ultimatley the value of the thread and discussion becomes a bit repetative and diluted because of it, if you cannot debate maturely without the language and name calling, then debate no more.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

true but i dont call a 15-20fps difference along with shitter quality optimization,

fact is 15-20fps differen on 360-PS3 sure it happens but they needed to drop the resolution AND graphics settings for the PS3 just to get it to 40fps thats not optimization

since BC2 looks the same across 360 and PS3 frame rate ,resolution etc its all the same including graphical quality, thats optimization both platforms with different hardware achieved the same thing for Call Of Duty that never happens,

World at War had even WORSE performance as they didnt lower quality on the PS3 so there were points in game where from 360 to PS3 there were 25fps difference between the to again this isnt optimization if Call of Duty was properly optimized both consoles would be far more similar in there performance, graphic quality and resolution.


and aw come on Tatty i was just having a little fun its not like weve gone overboard yet altho when we do i expect a thread lock


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Battlefield is NOT about single player.



he said that he enjoyed the campaign, 
not enjoying multiplayer, is it offensive?
no..

cmon, we already knew both SP and MP were great..
it just the matter of taste. everybody has their own point of views..


----------



## Shihab (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> ...Lots of words...



as for the RPG matter, I only referred to the jRPG sub genre. Something I shouldn't have said it seems. 

Back to the CoD vs BF subject: 
 although the base idea of this debate seems stupid imo. I think I'll play along for a little bit more. 
 CoD has never been about graphics. It's been about the gameplay, the cinematic feel, the story, the action. Something BF has never been able to give. Even with all the eye candies -which I personally fail to see as _appealing_ as you do -it has.

**in my previous post I made a mistake. What I was trying to say is that BF would suck graphics wise not performance-wise.. sry


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

true and again if the guy has lackluster servers in his area you cant blame him for putting single player first,


@ Shihabyooo
Single Player ill give you Call of Duty is better

but since single player is play it once done and over with multiplayer takes over.

in this sense Battlefield walks all over call of duty and you cant really deny it

even now Modern Warfare 1 new is $30-40 + what $30 for map packs? so still $70 to get a the full experience on a title released in 4+ years ago. vs Battlefield Bad Company 2 at what? $20 which you dont have to pay for maps and has far more varied gameplay.

I also havent seen anyone get 500+ kills in badcompany through spawn camping in a single match something that a specific game mode in Call of Duty allows all to easily, which means gameplay wise it fails there and hard.

again im not comparing Single player im looking at multiplayer you know the thing thats kept me playing BC2 for 300hrs now, where as MW1 only held my attention for a whopping 10-12hrs before i was tired of it.

and its not that Eye Candy in itself is appealing alone, massive view distances, better overall graphical quality, more variation in gameplay, dedicated servers, better anti cheat protection. overall Battlefield might not be as popular but graphically and mechanically under the hood its far superior to Call Of Duty, I have no qualms saying that if they moved off that ancient ass game engine, they could deliever a much more stunning and interesting Game, but untill then i see call of duty as nothing more then what i see looking out my window, same old same old


tree, tree, tree, tree, tree, tree, tree

CoD, CoD 2, CoD 2 Big Red One,
Call Of Duty 3, Cod MW1, CoD WaW Cod MW2, CoD Black Ops, Cod MW3 

every year a new game pops out with some texture changes and a few new weapons but at full retail price. I can tell you right now from apps that allow you to rip game models out of a game while its running by seeing its polygonal composition, Call of Duty hasnt really changed since MW1 litterally the Characters get a few extra polygons each time but essentially the base meshes are the same, theyve been reusing assets since CoD 3. Not to mention COD is still stuck in DX9 and for DX9 it looks good but games are upping that limit look at Witcher 2 in DX9 for example they could do alot more they choose not to because its easier to reuse and milk the franchise.  I remember when Call of Duty really was the king of shooters and im sad to see it in my opinion so much lower then it once was in terms of quality and gameplay.

as for direct BC2 to CoD we get Tanks, Choppers, soon to be jets far larger maps and larger player counts and the average battlefield player dosent spend half the match hiding in a bathroom stall like a pussy either lol everytime i watch my friends play Call of Duty it seems at least 3 kills around for them are from killing a poor shmuck hiding in a bathroom stall
but overall we get greater graphic fidelity, bullet drop and deviation not these laser bullets, we get free map unlocks from using teamwork i know i know 1 map but still we got it by playing the game as a community, wheres the free map unlocks for community gameplay in Call of Duty, what about the fact that Bad Company 2 ppl get banned and removed for stat padding but most Call Of Duty players i know join a clan and then boost to get there perks etc, thats fail as well


----------



## digibucc (Jun 14, 2011)

imo , battlefield series is epic, whereas MW is intense.

MW is about twitch reaction 
BF is about strategy, tactics, vehicles, etc.

I can put a good 30 hours into a MW game, but i can easily double
that in the first month of a BF release.  definitely look forward to
Battlefield releases, whereas MW is more like meh.... when i get bored.

it'll still be full price too, which is ridiculous on their part.
that just screams customer disloyalty, which turns me off from Activision.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> as for the RPG matter, I only referred to the jRPG sub genre. Something I shouldn't have said it seems.
> 
> Back to the CoD vs BF subject:
> although the base idea of this debate seems stupid imo. I think I'll play along for a little bit more.
> ...



is kind a waste if you play war-theme games, without getting feels like being on real *intense* battlefield..



crazyeyesreaper said:


> true and again if the guy has lackluster servers in his area you cant blame him for putting single player first,
> 
> Single Player ill give you Call of Duty is better
> 
> ...



no one cant hide anymore, tanks or rocket will blow that toilet..


----------



## Frizz (Jun 14, 2011)

digibucc said:


> imo , battlefield series is epic, whereas MW is intense.
> 
> MW is about twitch reaction
> BF is about strategy, tactics, vehicles, etc.
> ...



Hehe agreed, but still doesn't explain the gap between it's difference for me personally as there is no way I'd prefer twitch reaction over strategy, tactics, vehicles, etc. not even while drunk/redbull gaming


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> even now Modern Warfare 1 new is $30-40 + what $30 for map packs? so still $70 to get a the full experience



but you are missing something important that gave MW1 much longevity... 

SDK tools which gave users the ability to make their own maps or port maps over from other games. Ive seen maps from Medal of honor: allied assault, Maps from earlier Quake games, the occasional map from the first CoD game.

there were so many custom maps and custom servers out there. it really didnt matter if you have the map pack or not. you could still have a lot of fun. so what their they are not official maps?? Custom maps are usually 100x more fun


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

uh yea but lets see Freedom
Call Of Duty dosent support custom maps anymore oops wait there goes that out the window lolz

BC2 has the base maps they released a few more maps for free then made the vietnam expansion

all said you could pay $20 for BC2 get Vietnam with that and get more gameplay value and nearly as many maps as Call Of Duty

10 maps by default
4 maps by default in Vietnam
4 more free maps from map pack 1
1 map unlocked from community interaction

19 maps total.

Call  Of Duty MW2

26 maps
16 maps available at launch
10 maps added via map packs
10 maps by map pack is $30

$30 + 60 = $90 for 26 maps
I paid $20 and got 19 maps and a better game overall.


----------



## DannibusX (Jun 14, 2011)

I'm on the fence about MW3.  I've caved for every CoD since 4.  I enjoyed W@W, MW2 was a travesty and Black Ops is best enjoyed on the Xbox, which is where I've been playing it.  I actually made my friend buy me Black Ops for the Xbox since I didn't want to pay for it myself and he wanted me to play with him and the guys.

BF3 on the PC is a must buy for me, but I'll probably be on the hook to pick it up for the 360 as well.  Most of my friends are actually talking about it now, and they agree that CoD is getting stale.  I'll likely rent MW3 for the SP campaign, but if my friends want me to play it again, they'll have to spring for my copy, lol.

Console v PC is a stupid debate.  BF3 should be awesome on the console, but it will be incredible on the PC.  It's cheaper for my friends to buy me a copy for console than it is for them to build a PC from scratch to play with all the eye candy.


----------



## Animalpak (Jun 14, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Why? Your couch is more comfortable? That's the only good reason I could possibly come up with.
> 
> (Yeah you can play BF3 on a console but why would you if you also have a good PC?)





because I hope to relive those moments of modern warfare in the first one where you need the reflexes and you had to have an effective tactic to win. No bullshit ! 

In Bad Company 2, i noticed that too many people use cheats like no vegetation maps, cheats aimbots and many strange that i never heard of but that there are geeks and are committed every day to find new cheats working. 

Snipers lurking in places unimaginable and just waiting to your respawn. 


44 minutes of online playing and only those who use the cheats can do 25-35 kills dying a few times :shadedshu

And then he says they are just good and that's not their fault if I play fair. F U ... !  man really !!!!!


P.S : i do not have any console


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> uh yea but lets see Freedom
> Call Of Duty dosent support custom maps anymore oops wait there goes that out the window lolz
> 
> BC2 has the base maps they released a few more maps for free then made the vietnam expansion
> ...



thats just 19 maps. there a lots more custom maps out there for MW1. BC2 is still fun to play but some maps are just stale as goats penis for me


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 14, 2011)

Animalpak said:


> because I hope to relive those moments of modern warfare in the first one where you need the reflexes and you had to have an effective tactic to win. No bullshit !
> 
> In Bad Company 2, i noticed that too many people use cheats like no vegetation maps, cheats aimbots and many strange that i never heard of but that there are geeks and are committed every day to find new cheats working.
> 
> ...



Ummm.... MW2 had a shit load more hackers and botters then BC2. those guys had been making it since the demo so were ready to fuck shit up when the game went live.

and you cant kick them. so you got no choice but to leave and find another server


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

yea but MW1 wasnt BC2 competitor now was it


closest competitor to MW1 would be the ancient BF2

but then BF2 with all expansions has 

15 maps by default 22 after expansion cant remember if special forces added new maps i believe it did but i dont have my box to look at it and find out lol

overall Battlefield 2 also had the far better mod community and map making community,

and again i said i put 10-12hrs into MW1 and the user maps were why i stayed that long.


----------



## Salsoolo (Jun 14, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Battlefield is NOT about single player.


i meant theres no playable servers to begin with. you know, the +300ms pings 
if we can host server on our hardware you can find alot more servers than what is on now.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

But overall Call Of Duty has its place but Activision has basically driven the franchise into the dirt so hard its now 6 feet under and ready to be buried.

I still feel even MW1 sucks i cant count how many times id spawn and someone would hit me with a 40mm nade within a second of spawning. overall just terrible gameplay in these regards.

That said if i was forced to pick a Call Of Duty title to play for all eternity, Id pick Modern Warfare 1. its the best of the new generation of CoD games.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> yea but MW1 wasnt BC2 competitor now was it
> 
> 
> closest competitor to MW1 would be the ancient BF2



HARD DECISION

but if id had to pick an overall favorite. then BF2. because Vehicles add so much more to the gameplay and enjoyment for me.

You cant run people over in MW1, you cant use a attack chopper and do stunts in it. and you cant snipe your own teammate out of a cockpit to steal his jet....


----------



## r9 (Jun 14, 2011)

Witcher 2 is the greatest game ever. Sorry for intruding I just finished the game and I`m still under impression of it .


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 14, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> HARD DECISION
> 
> but if id had to pick an overall favorite. then BF2. because Vehicles add so much more to the gameplay and enjoyment for me.
> 
> You cant run people over in MW1, you cant use a attack chopper and do stunts in it. and you cant snipe your own teammate out of a cockpit to steal his jet....



Battlefield moments are what make the BF series better. Even if you don't like vehicles, the interactions with them can be epic. I remember when I had the idea to lace up a Jet ski with C4 and jump it at a Bradley onto land. Crazy stuff like that is just entertaining.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 14, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> HARD DECISION
> 
> but if id had to pick an overall favorite. then BF2. because Vehicles add so much more to the gameplay and enjoyment for me.
> 
> You cant run people over in MW1, you cant use a attack chopper and do stunts in it. and you cant snipe your own teammate out of a cockpit to steal his jet....



CoD-UO was vastly better the MW1.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 14, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> he said that he enjoyed the campaign,
> not enjoying multiplayer, is it offensive?
> no..
> 
> ...



No it's not offensive it's just not really valid or fair to knock Battlefield relative to MW based on the merits of the SP campaign. Hey SP is a nice bonus but that's not really why people buy BF games. It seem to be switched around for the average MW player (and yes thats partly because the vast majority of it's sales are on console; most probably don't play multi at all.)


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> HARD DECISION
> 
> but if id had to pick an overall favorite. then BF2. because Vehicles add so much more to the gameplay and enjoyment for me.
> 
> You cant run people over in MW1, you cant use a attack chopper and do stunts in it. and you cant snipe your own teammate out of a cockpit to steal his jet....



I approve your message


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> No it's not offensive it's just not really valid or fair to knock Battlefield relative to MW based on the merits of the SP campaign. Hey SP is a nice bonus but that's not really why people buy BF games. It seem to be switched around for the average MW player (and yes thats partly because the vast majority of it's sales are on console; most probably don't play multi at all.)



are we talking about this?
because if its not, then we got missconception here
v
v
v



Salsoolo said:


> since dice stopped publishing server files they killed the game in alot of places in the world
> EU & US players may have complained but you still could play, but they killed the game in alot of other countries.
> the only thing i enjoyed about bc2 is the campaign.
> hope the bf3 campaign is little longer.



he just said that he only enjoy the campaign on BC2, 
he never compare BC2 or even said anything about COD thingy..


----------



## Salsoolo (Jun 14, 2011)

^sory i should have pointed that i wasnt comparing with cod.
was talking about my experiance with battlefield


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> CoD-UO was vastly better the MW1.



you know. I can still hear the sound the jeep makes when it hits someone ringing through my head.

and I havent played that game since 2006 or 7.

pure satisfaction i tell you


----------



## xenocide (Jun 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> CoD-UO was vastly better the MW1.



And Counter-Strike is still the best Team-Based FPS.

As for the subject at hand, Battlefield 3 will be the better game.  It's running on a top of the line engine, isn't a re-hashing of it's predecessor, features a longer campaign, will have better developer support, and if you can honestly look at comparisons of the 2 and say they are even in quality, your eyes need work...


----------



## Shihab (Jun 15, 2011)

xenocide said:


> And Counter-Strike is still the best Team-Based FPS.
> 
> As for the subject at hand, Battlefield 3 will be the better game.  It's running on a top of the line engine, isn't a re-hashing of it's predecessor, features a longer campaign, will have better developer support, and if you can honestly look at comparisons of the 2 and say they are even in quality, your eyes need work...



Yet I would bet my life, my rig, and my damned soul that MW3 will be the best selling.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 15, 2011)

interesting quote from Riccitiello.



> "In terms of where this goes, we think our PS3 game is better than their Xbox game and our PC game is better than their PC game. If that's all he's got to say, it's obviously going to evaporate as we launch all three. *If you went to our press conference, you saw the PS3 footage and the Xbox footage. If Bobby thinks that is PC footage, he's in real trouble.*"


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 15, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Yet I would bet my life, my rig, and my damned soul that MW3 will be the best selling.



quantity over quality, thats how MW3 supposed to be. 
and also its still console-port, and also console market is still the biggest source for money,
so there's still bigger chance for MW3 to be best selling ; for console, not PC

true FPS will always belong to PC, look at CS, Quake and Unreal for example. 
beside most of Pro's gamers are prefer to use PC for FPS game since mouse-keyboard are better than joystick ,
and also some graphics-limitation or reduced quality for console optimization that make the game looks less-impressives..

i dont care who sells more copies, but i believe BF3 will make more and more profit than BC2. and also the best selling FPS games for PC..



BumbleBee said:


> interesting quote from Riccitiello.



did he means those *thunder run* and *operation metro* trailer are truly from console?


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 15, 2011)

Patrick Bach was using a mouse and keyboard at the E3 press conference so I don't know what Riccitiello is talking about.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 15, 2011)

xenocide said:


> And Counter-Strike is still the best Team-Based FPS....



Naaa that title goes to BF2 IMO.



FreedomEclipse said:


> you know. I can still hear the sound the jeep makes when it hits someone ringing through my head.
> 
> and I havent played that game since 2006 or 7.
> 
> pure satisfaction i tell you



I still hear the creeking of those damn Panzers. Scary crap when all you have is a 1911 left with a few rounds and THEY KNOW you are in one of the houses. Man I miss base assault.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Naaa that title goes to BF2 IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I still hear the creeking of those damn Panzers. Scary crap when all you have is a 1911 left with a few rounds and THEY KNOW you are in one of the houses. Man I miss base assault.



yeah lol I spent a lot of time on base assault. it was totally awesome especially on those maps where you get the huge elephant tank


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 15, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Patrick Bach was using a mouse and keyboard at the E3 press conference so I don't know what Riccitiello is talking about.



Yeah that was all PC footage.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 15, 2011)

well something at E3 was on console. someone at DICE will be showing the console version tomorrow on Jimmy Kimmel live.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 15, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> well something at E3 was on console. someone at DICE will be showing the console version tomorrow on Jimmy Kimmel live.



Meh.....console will be fail sauce. But the console noobs will be like "OMG LOOK AT THAT?!?! ITS MW4!"


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 15, 2011)

if EA wants to sell 10 million units you better hope not


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 16, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Meh.....console will be fail sauce. But the console noobs will be like "OMG LOOK AT THAT?!?! ITS MW4!"



Doubt it. Console users always equate 60fps = realistic graphics. Theyd see BF3 on their system below 30fps and it wouldnt equate to their brains as the 60fps MW series


----------



## stuartb04 (Jun 17, 2011)

http://thegamingliberty.com/index.php/2011/06/17/new-battlefield-3-screens-are-wonderous/

got to admit these screenies look amazing

http://thegamingliberty.com/index.p...eld-3-on-ps3-on-late-night-with-jimmy-fallon/

also the dice demo looks awesome


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 17, 2011)

yeah it looks good on console.


----------

