Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 - Showdown

[1Kurgan1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

and thats what ban sticks are for

And thats stopped me when?

 

[erocker]

And thats stopped me when?

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

 

[erixx]

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

 

[Maelstrom]

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

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

 

[Black Haru]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[1Kurgan1]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.