Battlefield 3 vs COD: MW 3

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Mon May 30, 2011 5:14 am

Ok here is the poll, what do you think is gonna be better?

COD is honestly an arcade shooter, you pick it up (like an STD) and play easy as that. (Sort of like a cheap hooker)

Battlefield is honestly a more complex, you don't win games by raping the other team (sorta) You use your squad, your wits and your skill

Graphics:

Good in COD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiTJbr9m04

Kind of the same as Modern Warfare 2 IMHO

Better in BF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrrAp1blaM...;feature=relmfu

Advantage BF, but i give way since its pre-alpha

Enviroment

MW3: Meh same as MW2/Black ops
BF3: Blow some @#(! up

A prime example would be:

COD: OH @#(! HE'S BEHIND THAT WALL
BF: What wall?

In COD the enviroments were very static, not really enjoyable once people began finding the best hiding spots or camping spots
In BF this was solved by introducing the revolutionary Frostbite engine which pretty much let you level anything out, and introduced vehicles in massive warfare.

Advantage: duh

Realism:
Ok here is a touchy subject, but in hindsight its just for the review and my own opinion. I served in the USMC and every once in a while we had our own "Private Pile" (Yes from Full Metal Jacket) The $#@! ups in other words. These $#@!ing kids would come from (insert large city here) after high school and were always the slowest, worst, annoying kids I've ever seen. They are "enlightened" by Modern Warfare and join to be an infantry soldier then "IM GONNA BE FORCE RECON". I've heard from my buddies in the Army that they always come in saying "OMG IM GONNA BE A RANGER" These games fuel our youth away from the hard truth which one could call an inequality of life: One bullet kills you. This also feeds into "OMG I WANTS A SCAR LIGHT WITH RED DOT". I play BF with my buddies in Lejeune every once in a while. Since COD would be considered a pickup game then I could understand the surrealism in game. But of course I'm not saying BF is realistic either, I'm just saying that if you see a tank coming your way in BF you know to get the $#@! out of the way. COD fuels the "I-am-god-noone-can-stop-me" mentalism.

Advantage: $#@! you think?

Yes I am a Battlefield fanboy, can you blame me for looking for a better game?
Veteran 4 in fact

fuzz_windows · Post by **fuzz_windows** » Mon May 30, 2011 5:25 am

BF trades some realism for fun, but what it's got is fantastic. Squad system, good physics, excellent sound etc.

If you want something more realistic get Arma 2 or for free check out Americas Army.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Mon May 30, 2011 5:27 am

fuzz_windows wrote:QUOTE (fuzz_windows @ May 29 2011, 11:25 PM) BF trades some realism for fun, but what it's got is fantastic. Squad system, good physics, excellent sound etc.

If you want something more realistic get Arma 2 or for free check out Americas Army.

I have arma 2, kinda sucks on my @#(!ty laptop but good game overall, Americas Army is alright

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:12 am

I think for both games it's still to early to tell. I've been a MW fan for a couple years now, mostly because COD4 was so much fun. MW2 was decent, but didn't have as much staying power as the first one.

The battlefield series I have mixed feelings about. I enjoy the gameplay, but really have qualms about the quality of games that DICE releases. I was addicted to BF 1942, BF2 and 2142. But I did quite a bit of testing through a company that worked with DICE and the amount of bugs that they just blatantly ignored was staggering.

I dunno, maybe I'll give DICE another shot, it's been a while since I've played anything by them. Hopefully they wont release an incomplete game just because they can patch it down the line.

The only reason why I'd by MW at this point is just to see how the single player mission ends/continues. Thinking about it actually, Activision is a bunch of money milking cocksuckers so they probably wont finish the storyline yet. $#@! it, I'll just rent the piece of @#(!.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:23 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ May 30 2011, 12:12 AM) I think for both games it's still to early to tell. I've been a MW fan for a couple years now, mostly because COD4 was so much fun. MW2 was decent, but didn't have as much staying power as the first one.

The battlefield series I have mixed feelings about. I enjoy the gameplay, but really have qualms about the quality of games that DICE releases. I was addicted to BF 1942, BF2 and 2142. But I did quite a bit of testing through a company that worked with DICE and the amount of bugs that they just blatantly ignored was staggering.

I dunno, maybe I'll give DICE another shot, it's been a while since I've played anything by them. Hopefully they wont release an incomplete game just because they can patch it down the line.

The only reason why I'd by MW at this point is just to see how the single player mission ends/continues. Thinking about it actually, Activision is a bunch of money milking cocksuckers so they probably wont finish the storyline yet. $#@! it, I'll just rent the piece of @#(!.

Exactly, MW will sell more than BF but does that make it a better game?

Here is another analogy: Is rebecca black good? No but they still booked her on letterman

Cadillac · Post by **Cadillac** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:27 am

Imho BF is so much better though it's kinda unfair to compare the two games as they are very different, but I guess they are in direct competition. CoD feels too much like point and click, the non-destructible environment makes it too easy to camp and the maps are so small there really isn't any space for using a variety of strategies.

Don't get me wrong, CoD is an immensely fun game and I'll be getting it, but it's more suited for console (so that's what I'll be getting it for). It works well for when people come round and you can do a quick shoot up (though the levelling up of offline accounts is stupid, imo they should have either all the weapons unlocked or at least what MW1 had) and online play / system link is entertaining. It's good when you just want to go and pwn people and not have to think much.

However based purely on gaming experience and quality, I'd say BF is so much better. The use of vehicles adds a whole new dimension to the game when compared to CoD, the vehicles require a degree of teamwork and it puts the infantry into a more realistic light (obviously I mean purely relative to CoD here). They aren't one man armies like in CoD. I really like having health bars, it means you can wound someone and not have them hide and 5 seconds later be fully healed. It makes people more careful about being hit. In fact if I try and play BF (BFBC2 is what I'm on atm) like I play CoD I get severely punished for it. I get massacred if I just try and sprint from place to place and shoot people and pretty much just throw myself at them (but it's hilarious to do anyway, $#@! K/D I don't have the patience for that!).

I was gonna type the rest of this out, but I cba because it's going to take too long, here is a short form:

Squad system, epic. Class system, epic. Big maps, epic. Destructible environment, epic. Physics, epic. Gametypes: AFAIK CoD doesn't have Rush (Domination is more conquest) - this is awesome. Can actually hide in BF unlike CoD where everyone has UAV, so unless you're silenced and have that commando perk everyone can see you (and because the maps are small the chances are if someone spots you on the radar they can get damn close to where you are before you fade out if not actually get a shot at you). Even radar jammer alerts someone when you are nearby. Levelling up is a lot less grinding with BF thanks to classes and points for repairing/healing etc that also encourage people to be helpful.

That's about it, the only real gripe I have with BFBC2 is that there is too much goddamn smoke. Seriously, every time something happens - smoke. Which in itself wouldn't be too bad except for the fact that it lingers in the air for a good 10+ seconds, a lifetime in FPS time. Combined with whatever sand/snow is blowing around it makes it impossible to see properly a lot of the time.

BF is definitely the better game for me, though the campaign in MW games have proven to be epic (much better than the BFBC ones at least) SOOOOOOAAAAP. I'll be getting both.

Edit: What Shiz said about Activision. If Infinity Ward wasn't making this, I wouldn't be buying it. I'm surprised they even did a third one after all the @#(! that's gone down between them in the past, but I'm glad they've done it to finish the campaign at least. Infinity Ward basically made the CoD franchise and MW made the franchise EVEN MORE popular and Activision just turned around and treated them like @#(!.

This reminds me about a major concern I have with MW3 though, I remember after the debacle (lawsuits and firings) with MW2 last year like half the Infinity Ward guys left. I won't be getting this game on release just in case.

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:29 am

they both suck imo

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:31 am

CoD is very meh imo. If you have played one CoD game you have played them all. BF should be more interestng but I probably won't get either soon anyway.

Kuromimi · Post by **Kuromimi** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:32 am

If you can't blow up a building, I don't friggin care about the game.

I refuse to play a game where the environment looks pristine after a huge firefight involving explosives.

Nothing but the frostbite engine Battlefield series, thankyouverymuch.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:36 am

Uh... is frostbite for the new BF3? Cause I own every BF up to 2142 and none of them have destructive environments.