|
Post by jay on Nov 7, 2011 16:46:33 GMT -5
I hope this discussion isn't a repeat.. But anyway guys, which do you prefer and why? Personally, I am a BF guy because Dice keeps bringing improvements to the table when it comes to each new BF game where COD is essentially the same game over and over in a different setting.
|
|
|
Post by FoxTrot on Nov 7, 2011 16:50:17 GMT -5
battlefield all the way
|
|
|
Post by Raincheck on Nov 7, 2011 16:53:20 GMT -5
Agreed 100% on what you said Jay. Battlefield is just much more realistic and improves a LOT between each installation (compare Bad Company 2 to Battlefield 3. Now look at MW2 to MW3...)
Also, I don't like the feel of CoD's Multiplayer, it's too arcadey and it's campaign is just ridiculous and just a Michael Bay explosion-filled action flick. \
Battlefield Pros: -Realistic -Vehicles -Teamwork -Huge maps -Destruction -Did I say vehicles?
Cons: -EA Servers suck -Useless Recons/Snipers
Call of Duty Pros: -Run 'n Gun (Good for certain people) -Lot of players -Probably will have lots of friends to team up with -Join in progress for online
Cons: -Run 'n Gun -Unrealistic -Hit scans -Tiny, static maps -Unbalanced guns -Frustrating
|
|
|
Post by Ratchet on Nov 7, 2011 16:55:23 GMT -5
The Call of Duty series is basically dead. Nothing's new anymore except for the story line. I gave up on MW2. After I got used to Modern Warfare my friend showed me BFBC2 and I fell in love with the Battlefield Series. What I love in Battlefield is that pistols can actually go against primaries now! CoD pistols suck balls.
Like Saoshyant4329 said CoD's basically a run and gun, which I like if I'm bored out of my f**king mind, but other than that I hate CoD's run and gun style. Also CoD does feel way too arcade-like. Black Ops was too historically inaccurate for me, too ;D.
CoD Elite should be free and more detailed if they want to compete with Battlefield's Battle log.
|
|
Grizzly
Renegade CIA Operative
WWII junkie and 'Nam nut
Posts: 86
|
Post by Grizzly on Nov 7, 2011 19:18:07 GMT -5
I agree with Ratchet. CoD is simply too arcadey, and I have built up a reputation among my friends for constantly screaming at the historical inaccuracy and lack of authenticity. It normally wouldn't bother me so much, except that kids will automatically take ANYTHING they see in CoD as indisputable fact. As a history buff and gun nut, CoD (after Call of Duty 3, mind you. I loved it before 4...) simply offends me. To answer your question, Battlefield all the way! I haven't played 3 yet, but I have played the series religiously since BF42, and it has only improved since. However, I refuse to play the console versions, as Battlefield only belongs on PC where it can live up to its true potential, as it is only Battlefield if it has a 64-player population cap. As much as I love them(and I REALLY do), I will never consider the Bad Company games to be true Battlefield titles. They are more of a spin-off, EA trying to make Battlefield into a consolized infantry slugfest, trying to compete with CoD. Still fun, but Battlefield always was, and always should be, vehicle-based. That's why I'm psyched for 3. They finally went back to their roots, making a mostly vehicular game with emphasis on working toward a common goal instead of stat-hunting. That focus is why I'll never get bored of Battlefield 2. Almost seven years later, it's even more fun than when it was released. Recently however, I have been most heavily involved with a title similar to Battlefield, but far more realistic: Red Orchestra: Ostfront '41-'45, and it's just-as-popular mod, Darkest Hour: Europe '44-'45. I haven't played RO2, but there has been a mass migration from it back to RO1 by the RO fanbase, claiming that it has become a CoD-like slugfest. I'll have to wait until all the n00bs get bored of it, and it might be fun. Anyway,if you love classic battlefield, try giving Red Orchestra a try. Grizzly out.
|
|
|
Post by r00m3rrang on Nov 7, 2011 20:26:25 GMT -5
I like Battlefield 3 because of the realistic feature and they have some of the best servers, because when I play I see barley any lag. Modern Warfare 3 I am hoping to have better servers compared to black ops because they sucked. I am going to like them both because I have been waiting for them for a while.
|
|
|
Post by chubbs on Nov 7, 2011 20:40:42 GMT -5
man i wish i had an xbox 360......
|
|
|
Post by Killmaster on Nov 8, 2011 3:01:01 GMT -5
CoD is dying. The age of BattleField is here!
Anyways, it just seems that Battlefield is more realistic, with larger maps, and everything is just thought out well. I can't say the same for Call of Duty. I have owned both, but I have fallen madly in love with Battlefield.
They have stated before, CoD is just too arcadey, too game-y. Battlefield is more geared toward realism.
(The only thing that stinks about BF3 was the story...)
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Raincheck on Nov 8, 2011 9:48:28 GMT -5
(The only thing that stinks about BF3 was the story...) I haven't finished the campaign yet (too addicted to MP, obviously) but from what I've played so far, it's not bad. Not a lot of FPS titles have great stories, so I wasn't holding it to high standards like I would with a triple A RPG. No spoilers here please, but from what I've played, I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Colt on Nov 8, 2011 13:48:23 GMT -5
MICHEAL BAY-SPLOSION!
|
|
|
Post by Raincheck on Nov 8, 2011 13:51:48 GMT -5
Just an update: MW3's user score on Metacritic is currently looking at a whopping 2.7
I'm blown away by how impressive this new-&-improved game is (/sarcasm)
|
|
|
Post by Killmaster on Nov 8, 2011 13:55:42 GMT -5
And what is BF3's?
|
|
|
Post by Raincheck on Nov 8, 2011 18:26:22 GMT -5
Like a 7 or 8 last I checked. Could have changed, it's been a few weeks since I looked last.
|
|
|
Post by Shadsquatch on Nov 8, 2011 18:33:53 GMT -5
I have both. And ive played both. From my experience so far i prefer battlefield. I prefer battlefield for multiplayer. It focuses on the emphasis of team play. Just like airsoft. But modern warfare is a game to jump in and have fun with your friends. Each one will appeal to a different person. In my opinion call of duty has always had a better campaign. Where battlefield has had a better multiplayer. Also battlefield is built for computers where modern warfare is built for consoles. But lets not forget what these two games are for. To have fun!
|
|
|
Post by maticman1093 on Nov 8, 2011 18:36:14 GMT -5
I have both. And ive played both. From my experience so far i prefer battlefield. I prefer battlefield for multiplayer. It focuses on the emphasis of team play. Just like airsoft. But modern warfare is a game to jump in and have fun with your friends. Each one will appeal to a different person. In my opinion call of duty has always had a better campaign. Where battlefield has had a better multiplayer. Also battlefield is built for computers where modern warfare is built for consoles. But lets not forget what these two games are for. To have fun! The best statement I have heard about these two games.
|
|