Battlefield.I play Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 often.They're my favorite fps's ever.I've tried every COD game since 3 and I didnt like any of them.Boring gameplay which gets repetitive quickly,crap community,OP weapons that everyone uses,**** story..
Why would you even ask that question. You already know that it'l be just another fanboy war; but people have their own opinions. To answer your question, I'm more hyped for Battlefield 3 because honestly, the Call of Duty series has just been a rip-off to me; Every game is nearly the same, they almost never add new aspects to the game and I'm not a huge fan of their maps.
The conclusion; MW3 will make more money either way.
Urgh, no offence, but there is so much wrong with that 'review' of yours on Battlefield and Call of Duty.
It was void of detail, lazily written, very short, it contained a fairly large spoiler which you didn't give warning of, you did the graphics section first, you talked about the story in the gameplay section, and then forgot to actually talk about the gameplay all together.
And for the love of God, please tell me you weren't serious about comparing Minecraft and The Sims 3.
Sorry, if you thought that was too harsh.
Thank You soo much for commenting on that(its my very 1st time writing a review)! I will take your suggestions into account and yes I am serious on comparing minecraft and sims 3 lolz
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Villagecraft: Our simple humle 24/7 community server
Battlefield is WAYYY more realistic. Cod is a fast pace game where you don't have to work as a team. Where as in Battlefield working in a team won't get you killed ... that much. Battlefield has way better graphics. Battlefield has destructable buildings ( Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3 ) where as Cod doesnt. Battlefield is better than CoD in every single way. But what I don't understand is that WHY DOESN'T THE BATTLEFIELD SERIES HAVE 78 MILLION ( or billion ) SALES! OH and short answer: Battlefield all the way.
COD has used the same engine since CoD4. The graphics have been mostly the same, only changing with developer. MW and MW2 and MW3 all look the same.Likewise, WaW and Black ops have similar graphics. the gameplay is the same **** that CoD has released for many years.
BF, on the other hand, has better graphics, better gaming engines, more team based multiplayer, VEHICLES(what is warfare without em???) destruction, A great singleplayer, and more awesome shtuff. BF3 is going to be the better game. MW3 is going to be exactly like MW2 with a different plot.
In conclusion, some people say COD4 MW was the last good cod.Others say it was the first. Maybe there wasn't one.....
All of the Battlefield series games are all very good. each was good in its own way. I believe BF3 will be better than any CoD, not in sales, but in content, gameplay, and graphics. I have played a majority of both series.
COD has used the same engine since CoD4. The graphics have been mostly the same, only changing with developer. MW and MW2 and MW3 all look the same. Likewise, WaW and Black ops have similar graphics. the gameplay is the same **** that CoD has released for many years.
Not necessarily true because mw3 uses the modified mw2 engine, which is the modified mw1 engine. Also why change an engine or gameplay style when it's good? Also graphics don't make a game.
BF, on the other hand, has better graphics, better gaming engines
As I said above.
more team based multiplayer
That doesn't mean better because some people like to lonewolf and rely on themselves. Also teamwork with random strangers is a bad idea for me. "When you wanna do something right, do it yourself", they say.
VEHICLES(what is warfare without em???) destruction
That's an opinion, but vehicles are OP in bfbc2 so it's not a good thing
A great singleplayer, and more awesome shtuff.
Cod has that too
BF3 is going to be the better game.
Opinion so doesn't mean true
MW3 is going to be exactly like MW2 with a different plot.
We don't know that yet. Also Mw3 ,for me, is Mw2 just without ****, and that's perfectly fine.
In conclusion, some people say COD4 MW was the last good cod. Others say it was the first. Maybe there wasn't one.....
In my opinion all Cods were good. Also Cod haters appeared in the past few years, nobody hated the first three games.
All of the Battlefield series games are all very good. each was good in its own way
I agree too but that is also an opinion
I believe BF3 will be better than any CoD, not in sales, but in content, gameplay, and graphics.
I don't know, because I have only played Battlefield once or twice at a friends house.
All of the Call of Duty games are the same, just with weapons with different names and appearances, and a different campaign.
Also, I heard that the campaign on Battlefield 2 is bad, but then again, I haven't played it for myself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Damn you forum only allowing two lines in the signature.
- Thank you slimes.
COD has used the same engine since CoD4. The graphics have been mostly the same, only changing with developer. MW and MW2 and MW3 all look the same.Likewise, WaW and Black ops have similar graphics. the gameplay is the same **** that CoD has released for many years.
I don't understand why this is such a popular argument against the Call of Duty series. Did you know Half Life 2, Counter Strike: Source, and Left 4 Dead all run on the same engine? Yeah, maybe the graphics haven't seen a significant leap since Modern Warfare 2, but they still look great.
BF, on the other hand, has better graphics, better gaming engines, more team based multiplayer, VEHICLES(what is warfare without em???) destruction, A great singleplayer, and more awesome shtuff. BF3 is going to be the better game. MW3 is going to be exactly like MW2 with a different plot.
Making a checklist of things that MW3 lacks does not prove Battlefield is a better game. I could also argue that Call of Duty does not have headcrabs, gravity guns, or physics puzzles, but that doesn't prove Half Life 2 is better than Call of Duty (although, in my opinion, it is).
My point is, Call of Duty and Battlefield are two very different types of games, each good in their own rights.
I don't know, because I have only played Battlefield once or twice at a friends house.
All of the Call of Duty games are the same, just with weapons with different names and appearances, and a different campaign.
Also, I heard that the campaign on Battlefield 2 is bad, but then again, I haven't played it for myself.
Wait do you mean the campaign of bf bad company 2 or bf 2
If you were referring to bad company 2: i wouldn't say that it has a bad story, its just that it is sooooo predictable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Villagecraft: Our simple humle 24/7 community server
Based on the games matched with their generations counterparts, it depends. Between Bad Company 2 and MW2, I choose MW2. Why? I prefer fast paced gameplay. The story was quite unsatisfying in BC2, MW2 was better because it mad more of an impact on me (example: BC2... in a jungle... oh. MW2: fighting for America in a super unrealistic way? Fine, it's for AMERICA).
Between 1942 and Call of Duty 1, CoD for single player and 1942 for MP.
Between 1943 and World at War, WaW for zombies and everything else to 1943.
In my eyes, COD4 beats everything so far. WaW took it downhill. MW2 brought it up from WaW.
For upcoming games, BF3 appeals to me more because it seems more tighter and faster paced than MW3s, but not the slowness that was BC2 (not that it was a terrible thing).
I don't see much wrong with MW3. Personally, I enjoyed MW2. So if MW3 is supposed to be similar to MW2, and because I enjoyed MW2, why not get more of what I enjoyed? (if you get this reference, I applaud you)
Maybe you will hate me for my opinions, but if you do... I understand where you are coming from, but urge you to be more open to all experiences.
Side note: Medal of Honor is an excellent game for $10. For $60, no. But thanks to Steam, I got a fun game.
Based on the games matched with their generations counterparts, it depends. Between Bad Company 2 and MW2, I choose MW2. Why? I prefer fast paced gameplay. The story was quite unsatisfying in BC2, MW2 was better because it mad more of an impact on me (example: BC2... in a jungle... oh. MW2: fighting for America in a super unrealistic way? Fine, it's for AMERICA).
Between 1942 and Call of Duty 1, CoD for single player and 1942 for MP.
Between 1943 and World at War, WaW for zombies and everything else to 1943.
In my eyes, COD4 beats everything so far. WaW took it downhill. MW2 brought it up from WaW.
For upcoming games, BF3 appeals to me more because it seems more tighter and faster paced than MW3s, but not the slowness that was BC2 (not that it was a terrible thing).
I don't see much wrong with MW3. Personally, I enjoyed MW2. So if MW3 is supposed to be similar to MW2, and because I enjoyed MW2, why not get more of what I enjoyed? (if you get this reference, I applaud you)
Maybe you will hate me for my opinions, but if you do... I understand where you are coming from, but urge you to be more open to all experiences.
Side note: Medal of Honor is an excellent game for $10. For $60, no. But thanks to Steam, I got a fun game.
I'll have to agree with your side note. Medal of honor is not worth more than $10. Not even $11.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Villagecraft: Our simple humle 24/7 community server
COD has a really fast paced multiplayer while Battlefield has a slower more team based multiplayer
The Singleplayer for both games reflect their multiplayer.
Right BF3 looks beautiful right now so I'm sticking with them.
Also the ability to destroy whole buildings is ****ing amazing!
Even though I've only played Bad Company 2, I'll choose a Battlefield game over Call of Duty any day.
Maybe you should click this?
The games are only graphics, no gameplay.. So boring to play.
Too bad I'm gonna have to buy it from EA's stupid proprietary Origin bullcrap
The conclusion; MW3 will make more money either way.
Thank You soo much for commenting on that(its my very 1st time writing a review)! I will take your suggestions into account and yes I am serious on comparing minecraft and sims 3 lolz
I've played all the series of COD and Bf and Bf bad company 2 really and obviously is the winna(at least when it comes to multiplayer)
COD has used the same engine since CoD4. The graphics have been mostly the same, only changing with developer. MW and MW2 and MW3 all look the same.Likewise, WaW and Black ops have similar graphics. the gameplay is the same **** that CoD has released for many years.
BF, on the other hand, has better graphics, better gaming engines, more team based multiplayer, VEHICLES(what is warfare without em???) destruction, A great singleplayer, and more awesome shtuff. BF3 is going to be the better game. MW3 is going to be exactly like MW2 with a different plot.
In conclusion, some people say COD4 MW was the last good cod.Others say it was the first. Maybe there wasn't one.....
All of the Battlefield series games are all very good. each was good in its own way. I believe BF3 will be better than any CoD, not in sales, but in content, gameplay, and graphics. I have played a majority of both series.
And my computer can run it.
Awsome get it during the release date(October 25, 2011!)
All of the Call of Duty games are the same, just with weapons with different names and appearances, and a different campaign.
Also, I heard that the campaign on Battlefield 2 is bad, but then again, I haven't played it for myself.
Damn you forum only allowing two lines in the signature.
- Thank you slimes.
I don't understand why this is such a popular argument against the Call of Duty series. Did you know Half Life 2, Counter Strike: Source, and Left 4 Dead all run on the same engine? Yeah, maybe the graphics haven't seen a significant leap since Modern Warfare 2, but they still look great.
Making a checklist of things that MW3 lacks does not prove Battlefield is a better game. I could also argue that Call of Duty does not have headcrabs, gravity guns, or physics puzzles, but that doesn't prove Half Life 2 is better than Call of Duty (although, in my opinion, it is).
My point is, Call of Duty and Battlefield are two very different types of games, each good in their own rights.
Wait do you mean the campaign of bf bad company 2 or bf 2
If you were referring to bad company 2: i wouldn't say that it has a bad story, its just that it is sooooo predictable.
Between 1942 and Call of Duty 1, CoD for single player and 1942 for MP.
Between 1943 and World at War, WaW for zombies and everything else to 1943.
In my eyes, COD4 beats everything so far. WaW took it downhill. MW2 brought it up from WaW.
For upcoming games, BF3 appeals to me more because it seems more tighter and faster paced than MW3s, but not the slowness that was BC2 (not that it was a terrible thing).
I don't see much wrong with MW3. Personally, I enjoyed MW2. So if MW3 is supposed to be similar to MW2, and because I enjoyed MW2, why not get more of what I enjoyed? (if you get this reference, I applaud you)
Maybe you will hate me for my opinions, but if you do... I understand where you are coming from, but urge you to be more open to all experiences.
Side note: Medal of Honor is an excellent game for $10. For $60, no. But thanks to Steam, I got a fun game.
I'll have to agree with your side note. Medal of honor is not worth more than $10. Not even $11.