[Aptorian]

Since Bad Company 2 came out a couple years ago, people have constantly been comparing the Battlefield series and the COD series. COD didn't really seem to care but the Battlefield fans have been practically foaming around the mouth at their anger towards the "consolised popcorn shooter".

Battlefield 3 had been heralded as EA/DICE's COD Killer. The game that would beat COD and take all bobby kotticks money.

Well, surprise, surprise, here comes the unveiling of EA's plans for BF3. Introducing the Physical Warfare DLC:

http://www.battlefie...-pack-available

I can't help laughing at the irony of all the shit the fanbase has been talking about COD and now they're getting shafted themselves. It's beautiful.

[Silencer]

Meh. The arguments against COD are only partially predicated on the exorbitant DLC prices. Then again, I've heard DLC heralded as "the future of gaming" and companies as diverse as Bioware, Bungie, Activision and Bethesda - to name a few - have all indulged. It surprises me little that EA, progenitor of things such as SecuROM (to an extent) would also go down this route.

However, I direct your attention to E3 2011. Whereupon, for all intents and purposes, EA-DICE handed Activision-IW their asses. On a plate. Repeatedly.

It comes down to the two games having different styles of gameplay. One is undeniably more simplistic, less realistic (dare we apply that game to 'fantasy') and less focused on teamwork than the other, while it is also similarly more cinematic, dramatic, and focused. The other is focused on the opposite aspects of the genre, within reason.

The thing is, the backlash against COD of late comes not from the gameplay itself (though plenty of Fan Dumb portrays it as the game of choice for idiots and twelve year olds), but from the virtually identical iterations since the 'revolution' that was COD4: MW, and the blatant spitting in the face of PC gamers (no dedicated serves MW2) that really seemed a shift from quality to quantity appeal. It doesn't help that Activision turned on their own cash-cow to a certain extent with the mess around Infinity Ward after MW2.

So then you have a combination of Hype Backlash, with "It's Popular Now It Sucks" and people proclaiming that it's awesome BECAUSE many people like it ("Popularity Equals Quality" - something obviously not guaranteed to be true, and so people rightfully get pissed at that) and the horrid fanboyism prevalent across the medium (Fan Dumb included for free) PLUS the added hatred of the Console Wars (PCs vs Consoles this time) adding up to create a huge mosh pit of irrational hatred.

In the end, both games will be 'good' games. In the sense that, if reviewers operated on things other than a four-point scale, these would be somewhere between 6.0 and 10, instead of hailed as the Second Coming and given something more like 9.0+. People who keep an open mind will at least try, if not buy, and enjoy both for what they are. Whether one game is 'better' than the other or not is subjective, of course, but people will still insist on saying that one game 'won' based off sales - which is not necessarily true, though one of the *companies* will 'win' based on their profits.

Heck, now the developers are fanning the damn flames - Call of Duty Elite, anyone? Yeah, EA has promised an almost identical feature-set for FREE. Activision head honcho says they cannot comment on the quality of B3 because they haven't seen it on consoles? Almost immediately EA head honcho says "actually, that's it running on a console, lololololol u mad?" (See GameInformer for article on this) So it's no wonder people are being idiots. It's fanwar. On a massive scale. With plenty of Fan Dumb on both sides. Best part of it? (other than the awesome comments) We benefit from the two franchise trying to outdo each other.

[Hocknose]

Pennyapt, on 13 June 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Since Bad Company 2 came out a couple years ago, people have constantly been comparing the Battlefield series and the COD series. COD didn't really seem to care but the Battlefield fans have been practically foaming around the mouth at their anger towards the "consolised popcorn shooter".

Battlefield 3 had been heralded as EA/DICE's COD Killer. The game that would beat COD and take all bobby kotticks money.

Well, surprise, surprise, here comes the unveiling of EA's plans for BF3. Introducing the Physical Warfare DLC:

http://www.battlefie...-pack-available

I can't help laughing at the irony of all the shit the fanbase has been talking about COD and now they're getting shafted themselves. It's beautiful.

What do you mean "shafted"? EA did exactly the same thing for BFBC1 & 2. All these weapons will become free dlc after a few months anyway. Whereas COD you'll be paying £12 or whatever for just a few maps.

[Aptorian]

Now of course, this is just some representative for DICE or EA, but what we're talking about here is exclusive content that will give you an edge on other people during Multiplayer. That is not a good thing. Doesn't matter if it gets released to the rest of the gamers 3 months later. It ruins the balance.

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

Red Orchestra 2 is out soon. Battlefield and CoD are now irrelevant.

[Hocknose]

Pennyapt, on 13 June 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Now of course, this is just some representative for DICE or EA, but what we're talking about here is exclusive content that will give you an edge on other people during Multiplayer. That is not a good thing. Doesn't matter if it gets released to the rest of the gamers 3 months later. It ruins the balance.

True, but what I'm saying is that is nothing new in BF3, EA has already gone down this route with the collectors edition of both the bad company games. Thing is at the end of the day they'll probably be mediocre weapons compared with the top tier unlocks.

[Silencer]

Pennyapt, on 13 June 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Now of course, this is just some representative for DICE or EA, but what we're talking about here is exclusive content that will give you an edge on other people during Multiplayer. That is not a good thing. Doesn't matter if it gets released to the rest of the gamers 3 months later. It ruins the balance.

For a start, I think you're overestimating the effective difference in the game those pre-order items will make. For Medal of Honour, you could get the MP7 (in RL, a veritably God-Tier PDW that should rip anything and everything apart on the maps presented, given the relatively short engagement ranges (less than 200m) due to a huge fire rate, accuracy (little to no felt recoil) and armour-penetrating rounds at 200m) and the M60 LMG. Neither of these weapons was *actually* better than anything you could get in the game. They might have given some people an edge at launch (heck, it's a pre-order) but the people who were near the top of the rankings had the STARTING WEAPONS as their 'most used'. So I seriously doubt, despite the meta-spiel, that any of those things will make a significant difference to the balance of the game, let alone an individual's performance. A slight edge up? Possibly, for day one. A balance disruption? Doubt it. And 100% guarantee it will not 'ruin' the balance. That would be adding a weapon that is actually more powerful than other things in the game, which these are clearly not.

Secondly, it is about the only thing they can do, other than cosmetic (and therefore, valueless) differences, like the Halo: Reach 'flaming helmet' and Recon head. Cool? Depending on your POV, sure. Affects the game? Actually, yeah - those flames make your head a big target. Useful? No. Worth money? Not to most people. This is the same thing.

So, what I'm curious about, Apt, is that as someone who has previously stated that the two games should not be compared, aside from obvious troll value, what is the point in complaining about this stuff? It's fairly obvious, you being an intelligent person, that this decision by EA-DICE is meaningless to everyone who is going to play the game. Don't play dumb.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 13 June 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Red Orchestra 2 is out soon. Battlefield and CoD are now irrelevant.

This.

But in all seriousness, I will cede the point that every CoD game since MW has been the same damned game, repackaged, and sold again to the same userbase.

On the other hand, I've never gotten Bad Company to run on my computer without crashing.

[Obdigore]

Adjutant Stormy, on 14 June 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 13 June 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Red Orchestra 2 is out soon. Battlefield and CoD are now irrelevant.

This.

But in all seriousness, I will cede the point that every CoD game since MW has been the same damned game, repackaged, and sold again to the same userbase.

On the other hand, I've never gotten Bad Company to run on my computer without crashing.

BF:BC2 was crap. There is no TD mode, and everyone and their mother hid in a bush with a sniper pretending like they were playing TD.

My problem is choosing if I'm getting MW3 or BF3 this year. I'm probably only going to get one as my gaming time has lessened, so...

I love the MW series, but BF3 is looking pretty hot, and the group I normally run with is split about what to get... SOMEONE HELP ME.

[Silencer]

Obdigore, on 05 August 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

Adjutant Stormy, on 14 June 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 13 June 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Red Orchestra 2 is out soon. Battlefield and CoD are now irrelevant.

This.

But in all seriousness, I will cede the point that every CoD game since MW has been the same damned game, repackaged, and sold again to the same userbase.

On the other hand, I've never gotten Bad Company to run on my computer without crashing.

BF:BC2 was crap. There is no TD mode, and everyone and their mother hid in a bush with a sniper pretending like they were playing TD.

My problem is choosing if I'm getting MW3 or BF3 this year. I'm probably only going to get one as my gaming time has lessened, so...

I love the MW series, but BF3 is looking pretty hot, and the group I normally run with is split about what to get... SOMEONE HELP ME.

Battlefield 3. It's the only sensible choice. Less immature children, bigger maps, vehicles, better weapon modeling, it's NEW and DIFFERENT compared to REHASHED WARFARE 9000, Battlefield has always been a better game (the Bad Companies notwithstanding, they were much more generic, though still kinda fun) and will still be in this iteration. The only concern is number of people playing it, but with all the exposure the series is getting at the moment that shouldn't be a problem.

Also, you can always wait for release reviews to see which one sounds better to you. But I cannot see anything in MW3 that should be different to MW2. Even the trailer, though at first glance awesome, shows identical gameplay to the first two games - scripted, stupid chase scenes, lots of scripted explosions, guns with ridiculously low recoil...and it all looks like it is still MW2 in terms of graphics, if you care. While I'm sure it will be good fun, be assured that it will NOT be new. And only worth one play.
There's also no tension involved. It never slows down to build tension. Which has been a chronic problem with MW since it started. We didn't notice the first time, 'cuz it was cool and new. After the second game, it became obvious that it relied on scripted pacing set to 'MAXIMUM' to be entertaining, and that this didn't work on higher difficulties because you couldn't move that fast, and so you lost the excitement and gained a sense of huge frustration.

>.>

Just imnsho, of course.

[Obdigore]

But I don't CARE about single player, I play multiplayer on the consoles, and I worry about how BF3 is going to look on the consoles since they only talk/show the PC gameplay.

[Aptorian]

Activision has yet to release a lot information on the Multiplayer of MW3. On the other hand there are "leaked" gameplay videos from B3 out there and they look fucking amazing. Personally I am more interested in B3 this year simply because it offers something a bit more advanced than run and gun gameplay. I am very curious to see how this suppression system works in action and I really love the visuals.

[Silencer]

Obdigore, on 06 August 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

But I don't CARE about single player, I play multiplayer on the consoles, and I worry about how BF3 is going to look on the consoles since they only talk/show the PC gameplay.

I direct your attention to:

Silencer, on 06 August 2011 - 12:34 AM, said:

Battlefield 3. It's the only sensible choice. Less immature children, bigger maps, vehicles, better weapon modeling, it's NEW and DIFFERENT compared to REHASHED WARFARE 9000, Battlefield has always been a better game (the Bad Companies notwithstanding, they were much more generic, though still kinda fun) and will still be in this iteration. The only concern is number of people playing it, but with all the exposure the series is getting at the moment that shouldn't be a problem.

*snip*
[MW3] looks like it is still MW2 in terms of graphics, if you care. While I'm sure it will be good fun, be assured that it will NOT be new.
*snip*

All of that is to do with multiplayer. As I say, the only concern over BF3 MP is the number of players online. Otherwise, it's GOING TO BE BETTER than MW3. Unless you're a HUGE fan of MW's unrealistic run'n'gun arcade style of MP.

And if you only want a game for multiplayer...wtf are you paying full price for? Dude, even if SP is only a quarter of the game (which is fairly generous in MW's case, with 5 hour campaigns) it's part of what you're paying for, and it should be a consideration as you surely will play the campaign at least once!?! O.o

And dude, don't worry about how BF3 will look on consoles. It will look as good or better than MW3. You know how everyone was like "Why are they only showing pre-alpha console graphics?!?!" - I'll tell you why. Because that way, when EA DOES release final product footage, people will be blown away. It's sensible, it's going to be effective, and DICE will deliver. MW3 will look like MW2. BF3 will look better than that.

[Stalker]

to be fair, Obdi is very good at MW though. Haven't played Battlefield with him, but I'm sure he is good at that too.



My take is that Battlefield will be the better game, though I will be buying both because I love the arcade-style MW gameplay and the more tactical Battlefield style. Which is going to be awesome with the suppression feature now. I was in on the alpha and the game is going to be great. There was still a lot of work to be done, as expected, in terms of polishing and bug fixing, but when it releases the graphics will be great on both PC and console.


As for MW3, my only concern is throwing some new developers into the mix. I believed in the old IW, and they never let me down. Hopefully this will be a good switch and the new guys will have some interesting ideas to refresh the franchise though. I believe it is Sledgehammer and Raven software working on the new CoD and they both have some good games in their portfolio, along with some misses, but only time will tell the quality of MW3 from here.

This post has been edited by Stalker: 06 August 2011 - 04:38 AM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I gotta say I'm a Battlefield fan. Since Day of Defeat, I'm all about the much better objective-based play. And Battlefield has done it consistently better.

[Obdigore]

@Silencer - 5 hours of campaign compared to 10+ days of online multiplayer? That means that the single player campaign is all of 2%, if I play it. Also, Battlefield is terrible when you have some morons on your team take all the vehicles and get them destroyed. At least BF:BC2 was. It ends up being a turkeyshoot for the other team, especially against helicopters. MW, on the other hand, is rather fair because there are no increadibly fast, armored, and heavily armed vehicles.

@Stalker - Thanks! I'm worried about the changes at IW as well.

[Silencer]

Obdigore, on 06 August 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

@Silencer - 5 hours of campaign compared to 10+ days of online multiplayer? That means that the single player campaign is all of 2%, if I play it. Also, Battlefield is terrible when you have some morons on your team take all the vehicles and get them destroyed. At least BF:BC2 was. It ends up being a turkeyshoot for the other team, especially against helicopters. MW, on the other hand, is rather fair because there are no increadibly fast, armored, and heavily armed vehicles.

@Stalker - Thanks! I'm worried about the changes at IW as well.

Vehicles are far from the be-all and end-all, Obdi. Claiming a game with guns is 'fair' and therefore 'good'...go play Halo: Reach, save your money. If you play a team deathmatch game and the rest of your team sucks balls at the game, your team will still lose, vehicles or no. What you're complaining about are shitty team members. Which are present in almost every game played on the internet. MW has them too, and while you personally can still do 'quite well' despite a crap team, and that makes you feel badass, that is also entirely possible in every Battlefield game to date. Bad Company went overboard on the power of vehicles. It's not meant to be realistic. B3 will be.

And five hours of campaign - TIME WISE - perhaps. Entertainment wise...it has story, it has pacing, it has characters. None of which multiplayer has, and so it's got a bit more to it than just time. If that's what you think, I feel sorry for you.



Apologies for the tone. I've overslept and I'm grouchy. I'm also blatantly a realism fan, which MW now completely lacks any semblance of. That being said, if you're after some quick-and-dirty shooting action, MW is undoubtedly one of the best options available, and I don't think MW3 will change that. But for some solid team-based, semi-realistic shooting...Battlefield 3. It's that simple.


As for the loss of IW at the helm...that just makes it more likely everything will be rehashed, imo. It won't necessarily be worse, but new studios stepping up to the plate are unlikely to want to radically change things, thus potentially alienating their fanbase. IW were great, but now that the formula is there, I'm sure their successors can replicate the feel. They might even make nudges into improvement territory. As Stalker says, though, it's now a game of wait and see, really.

[Obdigore]

I wasn't claiming that using only guns was fair, I was touching on the point that the vehicles, especially the choppers, were amazingly overpowered.

And frankly, in a TD mode a single player can, in fact, cause his team to win. In Rush, it isn't going to happen, regardless of how good you are, unless you are defending and it isn't a chopper/tank map.

I do agree that if you want realism BF is better than MW.

[Stalker]

The strength of the vehicles in BC was a real let-down for me. I hated them, but if it going to be more realistic I am all for the continued inclusion of vehicles. My only other problem with BC was the shitty teammates, there were way too many games where everyone on my team would snipe while only two or three of us would try to capture the points.

As for campaign, I believe it is a very important part of the game. As Silencer noted it has story, pacing, etc. which is what draws me to the game. Otherwise I would just save my money and play previous iterations of the franchise. I still play MW2 over Black Ops, and even play MW1 on occasion. Of course, after I play through the campaign, the multiplayer is what keeps me around, but without the single player I wouldn't even buy the game.


@Silencer- it is possible for a lone player on a terrible team to win. I have done it several times in many different games, though most of them are in CoD. Doesn't hurt that MW2 put a nuke in the game though.

[Aptorian]

Having now played both the single and multiplayer modes of BF 3 and MW3 I can honestly say that I don't know why these games were ever compared to each other to begin with. They're not the same types of games at all. The only connection is the modern military theme.

COD is a fast paced arcade shoot'em-up type of game where it's all run and gun (even more so in 3 compared to 2) and more about going solo while BF is all seriousness focusing on "realism", simulation and team work. They both do what they do very well and none of them do very well when they try to do what the other one is doing.

CODs single player is a lot more fun and well designed than the stupid single player campaign in BF3 (seriously, it was bad). While BF3s Multiplayer is a lot more challenging and versatile than what COD has to offer. But the thing is that the two obviously cater to two different groups of individuals.

Having never played a Battlefield game before I can say I had a lot more fun with the multiplayer in BF than COD, especially because of the bigger maps, but after having played BF it is clear that the same fucktards that plague COD games appear in BF games. This becomes a bigger issue in BF when people idiocy and egotism actually damage the overall team effort.