my opinion on this whole MW3 vs BF3 crap (not a lot of discussion value and more or less a rant )

[Vindictus]

I refuse to support Activision in any way, even though EA isn't substantially better. Besides that, the new Frostbite engine leaves CoD far behind in terms of gameplay. Jets? Heavily destructible environments? The old Battlefield 2 scale of 64 player fights? Can't even compare them.

Also, there are subtle differences that suit me, like not having to instant scope to hit someone.

 

[5t3v0]

Actually, BF3 has the AK74M in it as the russian Assault rifle. So there is that. Also, its been said before, Battlefield IS trying something new. They have been using and perfecting a new engine, while CoD has been using the same engine since release, which is now at breaking point in possibly every way.

Erm what? It's just the same deal with same concepts just better graphics, that's not trying something new that's updating.

Not what I mean. Dice have built that engine themselves. The Unreal engine was not made in house at infinity ward, they just modified it a bit. the Frostbite has been built from the ground up with destructible environments in mind, not just graphics.
Infinity ward have not perfected anything, they just churn out the same game on the same engine year in year out. Other companies have done as good if not better a job on the unreal 3

 

[cryogeist]

oh come the fuck on

wow these spam bots are getting better...

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

People are calling MW3 a re-skin because, so far, I can't see much difference between it and MW3 besides graphics and a couple of features like hot-swappable scopes.

Generally if you compare a game to itself there is very little difference.

Hey I see what you did there. Stop trying to make him look stupid by quoting him and editing the post. You butt.

read where he quoted me after, he said he made the mistake.

But i can see from your short attention span (the fact you generally don't read full threads) why people generally disregard your opinion. ;-)

 

[lapan]

I'm honestly bored with both. There is only so much you can change in a military shooter and there are too many.

I prefer my games to have more unique settings.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Here is my own independent rant.

I don't get why everyone feels the need to compare the game's multiplayer.
The similarities end at their "modern" setting.

CoD has always focused on the traditional Death match style mulitplayer
BF has always focused on Team Work and objectives.

Of course the players in CoD won't work together if they don't have to meet the same objective, the only thing that ensures victory is more kills than the enemy.

This isn't a bad thing, its actually fun if you embrace it like that.

BF makes it almost impossible to win on your own. You need your team as much as they need you. This doesn't make it inherently better than CoD, it just makes it different.

 

[mattmoin117]

I should start off by saying that the games I've played in both of these series i as followed:
battlefield:
Bad company 1 & 2
1943 (XBLA)
Free to play (which if i am correct is just BF2 only free)

well first of all you never played what started it all, battlefield 1942 a huge game with large maps that came out in 2002 1 year before call of duty came out with the expansions it had like secret weapons of ww2 it gave new maps and weapons i mean seriously who doesn't want to kill nazis while flying on a jet-pack and swoww2 also had JETS and 64 player online with a feel of an actual war to it then comes road to rome which adds more maps and nationalities to play as ad did i mention that bf created the class system. then battlefield vietnam which had soo much stuff with different guns and character models and it still had the opening cinematic but 4 vietnam with fortunate son playing (watch bot of the intros search bf1942 intro and bf vietnam intro on youtube they are pretty awesome ) then come the king of all p.c. shooters battlefield 2 it is soo amazing and play for free is not bf2 next in the series we have 2142 a futuristic bf but still has huge maps but with cool vehicles and weapons. then we hit consoles with bad company 1&2 they introduced the destruction which made bf famous on consoles but the multiplayer had improved but it didn't have jets oh and did i mention that bf1942 swoww2 had a helicopter in it too anyways bf has more options to the way you play and bf3 is taking all of the good aspects from the previous game and putting them in to one package and most of the other bf games were gimmicks like 1943 which was made to test the destruction of the frostbite engine

 

[mattmoin117]

then play minecraft

 

[J_Monsterface]

i didnt even know there was a debate

theyre such similar games in the same genre of very similar production value

i think if youre someone who loves one of them youd be missing out not to play the other

its like pizza enthusiasts arguing cheese vs pepperoni (vegetarianism not withstanding)

its either a genre you dont like, or more of that sweet fps action you love

be glad there doesnt have to be a best

yeah this COD V BF war is promoted by 3 things which are:
A) Trolls on boths sides going on to each others forum/ news post relateing to their games and trolling.
B) The fact that neither developers/publishers would just STFU and make their own games prompting the (lame) Flamewar to go on.
C) Fan beings entiled, twated mongers or otherwise douche bags.
While you are right in your post make no mistake this is the internet so this does sink to lowest common denomnatior very.(Unless moderated)

sadly this is true

and i must confess i am a recovering troll myself, we all get that way sometimes

i can forgive the human tendency to act like a dick

but the publishers egging it on is just pure commercial bullshit, and it makes me want to puke

i mean, we cherish and celebrate and support the shit they make, and theyd have us bickering and artificially separated just to inflate their sales

we need the trolls and the non-trolls to unite against the common evil of commercial imperialism