Poll: Battlefield fanboys vs Call of Duty fanboys

[Sizzle Montyjing]

what console do you play on you cant get away with that on 360

Oh i play on PS3.
Not really into those games though now, unless someone does bring out a moon-bounce mode.
I can only dream, only dream...

 

[DrDango]

before I start i should say that i'm not a BF fanboy i disliked most BF games other than BF2 and BF 1942 witch is explained below

i've played BF2 and COD black ops. and i much liked BF2 more (appart from the bad hit detection) mainly because in BF2 i felt like i was on a team and lone wolfing a game will get you a bunch of facial bullet piercings. while on black ops you'd rather working alone because you don't normally need anyone else.

The best differnce is in the playerbase for example in black ops the first thing i hear via voice chat is "I'm gonna pwn your n00b fag ass" after i kill him repeatedly (10 more or less) he goes on a ALL CAPS RAGE then quits. While on i'm on BF2 my teammates are like "ok you go distract him while go around and pop him in the back" and the enemy almost never get pissed unless your breaking the servers rules.

also I belive that COD and BF are NOT the same type of game. (yes i'm aware there both shooters)
COD is more of a run up shoot in there face then teabag for shits and giggles.
while BF is more of a jump in a helicopter or jet and kill any enemy units on the ground.

I guess it about what mood your in if you feel like making some trash talking idiot cry like a little girl go for COD but if you wanna feel like your in a proper warzone BF (not bad company as it made the mistake of trying to be COD. honestly COD has a fanbase that says "why play a game thats like COD rather then COD")

to answer your question of why BF fanboys hate COD and COD fanboys hate BF is because there competing against each other. this wouldn't happen would if BF and COD rather than competing inciting there fans fanboy rage would become two separate games entirely (witch has happened but the dev teams ignore that fact thus making them more and more simular and making them weaker for it)

PS: if BF3 turns to be like BF2 but better i will buy both but if it trys to compete with COD like BF Bad Company did I'll just Buy MW3

PPS: again not a Fanboy

 

[Still Life]

So I guess I was doing something wrong while I was running around and getting my team plenty of points while going completely solo in Battlefield BC2? Not to say that Battlefield doesn't naturally push more of a sense of teamwork or anything, but if I can run around the maps and completely ignore the existence of my teammates and still manage to rake in plenty of kills/objective points taken, then I find it hard to believe that Battlefield is really so different from call of duty (at least in the teamwork department).

Actually yes.

You can score a fair number of point if you lone-wolf a game, sure. I'll tell you now, that time and time again, a good team can turn the tide of an entire battle. I've seen it and experienced it. Working as a team also amplifies your score capturing ability, not just in getting kills, but with team related actions. Recon members can earn a bucket load of points simply by using motion sensors and helping your squad/team mates earn points. a single squad can lock down an objective against an entire team of n00bs if they're coordinated enough.

 

[Cythros]

but if it has tactical mechanics then it a tactical shoot battle field is a squad based shooter

And squads are a tactical mechanic. Really, games can be more than one specific thing, you know.

sorry running though a 200 acre warzone with 3 random people you cant talk to doesn't seem tactical too me

Then YOU'RE DOIN' IT WRONG! :trollface:
Seriously, though, at its core, Battlefield is tactical, and was created with that design in mind. CoD was designed to support what its community wanted. Which was teabagging and more unbalanced guns.

Then I suppose the creators of Call of Duty slipped up all the more for not realizing that pasting a topless bikini model on the front of each bit of cover would significantly increase sales amongst their testosterone ridden fanbase. While they're at it, they might as well have included a perk in the game called "God": one that makes you completely immune to gunfire and explosives. After all, the less options the better!

Seriously, who on earth in the Call of Duty community has ever said "I want more unbalanced guns!" If anything I'm constantly hearing plenty of people complain that far too many players use the Famas in Black Ops (or the AK-47 in CoD4). And since when has teabagging became a big part of Call of Duty? I've been playing since CoD4, and not once have I seen a guy teabag me in the killcam.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

but if it has tactical mechanics then it a tactical shoot battle field is a squad based shooter

And squads are a tactical mechanic. Really, games can be more than one specific thing, you know.

sorry running though a 200 acre warzone with 3 random people you cant talk to doesn't seem tactical too me

Then YOU'RE DOIN' IT WRONG! :trollface:
Seriously, though, at its core, Battlefield is tactical, and was created with that design in mind. CoD was designed to support what its community wanted. Which was teabagging and more unbalanced guns.

Then I suppose the creators of Call of Duty slipped up all the more for not realizing that pasting a topless bikini model on the front of each bit of cover would significantly increase sales amongst their testosterone ridden fanbase. While they're at it, they might as well have included a perk in the game called "God": one that makes you completely immune to gunfire and explosives. After all, the less options the better!

Seriously, who on earth in the Call of Duty community has ever said "I want more unbalanced guns!" If anything I'm constantly hearing plenty of people complain that far too many players use the Famas in Black Ops (or the AK-47 in CoD4). And since when has teabagging became a big part of Call of Duty? I've been playing since CoD4, and not once have I seen a guy teabag me in the killcam.

That's more my experiences in CoD, anyway. And wouldn't that split the fanbase between "balanced" and "unbalanced," considering there's just as many players using the FAMAS? And I was constantly teabagged, anyway.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I play all of them. Ever.

 

[McNoobin]

So I guess I was doing something wrong while I was running around and getting my team plenty of points while going completely solo in Battlefield BC2? Not to say that Battlefield doesn't naturally push more of a sense of teamwork or anything, but if I can run around the maps and completely ignore the existence of my teammates and still manage to rake in plenty of kills/objective points taken, then I find it hard to believe that Battlefield is really so different from call of duty (at least in the teamwork department).

Besides, teamwork alone doesn't define how deep a game is. There are many factors that can effect the depth of an experience, such as the amount of options a player has, the amount of situations a player can come across (or at least perceives to come across), the weight and balance behind the consequences of a player's choices, the list goes on and on. And since depth is defined by how exactly a player experiences it, it can be difficult to "objectively" compare depth between games. Likewise, I find arguing over whether Battlefield or Call of Duty has more "depth" to it than the other to be fairly fruitless.

In my honest view, both games are far too similar to really get all that worked up over which is more deep, yet at the same too different to objectively hold one over the other. Whether or not you like one over the other boils down to strictly your personal preference. Both were fun, deep experiences for me. I see no reason to argue over which is better.

From what you described, with the new destruction engine in the Bad Company games, Battlefield has way more depth. Call of Duty, ***** be campin: run in and shoot his ass. Battlefield, ***** be campin: run in and shoot his ass, or destroy THE ENTIRE FUCKING HOUSE he be campin it at the expense of cover to hide behind.

I agree with you though, it's hard to actually compare them even though they both fall under the FPS genre. In my opinion, it's like comparing two sports games like FIFA and NBA, they're both sports games, but you're supposed to play them two completely different ways, and some people prefer the wide open yet thrilling soccer fields of FIFA or the close quarters intense play in NBA. (I've only played FIFA, I haven't really played any basketball titles)

 

[Hamish Durie]

normally i would scream no vs threads but now all i want to do is sit back and watch....
edit: oh crap my opinion well theres one one game in each of the two franchises that i actualy like and thats bac compony 1 and modern warfare 1

 

[Sethzard]

In my opinion the gun-play is better in call of duty but the ability to blow things up in battlefield just makes it more fun.

 

[Cythros]

Actually yes.

You can score a fair number of point if you lone-wolf a game, sure. I'll tell you now, that time and time again, a good team can turn the tide of an entire battle. I've seen it and experienced it. Working as a team also amplifies your score capturing ability, not just in getting kills, but with team related actions. Recon members can earn a bucket load of points simply by using motion sensors and helping your squad/team mates earn points. a single squad can lock down an objective against an entire team of n00bs if they're coordinated enough.

And the same can't be done in Call of Duty? Not that I'm bitter toward Battlefield or anything (as I find Battlefield to be loads of fun in its own way), but isn't using teamwork in ANY co-op situation always going to ensure better results than merely taking a swing at it alone? There are plenty of times in CoD where I brought maybe a friend or two in a single lobby, and after coming up with various roles for everyone and effectively communicating with each other in-game, we were able to turn the tide in almost every single lobby we came across.

However, I'm getting a bit off track here. The point is, if I can take a swing at Battlefield as a lone-wolf and do just as good there as I can in CoD, then I don't see how Battlefield is really all that much more of a deep, or even teamwork based, game. Of course, I really haven't played it for very long either, so naturally I probably haven't experienced everything the game has to offer like others have. I'm going to go out on a limb here though and assume many hard-core Battlefield players who seem to hate on Call of Duty probably haven't experienced Call of Duty the same way I have either.

 

[Cythros]

but if it has tactical mechanics then it a tactical shoot battle field is a squad based shooter

And squads are a tactical mechanic. Really, games can be more than one specific thing, you know.

sorry running though a 200 acre warzone with 3 random people you cant talk to doesn't seem tactical too me

Then YOU'RE DOIN' IT WRONG! :trollface:
Seriously, though, at its core, Battlefield is tactical, and was created with that design in mind. CoD was designed to support what its community wanted. Which was teabagging and more unbalanced guns.

Then I suppose the creators of Call of Duty slipped up all the more for not realizing that pasting a topless bikini model on the front of each bit of cover would significantly increase sales amongst their testosterone ridden fanbase. While they're at it, they might as well have included a perk in the game called "God": one that makes you completely immune to gunfire and explosives. After all, the less options the better!

Seriously, who on earth in the Call of Duty community has ever said "I want more unbalanced guns!" If anything I'm constantly hearing plenty of people complain that far too many players use the Famas in Black Ops (or the AK-47 in CoD4). And since when has teabagging became a big part of Call of Duty? I've been playing since CoD4, and not once have I seen a guy teabag me in the killcam.

That's more my experiences in CoD, anyway. And wouldn't that split the fanbase between "balanced" and "unbalanced," considering there's just as many players using the FAMAS? And I was constantly teabagged, anyway.

Interesting. Teabagging was pretty much non-existent to me. Maybe I skipped the killcams far too often. Anyhow, if a single gun is being used way more often over the others, then the guns are far from being "balanced", literally speaking. Yeah all of the players might be on the same field since they're all using the same weapon, but that has more to do with "player balance" than it does "gun balance." A good gun balance is one where you can pick a gun without fear of it being absolutely inferior in the face of another option, not one where a single gun can overshadow the rest due to it being "overpowered".

 

[Still Life]

The point is, if I can take a swing at Battlefield as a lone-wolf and do just as good there as I can in CoD, then I don't see how Battlefield is really all that much more of a deep, or even teamwork based, game. Of course, I really haven't played it for very long either, so naturally I probably haven't experienced everything the game has to offer like others have. I'm going to go out on a limb here though and assume many hard-core Battlefield players who seem to hate on Call of Duty probably haven't experienced Call of Duty the same way I have either.

I'm not one to hate on COD. I've played most of the COD games and they have their own brand of fun. Sometimes it's good to get in and just have a quick frag. Most of the depth in COD comes from character customization, and because of this, it has become a very individualized game. COD does a very good job of making you feel like a total badass.

A true BF game is pretty much designed to be played as a 'team', whereas BF:BC2 is more flexible in that regard (unless you go HC), however it's still best played with a cooperative team. Add in player-controlled vehicles, larger and more dynamic maps, class defined roles and it brings a lot of depth into the core gameplay (which is shooter). Even with objective based modes, COD just doesn't really come close to touching the the strengths of BF. Rarely are you effective if you go solo in BF.

That isn't slight, though. However, it may be that I just get more out of BF than COD

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I prefer MAG. No, really.

But between the two I'm more of a fan of Battlefield, CoD4 was one of my favourite games of all time, genuinely, but the follow ups have been pretty shoddy by comparison, adding little.

I like aspects of CoD. Often the weapons in BF games are a little clunky, however overall Battlefield is far superior in my eyes. The weapons are more balanced, the vehicles can be excellent in the right hands or swiftly destroyed in the wrong hands, the destruction genuinely causes problems for campers and does make the battle shift quite a lot, take the same route too many times on the attack and a good defending side will destroy all the cover there.

Don't get me wrong, CoD isn't terrible, but the amount of love for it is irksome when better games, like Battlefield, are out there.

My biggest beef with Battlefield is the squad issues but they've sorted the mics out now (whereas Blops still has issues with them randomly cutting out for several games) but sometimes the squads don't work with friends and being alone can be difficult, get taken out and it's a long run.

 

[snafu11485]

battlefield 2 was brilliant and is still a better game than any of current COD multiplayer. Why, because you could pick what you want to do. Feel like driving around in a tank/apc/ or fly in a jet/helicopter, go for it. The major imbalance in the game was the seahawk/blackhawk with the miniguns on the USA side while the other guys got another kind of helicopter with slow firing .50 cals. If you had some good guys in a seahawk the round was pretty much over. Most maps were fairly large and when you sniped and got a headshot halfway across the map with a guy on the run it brings a smile to your face.
Yeah you can still lone wolf it, but if you're in a squad it makes a massive difference to games when one team has a couple of squads and the other team is just lone wolfing it.

That said I do play COD:BO, and it is fun for the most part but it is all about having something shoot/explode every 5 seconds or its not a game. As a video reviewer said, it's all about juxtaposition, if the action never slows down then you have nothing to compare it to.
And I find the fun wears out for me around the 1hr mark of playing COD: BO, after that the hail mary grenade/knife throws and camping just wears thin.

Yes I know that stuff happens in BF (spawn camping the uncapturable base is a major pet hate of mine, closely followed by noob tubing) but you have more than one option of how to go about things. Unlike COD where its run, throw grenade and hope you get them first.

I'm actually enjoying Dirt 3 online hardcore mode more than BF or COD combined. Winning a race against some good drivers feels more of an acomplishment than winning any round in an FPS, but each to their own.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

well i never cared for the battlefield games when i played them, however from my small small understanding, battlefront II was somewhat of a "hybrid" off of the battlefield system/stuff?

I may be wrong...if i am even slightly right then i highly prefer battlefield as i love battlefront 1+2

 

[Zing]

Crazy notion here:

Spoiler

I enjoy both

They might be both be modern military FPS's but they are still completely different games. If I feel like playing a smaller scale FPS like special forces without vehicles etc then i'll play COD. If I rather a large scale war simulator with vehicles then i'll play BF.

 

[Evaheist666]

Bad Company 2 was one of the best FPS experiences I've had this generation. It was absolutely perfect to me.