Poll: Battlefield fanboys vs Call of Duty fanboys

[klasbo]

Snip

>BC2 is not like Battlefield.

Team-only gameplay, Vehicles, large-maps, Conquest modes, squads.

Your right, nothing like the other games.

BC2 is definitely a Battlefield game, but it's an experiment. They added destructible environments, tried a new engine, concentrated on console development, added a lot more customization.

All of this will carry over to BF3.

Battlefield 3 will be the product of this experiment, it won't quite be a sequel, but it will integrate many features and re-use a lot of older ones.

I take it that lines 1 through 3 are being sarcastic. So in no particular order:

Rush mode has no incentive for attacking (defending is easier because of the linear maps & shooting while moving up is harder than while camping) -> no incentive for teamwork
No squad leader and squad sizes of only 4 -> much less teamwork.
Destructible environments aren't truly destructible, it's just an object-replace animation.
Animation delay, weapons too accurate (for the consolers), small maps, snipers call in artillery, no team communication (just the contextual Q key that never does what you want it to), slow movement speed, vehicle addons/upgrades, mouse acceleration, narrow FOV...
The skill ceiling in BC2 is much lower than in any previous DICE battlefield-branded game (not including Heroes) for PC.

BC2 is just as much Battlefield as Section 8 is Battlefield. They play completely differently. You can't just look at a vague feature list, you have to understand how each individual feature works in terms of gameplay and meta-game. I could compare C&C3 with Starcraft 2 and say they are "the same" (3 factions, build a base, attack, expand, superior economy wins games, soft counter system, ladder ranks, etc), but that would just be an argument from ignorance: The games play completely differently even though they have a lot of the same features.

There's a reason Bad Company 2 esports lasted only 3 weeks, while BF2 esports is still going...

 

[DarkRyter]

They're not similar enough to be compared.

One's a military shooter, and the other one' s a military shooter.

 

[Ivan Torres]

Snip

>BC2 is not like Battlefield.

Team-only gameplay, Vehicles, large-maps, Conquest modes, squads.

Your right, nothing like the other games.

BC2 is definitely a Battlefield game, but it's an experiment. They added destructible environments, tried a new engine, concentrated on console development, added a lot more customization.

All of this will carry over to BF3.

Battlefield 3 will be the product of this experiment, it won't quite be a sequel, but it will integrate many features and re-use a lot of older ones.

I take it that lines 1 through 3 are being sarcastic. So in no particular order:

Rush mode has no incentive for attacking (defending is easier because of the linear maps & shooting while moving up is harder than while camping) -> no incentive for teamwork
No squad leader and squad sizes of only 4 -> much less teamwork.
Destructible environments aren't truly destructible, it's just an object-replace animation.
Animation delay, weapons too accurate (for the consolers), small maps, snipers call in artillery, no team communication (just the contextual Q key that never does what you want it to), slow movement speed, vehicle addons/upgrades, mouse acceleration, narrow FOV...
The skill ceiling in BC2 is much lower than in any previous DICE battlefield-branded game (not including Heroes) for PC.

BC2 is just as much Battlefield as Section 8 is Battlefield. They play completely differently. You can't just look at a vague feature list, you have to understand how each individual feature works in terms of gameplay and meta-game. I could compare C&C3 with Starcraft 2 and say they are "the same" (3 factions, build a base, attack, expand, superior economy wins games, soft counter system, ladder ranks, etc), but that would just be an argument from ignorance: The games play completely differently even though they have a lot of the same features.

There's a reason Bad Company 2 esports lasted only 3 weeks, while BF2 esports is still going...

Squads still encourage teamwork in themselves.

Rush encourages attacking because, you know, THATS THE OBJECTIVE TO WIN THE GAME.

Doesn't matter if destructible environments aren't TRULY destructible, being able to remove cover from the game is still a pretty big feature, in case you didn't notice.

BTW, I guess BF3 isn't a true sequel just because it only has 4-man squads.

I'm not saying that BC2 is better than BF2, I actually think the opposite, but saying that BC2 isn't a true Battlefield game is like saying that Mario 64 isn't a true Mario game.

Both games have a few different features, but are still the same basic format, a team-oriented medium-to-large scale combat FPS game w/vehicles. Everything else, such as the lack of a commo rose or supposedly slow-animation, is just a small feature/complaint.

I've played both games, both games feel very similar.

As for the skill ceiling, I think that's more opinion-based so you can keep that one.

P.S. I do consider Starcraft 2 and C&C 3 to be almost the same, but they are in DIFFERENT series and SC2 has a unique matchmaking system.

 

[OneStepAhead]

I prefer RTS mostly, little of this little of that, but i do enjoy some CoD...every once in a while. Only problem is, I spend most my time playing laughing at how poorly the game is made to take it seriously. :/

 

[Awexsome]

I've had far more fun in the CoD series than I did in the Battlefield BC2 borefests online. And then when you talk about single player the CoD games have had even longer campaign than Battlefield and of higher quality.

But we're here to talk about multiplayer and the high speed action of CoD is more fun for the majority of people than battlefield. For that game online you do more traveling than fighting. Perhaps on the PC with the 64 player matches it's more fun but if it's shit on the console I'll go around the forums telling people that BF is inferior to CoD. Which I think it is.

BF has better balance but it's not nearly as fun.

But in the long run I consider both inferior to the Halo series anyway so meh.

 

[jjjonesy27]

i pick Killzone. ya, Killzone sounds good.

FOR HELGHAN!

 

[Aeonknight]

Why does it really matter.... because they're in the same genre?

CoD appeals to some tastes, while BF appeals to others. They're literally Apples and Oranges.

As for fanbases, both are huge and full of retards, as well as good civilized players. Who you happen to meet throughout your playing of either game is a roll of the dice.

Example: Most of you probably hate CoD because of screaming 12 yr old pricks. Well, I've yet to be teabagged on CoD, if someone screams you can mute pretty quick (nonissue), and them being retarded usually doesn't doom your team for the match (assuming you're good enough to carry their dead weight.)

Bad company 2? I've had "friendly" choppers crush me in the anti air (which counts as a suicide. No negative penalty for him!), tanks run me over in the anti air (suicide again), more teabagging than the Halo playerbase, Tracer Darts to the face, "friendly" anti air shooting you in the chopper to knock you off balance, other pilots RPG'ing the chopper if you're ahead of them when running for it, base raping/spawn camping is common. And when people act the fool and destroy something vital (like choppers or armor) then the enemy team now has permission to steamroll you with little to no way to fight back.

Oh yes... Bad company 2 is SO much more mature. And you know what? I still play both games. Whatever tickles my fancy at the moment.

 

[klasbo]

- Major snippage -

Squads still encourage teamwork in themselves.

Rush encourages attacking because, you know, THATS THE OBJECTIVE TO WIN THE GAME.

Doesn't matter if destructible environments aren't TRULY destructible, being able to remove cover from the game is still a pretty big feature, in case you didn't notice.

BTW, I guess BF3 isn't a true sequel just because it only has 4-man squads.

I'm not saying that BC2 is better than BF2, I actually think the opposite, but saying that BC2 isn't a true Battlefield game is like saying that Mario 64 isn't a true Mario game.

Both games have a few different features, but are still the same basic format, a team-oriented medium-to-large scale combat FPS game w/vehicles. Everything else, such as the lack of a commo rose or supposedly slow-animation, is just a small feature/complaint.

I've played both games, both games feel very similar.

As for the skill ceiling, I think that's more opinion-based so you can keep that one.

P.S. I do consider Starcraft 2 and C&C 3 to be almost the same, but they are in DIFFERENT series and SC2 has a unique matchmaking system.

"A team-oriented medium-to-large scale combat FPS game w/vehicles."
If that's all it takes for you to group two games together, I think we'll just have to disagree on Bad Company's Battlefield-ness.

My main points are still:
1) BC2 is a sequel to BC1, which was a spinoff of the battlefield series (just like Heroes was a spinoff), and that the DICE folks have said that it is not in any way related to the "core" BF games.

2) BF2 had a big step up from 1942 when it comes to features: The commander and squad system (and with it the commo rose(s)). So of course features are added, but in BC2 a whole lot were removed.

-> 3) If you've only played BC2, you have no right to call yourself a Battlefield fan and have any expectations about BF3 when it comes to the BF3/MW3 debate, because you have no idea how the gameplay in the "core" BF games works because the features are completely different and they play out differently. BF2 is 60% respawns, 25% squad leader management, 10% movement & rushing, and 5% other skills. BC2 was 50% position, 30% Revive-train, 20% spray, and 10% respawns. Yeah, they totally play the same...

Yes, I KNOW that BF3 will be a bad sequel to BF2. It plays like Bad Company Two and a Half. The Bad Company players will definitely be happy, and the people who skipped BC2 because they didn't like it are going to be disappointed. DICE isn't making a qorthy sequel to BF2, but at least give them a chance to fuck up on the terms of BF2, and not succeed on the terms of BC2.

I think we've boiled it down to a matter of definitions now. I'm also in a super minority here, because I'm in all likelihood the only Battlefield esports player that is in any way active on these forums. It gives me a very different perspective, and that's just the way it's going to have to be.

gg no re

 

[Zipa]

Both call of duty and battlefield fanboys are equally annoying when they want to be. Just play the game or games (yes you can play and like more than one its not illegal) and have fun.

 

[Reaper195]

I will get BF3, CoD:MW3, and ARMA 3. I will play them, enjoy them, then point and laugh at the haters and fanboys alike.

This guy. This fuckin' guy. He knows what it's done.


Personally, I'm getting none. Played a military shooter, you've played them all. I'm waiting only on Dues Ex and Prey 2. And maybe ME3, if it doesn't look too dumbed down after it's already out.

 

[Juk3n]

Theres a two week wait between each release, and im off work for a week starting the day BF3 comes out to help addiction set-in, it has 2 weeks to get me hooked like CoD does and keep me playing , like CoD does. MW3 then get released and i'll do my customary midnight pickup and blast straite through SP that night, the test comes at 6am, when the SP playthrough is done, will i have the urge to go to MP there, or back to BF3?

I have a feeling it'll be CoD winning me over, nothing more frustrating then getting a squad of dicks and getting the arse pounded out of you for 20 minutes [switch sides] and get pounded again for another 20[because you gotta play each map twice before the game switches your teams].

Atleast in Cod (HCTDM) if our team is getting our shit pushed in, i can step my game up and pull out a win all by myself, AND get the feeling of being the muddyfunsting hero aswell.

They both have there pros and cons.

 

[Ivan Torres]

- Major snippage -

Squads still encourage teamwork in themselves.

Rush encourages attacking because, you know, THATS THE OBJECTIVE TO WIN THE GAME.

Doesn't matter if destructible environments aren't TRULY destructible, being able to remove cover from the game is still a pretty big feature, in case you didn't notice.

BTW, I guess BF3 isn't a true sequel just because it only has 4-man squads.

I'm not saying that BC2 is better than BF2, I actually think the opposite, but saying that BC2 isn't a true Battlefield game is like saying that Mario 64 isn't a true Mario game.

Both games have a few different features, but are still the same basic format, a team-oriented medium-to-large scale combat FPS game w/vehicles. Everything else, such as the lack of a commo rose or supposedly slow-animation, is just a small feature/complaint.

I've played both games, both games feel very similar.

As for the skill ceiling, I think that's more opinion-based so you can keep that one.

P.S. I do consider Starcraft 2 and C&C 3 to be almost the same, but they are in DIFFERENT series and SC2 has a unique matchmaking system.

"A team-oriented medium-to-large scale combat FPS game w/vehicles."
If that's all it takes for you to group two games together, I think we'll just have to disagree on Bad Company's Battlefield-ness.

My main points are still:
1) BC2 is a sequel to BC1, which was a spinoff of the battlefield series (just like Heroes was a spinoff), and that the DICE folks have said that it is not in any way related to the "core" BF games.

2) BF2 had a big step up from 1942 when it comes to features: The commander and squad system (and with it the commo rose(s)). So of course features are added, but in BC2 a whole lot were removed.

-> 3) If you've only played BC2, you have no right to call yourself a Battlefield fan and have any expectations about BF3 when it comes to the BF3/MW3 debate, because you have no idea how the gameplay in the "core" BF games works because the features are completely different and they play out differently. BF2 is 60% respawns, 25% squad leader management, 10% movement & rushing, and 5% other skills. BC2 was 50% position, 30% Revive-train, 20% spray, and 10% respawns. Yeah, they totally play the same...

Yes, I KNOW that BF3 will be a bad sequel to BF2. It plays like Bad Company Two and a Half. The Bad Company players will definitely be happy, and the people who skipped BC2 because they didn't like it are going to be disappointed. DICE isn't making a qorthy sequel to BF2, but at least give them a chance to fuck up on the terms of BF2, and not succeed on the terms of BC2.

I think we've boiled it down to a matter of definitions now. I'm also in a super minority here, because I'm in all likelihood the only Battlefield esports player that is in any way active on these forums. It gives me a very different perspective, and that's just the way it's going to have to be.

gg no re

I'm still gonna reply for the sake of others who may or may not care about our debate.

1. I never said it was part of the main series, but it is still a Battlefield game in almost every sense of the word.

2. I already said that BC2 was an experiment so you're not really helping yourself there.

3. I have played both and I disagree.

I keep hearing that BF3 is definitely a true sequel to BF2 and way less like BC2, which is the exact opposite of what you said, and I hope that's true. I honestly think BF2 was the better of the two games, but BC2 added things that do improve gameplay, like destruction and advanced customization.

 

[baconbaby299]

I enjoy a thoughtful FPS, not just centring screen on thing you want dead. I enjoy a good story and aesthetic eg. Portal, Bioshock, Half-Life, Metro 2033, Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2. Ok, anything by valve.

 

[wooty]

I couldnt care less, I'll play whatevers good or interests me.

What I am is a fan of games, not rabid hate and tribalism.

 

[Savber]

Oh fanboys...

They suck whether they like The Witcher 2, Call of Duty, or Mass Effect 2.

I'm a gamer. I play them all.