Poll: Call of duty or Battlefield?

[klausaidon]

Ack, I really don't wanna talk to another one of you idiots.

care to make a counter-argument instead of an insult? every CoD for the last 4 years has been a CQC shooter on a small battleground using the same engine, the only difference being setting and the weapons. the engine has not changes, the only updates being performance improvements not mechanic changes.

I really don't want to get into this conversation again, damn it.

But fine, *ahem*
Call of Duty, if you are really keeping up and not just being bias, has actually changed a whole lot more then Battlefield has, as a Franchise. If you've played both, and kept a non-bias opinion or both, you'd see that. There really isn't a huge difference between Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 3. At least if you are holding it to the same standards you hold Call of Duty to. Both has updated graphics, weapons, maps, and has tweaked game play. From what I've seen, MW3 has tweaked the game play a lot more this time. Even more, if you are comparing it to all its latest titles. From the Pointstreaks, to the updated way it handles the Pointstreak rewards, and weapon proficiency. Granted, I'm not saying BF3 is BAD. Its a great game, and EA put a lot of work into it. However it shouldn't even be compared to CoD, since they both contain a different flavor of game play. (CoD being more twitched based, while BF being more strategic.) Now, I'm gonna copy paste this, so I can stop having to retype this every time some idiot brings that retarded idea that CoD hasn't changed at all over the years.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

CoD:MW3 isn't even out yet. Can we at least wait until the game comes out before we have these polls?

I'm not talking about MW3 or battlefield 3, i'm talking about the older games, the franchise in general. Their's plenty to go off already. MW3 is not technically included in this discussion, but we can use the previews if you want.

I really don't want to get into this conversation again, damn it.

But fine, *ahem*
Call of Duty, if you are really keeping up and not just being bias, has actually changed a whole lot more then Battlefield has, as a Franchise. If you've played both, and kept a non-bias opinion or both, you'd see that. There really isn't a huge difference between Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 3. At least if you are holding it to the same standards you hold Call of Duty to. Both has updated graphics, weapons, maps, and has tweaked game play. From what I've seen, MW3 has tweaked the game play a lot more this time. Even more, if you are comparing it to all its latest titles. From the Pointstreaks, to the updated way it handles the Pointstreak rewards, and weapon proficiency. Granted, I'm not saying BF3 is BAD. Its a great game, and EA put a lot of work into it. However it shouldn't even be compared to CoD, since they both contain a different flavor of game play. (CoD being more twitched based, while BF being more strategic.) Now, I'm gonna copy paste this, so I can stop having to retype this every time some idiot brings that retarded idea that CoD hasn't changed at all over the years.

Hey hey hey, calm down. I'm completely unbiased against both games. I enjoy Call of duty games and battlefield. Just explaining where MW3 stands in this, that's all.

 

[klausaidon]

Hey hey hey, calm down. I'm completely unbiased against both games. I enjoy Call of duty games and battlefield. Just explaining where MW3 stands in this, that's all.

Sorry sorry. CoD as of late has gotten a lot of bias hate lately. I was actually replying to someone else(The guy above you right now), but as the end of the rant said, I copied and pasted for everyone who replied against me, with a assumption that you were one of the mindless Battlefield 3 drones that EA had successfully brain washed.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

Hey hey hey, calm down. I'm completely unbiased against both games. I enjoy Call of duty games and battlefield. Just explaining where MW3 stands in this, that's all.

Sorry sorry. CoD as of late has gotten a lot of bias hate lately. I was actually replying to someone else(The guy above you right now), but as the end of the rant said, I copied and pasted for everyone who replied against me, with a assumption that you were one of the mindless Battlefield 3 drones that EA had successfully brain washed.

Not at all. Battlefield 3 is the first BF game I've ever played. It's certainly enjoyable, sure, but none more so then I'd get out of a call of duty game. This is one of the reasons why i don't know where all the hatred comes from. Also, if you'll notice, i'm the person who started this thread, so, i'm completely unbiased as stated in my first comment. No harm done good sir.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

and dinosaurs of course

If you can make a call of duty/battlefield style game with dinosaurs in it and a good story reason for them being there, i will throw money at you till i die. Infact, screw the story, just get the dinosaurs in and we'll talk.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

Which are better, apples or oranges? This question is strangely relevant to the OP's poll.

How so?

 

[Aeonknight]

Which are better, apples or oranges? This question is strangely relevant to the OP's poll.

How so?

Because even though they're both FPS games, they both focus on very different aspects of gameplay.

CoD is a "flick shooter", where fast reflexes are your best weapon. It takes place in small arena-type fields. It can be played in a lone-wolf type manner, and be played very well as such. Everything is fast paced.

Battlefield plays on a much larger scale. Maps are huge, huge enough to warrant things like tanks, choppers, and most recently jets to fly around without feeling "boxed in". There's enough room for actual warfare to go on. But due to that much room, it slows the pace of combat down alot. You can literally spend 8 or 10 minutes walking to the top of a mountain to find the perfect sniper spot, and still not see anyone for another 5 or so. That and the game emphasizes teamwork. It's very hard to actually accomplish anything siginifcant by yourself. Sure you might have a massive K/D ratio... now how many points did you capture in Conquest? Teamwork is what wins matches here.


The 2 games are almost nothing alike, except that they happen to have guns in them. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges, hence my statement. That said, you did include an option C for liking both. And that's what I chose. No one is wrong for liking one over the other, people's opinion are what they are.

 

[klausaidon]

Not at all. Battlefield 3 is the first BF game I've ever played. It's certainly enjoyable, sure, but none more so then I'd get out of a call of duty game. This is one of the reasons why i don't know where all the hatred comes from. Also, if you'll notice, i'm the person who started this thread, so, i'm completely unbiased as stated in my first comment. No harm done good sir.

The hate comes from EA's smear campaign, and nothing else. EA is stirring up controversy, to bring attention to their game. They actually did the exact same thing with Medal of Honor, but are being more arrogant this time. Unfortunately, most people are sheep, and will jump on any bandwagon they are presented with in order to feel relevant, instead of going out and doing the research themselves, and actually comparing the game. A few people have already pointed out here, that its like "Comparing apples and oranges". Those are people who actually compared the games themselves, instead of jumping on the "Hate what is popular" bandwagon.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of BF. Not that its a bad game, but it doesn't give me the rush that CoD does. To slow, and I don't care for flying jets, or any vehicles. I feel faster when I'm on my feet.

Some of my friends have joked that some day I'm gonna put my face through the TV playing CoD. I'm always leaning forward, and when ever I stab someone, I suddenly jump forward a bit, as if I'm feeling lunging at them. I just don't get that immersed in BF.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I enjoy both but I'm tired out on shooters at the moment. I haven't played either of them in quite a while. I'd probably just barely take Battlefield over Call of Duty if I had to choose.

 

[zombiesinc]

I like 'em both, but for different reasons.

The CoD series is best played when I'm in the mood to solo everything and completely ignore the rest of my team or what they may be doing. I like the series enough to play it on a semi-regular basis, for short periods at a time. Hell, I almost enjoy the campaign as much as the multiplayer. I think that says a lot about both aspects.

Now, my preferred of the two is the Battlefield series. Unlike the CoD series, I enjoy the multiplayer much more than the single-player. I play it when I want longer matches, more enjoyment, and more team-oriented gameplay. I have yet to play BF3's single-player campaign, but I have no doubts it'll be a step up from BFBC2. I've had a little free time to try the co-op, which has been great so far, although I kinda wish there were more missions available. As for the multiplayer, I'm lovin' it. 'Nuff said, amirite?

 

[PonceyMcTosserFaic]

well to me.....


COD:SUPER FLASHY MICHAEL BAY EXPLODEYNESS!!! (it's fun but not as realistic)


BATTLEFIELD:more realism than cod but it's still flashy in some areas. AND IT'S GOT TANKS AND

HELICOPTERS AND JETS AND COOL SHIT LIKE THAT.

GET EM BOTH JUST TO BE SURE XD.

Lol'd. Best answer ever. I voted Battlefield because I prefer a higher level of realism than CoD, where everything feels as if it were produced by Nerf.

i know, right? for me i only feel the impact of bullets when IM getting hit. Just for shits and giggles the next COD should actually use Nerf guns and darts. It be like *brownbrowngraybrowngraybrowngraygrayORANGEBLUEYELLOWgraybrownblack* lolz.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

Spoiler: Original Post.

I prefer Battlefield. Enough that I'm spending $600 on a new graphics card to play it on high.

Whuh...?

I just spent £170 to play it on Ultra![footnote]with the AA turned down, admittedly[/footnote] What card did you get?

GeForce GTX 580. http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-580-us.html

I figured I may as well get something top of the line so I don't have to replace it again for a while. I currently can't play games on ultra so it didn't even cross my mind, but with the new card I probably can / will.

 

[XDravond]

"The world needs more lovin you know...."
So therefore:
I enjoy both but prefer Battlefield.

 

[Tharwen]

Spoiler: Original Post.

I prefer Battlefield. Enough that I'm spending $600 on a new graphics card to play it on high.

Whuh...?

I just spent £170 to play it on Ultra![footnote]with the AA turned down, admittedly[/footnote] What card did you get?

GeForce GTX 580. http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-580-us.html

I figured I may as well get something top of the line so I don't have to replace it again for a while. I currently can't play games on ultra so it didn't even cross my mind, but with the new card I probably can / will.

Yep, mine's a GTX 560 Ti so you should be able to. Mine is overclocked though.