Battlefield 3 vs COD - Armor Games Community

31	5959

offline

pickpocket

5,952 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 24, '11 1:18am UTC

CoD is my vote. Simply cauz I never played BF. From wat I here, I still like CoD

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 24, '11 8:32pm UTC

well...

you see, a greater amount of detail goes into the battlefield engine, and the attention to detail is what i like best about DICE. having talked with fourzerotwo myself, i came to realize that MW3- and MW2 is all about the explosions and bells and whistles. it lacks substance. BF3 is not only about a unit performing well together, it's about the entire team and everyone doing their job. of course it may get a little boring with waiting for action to happen but it pays off when you win.

what im trying to say is, sure if you are bought into cheap parlor tricks, have ADD and want to just run and gun for the hell of it, yes choose MW3 and have lots of fun raging at hackers/12 year olds/and rude people, yes it is a great choice.

however if you enjoy strategy mixed into combat, where skill is more of a factor in 100% destructible environments, then choose BF3

to put it simply:
a MW3 player says: oh **** he went behind a wall
a BF3 player says: what wall

well... [img]http://i.imgur.com/Fsynf.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\nyou see, a greater amount of detail goes into the battlefield engine, and the attention to detail is what i like best about DICE. having talked with fourzerotwo myself, i came to realize that MW3- and MW2 is all about the explosions and bells and whistles. it lacks substance. BF3 is not only about a unit performing well together, it's about the entire team and everyone doing their job. of course it may get a little boring with waiting for action to happen but it pays off when you win.\r\n\r\nwhat im trying to say is, sure if you are bought into cheap parlor tricks, have ADD and want to just run and gun for the hell of it, yes choose MW3 and have lots of fun raging at hackers/12 year olds/and rude people, yes it is a great choice.\r\n\r\nhowever if you enjoy strategy mixed into combat, where skill is more of a factor in 100% destructible environments, then choose BF3\r\n\r\nto put it simply:\r\na MW3 player says: oh **** he went behind a wall\r\na BF3 player says: what wall

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 24, '11 8:35pm UTC

if anything, jroyster22 buy BC2 for only 19 dollars now and try playing a really good game for once. I for one have played bad company 2 and MW2/blops/cod4/cod2.
and i have to say MW2 was initially very good, however the developers didnt give a sh** anymore when they realized they could wipe their butts with 100 dollar bills and didnt have to fix an exploited and very broken system such as OMA noob tubes.

BC2 on the other hand has no such broken dreams.

offline

Gstroy

482 posts

Nomad

Posted June 25, '11 12:48am UTC

@DDX You act as if that's the final product. Its obvious that the mag is flat on the top because it was early in development and they hadn't gotten there yet. As for the whole "what wall" deal... here's a COD player, "Someone's shooting at be, I better find cover," and here's a BF player, "Someone's shooting at me I be- oh yeah, I blew up all the cover, and now I'm dead..." So yeah, your argument is invalid.

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 25, '11 5:00am UTC

LOL WHY ARE YOU SO MAD.
and yea well if youre going to show something at E3, it might as well be a finished product.

i suggest you simmer down, maybe even take a cool shower. a nice long ice bath, then maybe go play bad company 2.

When i am telling jroyster22 this, it is because he didn't play any bad company 2. he was like me, a die hard cod fan. i could've easily made the argument for cod MW3 albeit it would a weak one.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted June 25, '11 11:42am UTC

As for the whole "what wall" deal... here's a COD player, "Someone's shooting at be, I better find cover," and here's a BF player, "Someone's shooting at me I be- oh yeah, I blew up all the cover, and now I'm dead..." So yeah, your argument is invalid.

Here's a few positive points for good players:
1) It doesn't hinder you from killing people.
2) It prevents "campers".
3) It makes you require awareness of your surroundings, or a heightened sense of improvision.

As for the whole "what wall" deal... here's a COD player, "Someone's shooting at be, I better find cover,"

Here's what I think the majority of times I am being shot at - this takes me half a second to think about:
"The guys probably worse -- Jump -- Turn around -- Aim and shoot -- live, usually"
And that's on an unbalanced game, generally this can work on other games like Crysis 2, because it requires more skill, the iota of skill some CoD fans have isn't enough to actually beat me when they had the advantage in a game that's isn't necessarily fair. Granted, not all FPS' are, but the aspects of fairness that SHOULD be there, CoD does not have. Battlefield certainly does by its points balancing and usefulness of snipers to assaults and Crysis 2 isn't the best quite frankly -- it is a little noob-friendly given the invisibility etc but people will eventually adjust.

Also, I think a bottomline between CoD vs Battlefield. Details Battlefield nearly always gets right -- with the Frostbite 2 engine I have little doubt that they will make the most detailed game ever -- moreso than Crysis 2. Graphics does not equate to detail, things like shrapnel, devastation, reactions and audio I think Battlefield takes very well... CoD has exceptionally bland gun shots, you can't really feel them (especially in comparison to Battlefield by the way) but you don't need to when you're focused so much on survival... At least that's the idea I get when I hear CoD... I think it should be a fast-paced shooter in small maps that bare difficulty to survive in, not a problem with that, it's the praise and problems CoD has which it really shouldn't.

- H

[quote]As for the whole "what wall" deal... here's a COD player, "Someone's shooting at be, I better find cover," and here's a BF player, "Someone's shooting at me I be- oh yeah, I blew up all the cover, and now I'm dead..." So yeah, your argument is invalid.[/quote]\r\nHere's a few positive points for good players:\r\n1) It doesn't hinder you from killing people.\r\n2) It prevents "campers".\r\n3) It makes you require awareness of your surroundings, or a heightened sense of improvision.\r\n\r\n[quote]As for the whole "what wall" deal... here's a COD player, "Someone's shooting at be, I better find cover,"[/quote]\r\nHere's what I think the majority of times I am being shot at - this takes me half a second to think about:\r\n"The guys probably worse -- Jump -- Turn around -- Aim and shoot -- live, usually"\r\nAnd that's on an unbalanced game, generally this can work on other games like Crysis 2, because it requires more skill, the iota of skill some CoD fans have isn't enough to actually beat me when they had the advantage in a game that's isn't necessarily fair. Granted, not all FPS' are, but the aspects of fairness that SHOULD be there, CoD does not have. Battlefield certainly does by its points balancing and usefulness of snipers to assaults and Crysis 2 isn't the best quite frankly -- it is a little noob-friendly given the invisibility etc but people will eventually adjust.\r\n\r\nAlso, I think a bottomline between CoD vs Battlefield. Details Battlefield nearly always gets right -- with the Frostbite 2 engine I have little doubt that they will make the most detailed game ever -- moreso than Crysis 2. Graphics does not equate to detail, things like shrapnel, devastation, reactions and audio I think Battlefield takes very well... CoD has exceptionally bland gun shots, you can't really feel them (especially in comparison to Battlefield by the way) but you don't need to when you're focused so much on survival... At least that's the idea I get when I hear CoD... I think it should be a fast-paced shooter in small maps that bare difficulty to survive in, not a problem with that, it's the praise and problems CoD has which it really shouldn't.\r\n\r\n - H

offline

Gstroy

482 posts

Nomad

Posted June 25, '11 10:27pm UTC

I'm not saying BF is bad, all I'm saying is that, in mt opinion, being able to destroy every building is a bit much, it'd be better if certain objects were destructible. One of the main reasons I like COD is because someone can take cover, but you can still shoot them through it. Its not like sheet metal will stop bullets, nor can you just take out an entire wall so there's no cover. Both games are different and cater to different types of players, I personally fall on the less realistic and more like a videogame side.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted June 26, '11 1:37am UTC

I'm not saying BF is bad,

I-- I didn't say you did... :P

being able to destroy every building is a bit much, it'd be better if certain objects were destructible.

The wreckage makes cover, firstly, and secondly the terrain is partially indestructible - even craters provide excellent cover.

but you can still shoot them through it. Its not like sheet metal will stop bullets, nor can you just take out an entire wall so there's no cover.

I generally like to think of high level play -- because that's where true skill and gameplay comes into effect. I'm thinking a team on Battlefield would be composed of a sniper, possibly, 2 Medics, an Engineer and the rest (I don't know how many) as Assaults. The Sniper would pick off stragglers or enemies not in the best cover who are in a firefight, a medic will sustain the force and the other will lay down suppressive fire, the Engineer will destroy the terrain and repair if included in professional games (which I don't know of any pro play in BC2, correct me if I am wrong), an Assault would be your general-all rounder, doing most of the dirty work with the ability to take out a single piece of cover in the duration of a fight, as well as giving ammunition to the sniper / medic. The other will have the option of creating cover with smoke grenades. Following this format you can see how each of them come into effect, where as in CoD, snipers are mainly good for picking off early game enemies, the weapons mostly stand for the same in each map (with exception to the Shotgun), and the equipment etc will make it complex but also rediculously stupid in some ways -- yay, camera spike in a professional game, next round they take it out.

It'll be a constant learning curve which doesn't relate to skill as much as memory -- Battlefield can have transitions, depth of strategy and improv to sustain itself.

Hypothetical situation but I really have to say the options are much wider for Bad Company 2. Battlefield 3? No idea.

Also, that's one of the reasons its quite bad to talk about balance in CoD - there really aren't any professional players in CoD6 and CoD7, it's difficult to get a proper say when you haven't looked at all the angles. Granted, I myself can't be bothered finding out ways to defeat campers and grenade launchers etc but when it comes to the point where a fast paced shooter develops into this situational reaction game... it defeats the purpose. The main reason I feel my "whining" is justified compared to that of the average vocal CoD player in the community is because mine is a valid reason - there's is that they got killed by a weapon in half a second and thus Chuck Norris decrees it is unbalanced.

A Grenade Launcher kills you - herpa derp, find a way to counter it, there is almost certainly a way, you just need to look.
Yes, for me it defeats the purpose, but I don't play CoD, now do I ?

I personally fall on the less realistic and more like a videogame side.

Define videogame in that statement, please.

- H

[quote]I'm not saying BF is bad,[/quote]\r\nI-- I didn't say you did... :P\r\n\r\n[quote]being able to destroy every building is a bit much, it'd be better if certain objects were destructible.[/quote]\r\nThe wreckage makes cover, firstly, and secondly the terrain is partially indestructible - even craters provide excellent cover.\r\n\r\n[quote]but you can still shoot them through it. Its not like sheet metal will stop bullets, nor can you just take out an entire wall so there's no cover.[/quote]\r\nI generally like to think of high level play -- because that's where true skill and gameplay comes into effect. I'm thinking a team on Battlefield would be composed of a sniper, possibly, 2 Medics, an Engineer and the rest (I don't know how many) as Assaults. The Sniper would pick off stragglers or enemies not in the best cover who are in a firefight, a medic will sustain the force and the other will lay down suppressive fire, the Engineer will destroy the terrain and repair if included in professional games (which I don't know of any pro play in BC2, correct me if I am wrong), an Assault would be your general-all rounder, doing most of the dirty work with the ability to take out a single piece of cover in the duration of a fight, as well as giving ammunition to the sniper / medic. The other will have the option of creating cover with smoke grenades. Following this format you can see how each of them come into effect, where as in CoD, snipers are mainly good for picking off early game enemies, the weapons mostly stand for the same in each map (with exception to the Shotgun), and the equipment etc will make it complex but also rediculously stupid in some ways -- yay, camera spike in a professional game, next round they take it out.\r\n\r\nIt'll be a constant learning curve which doesn't relate to skill as much as memory -- Battlefield can have transitions, depth of strategy and improv to sustain itself.\r\n\r\nHypothetical situation but I really have to say the options are much wider for Bad Company 2. Battlefield 3? No idea.\r\n\r\nAlso, that's one of the reasons its quite bad to talk about balance in CoD - there really aren't any professional players in CoD6 and CoD7, it's difficult to get a proper say when you haven't looked at all the angles. Granted, I myself can't be bothered finding out ways to defeat campers and grenade launchers etc but when it comes to the point where a fast paced shooter develops into this situational reaction game... it defeats the purpose. The main reason I feel my "whining" is justified compared to that of the average vocal CoD player in the community is because mine is a valid reason - there's is that they got killed by a weapon in half a second and thus Chuck Norris decrees it is unbalanced.\r\n\r\nA Grenade Launcher kills you - herpa derp, find a way to counter it, there is almost certainly a way, you just need to look.\r\nYes, for me it defeats the purpose, but I don't play CoD, now do I ? :D\r\n\r\n[quote]I personally fall on the less realistic and more like a videogame side.[/quote]\r\nDefine videogame in that statement, please. :D\r\n\r\n - H

offline

dragonblade

14 posts

Nomad

Posted July 1, '11 9:06pm UTC

I would say go for Battlefield 3. When looking back on the Battlefield games, I've found that they're the only shooter that does not look like COD. Every company out there is trying to make their own version of COD. Whether it be Homefront or Medal of Honor or any other of those types of games. Everyone is trying to make their own cheap knock-offs of the COD series. and the proof is in comparing the screenshots if you'd like to find out for yourself. But when I compared Battlefield to COD, I saw a game that's a brand of it's own. I don't know about you, but I'm quite tired of COD rip offs and COD itself for what it's done to the shooter genre. I don't deny that it's a great game, I've played every one up to the most recent. And I find the story and multiplayer very engaging. But this fact alone could make COD the single-handed destroyer of the shooter genre. Battlefield 3 looks like a breathe of fresh air to me. And this coming from someone who has played both series equally

offline

Turtelman1234

2,911 posts

Nomad

Posted July 2, '11 4:12am UTC

For online: Battlefield, without a doubt. For campaign: no idea, I haven't played the campaign for any Battlefield or CoD game. But I did play the online demo for the last Battlefield game to be released. And I was amazed by the teamwork the players had. Everytime I've played CoD online, nobody worked together. I've played CoD online a lot too. It's also full of trolls and fanboys. On Battlefield, I never ran into one troll or anyone who says "ZOMG, THIS IZ THE BESTEST GAM EVUR LAWLS!" The Battlefield community is a lot more laid back.

offline

Gstroy

482 posts

Nomad

Posted July 2, '11 8:50am UTC

I've played CoD online a lot too. It's also full of trolls and fanboys. On Battlefield, I never ran into one troll or anyone who says "ZOMG, THIS IZ THE BESTEST GAM EVUR LAWLS!" The Battlefield community is a lot more laid back.

On every single MW3 video out there there's about a million comments of BF fanboys saying all sorts of made of crap... Haven't seen a single COD fanboy post bull on a BF# video.

offline

Gstroy

482 posts

Nomad

Posted July 2, '11 8:59am UTC

and the equipment etc will make it complex but also rediculously stupid in some ways -- yay, camera spike in a professional game, next round they take it out.

Equipment is taken out of Professional games.

A Grenade Launcher kills you - herpa derp, find a way to counter it, there is almost certainly a way, you just need to look.
Yes, for me it defeats the purpose, but I don't play CoD, now do I ?

My problem was Search and Destroy in MW2 when you would take two steps and have grenades rained down from above...

Define videogame in that statement, please.

A videogame is exactly what it sounds like... a visual representation of a game. Are Monopoly or Risk supposed to be realistic? No, that's the fun of them. The same thing happened with cartoons when they began to gain popularity. People would try to make them as realistic as possible and eventually people realized you could use it as a medium to express imagination that couldn't be expressed in the real world. Videogames are meant to be an unrealistic experience, beyond the limitations of the real world.

PS: I was only going to right a sentence or two... got carried away... =]

[quote]and the equipment etc will make it complex but also rediculously stupid in some ways -- yay, camera spike in a professional game, next round they take it out.[/quote] Equipment is taken out of Professional games.\r\n\r\n[quote]A Grenade Launcher kills you - herpa derp, find a way to counter it, there is almost certainly a way, you just need to look.\r\nYes, for me it defeats the purpose, but I don't play CoD, now do I ? :D[/quote]\r\nMy problem was Search and Destroy in MW2 when you would take two steps and have grenades rained down from above...\r\n[quote]Define videogame in that statement, please. :D[/quote] A videogame is exactly what it sounds like... a visual representation of a game. Are Monopoly or Risk supposed to be realistic? No, that's the fun of them. The same thing happened with cartoons when they began to gain popularity. People would try to make them as realistic as possible and eventually people realized you could use it as a medium to express imagination that couldn't be expressed in the real world. Videogames are meant to be an unrealistic experience, beyond the limitations of the real world.\r\n\r\nPS: I was only going to right a sentence or two... got carried away... =]

offline

Elitemagical

1,207 posts

Nomad

Posted July 2, '11 10:39am UTC

Battlefield never caught me and kept me playing (because it doesn't cater to my taste) but from a completely unbiased and critical standpoint, Battlefield is the better series.

Call of Duty can be fun, but I have a feeling that Modern Warfare 3 is going to be the same as every other one of its predecessors*, and so you might as well keep your money and enjoy COD on one of the older instalments.

[i]* Based on the fact that in the last 5 seconds of the reveal trailer, it shows a mission when you're racing down a river on boats (Modern Warfare 2 'Endgame', where you're piloting an AC130 (COD 4 and MW2), where you're shooting from the side of a helicopter (COD 4 and MW2), one where you're underwater (diving in the exact same skins that you were in when you fought on that oil rig in MW2)... And also on the fact that COD multiplayer has not changed since 4.

On every single MW3 video out there there's about a million comments of BF fanboys saying all sorts of made of crap... Haven't seen a single COD fanboy post bull on a BF# video.

Heh. When I think about it, I'd actually have to agree with this.

[quote]I personally fall on the less realistic and more like a videogame side.

Define videogame in that statement, please. [/quote]

Something that's 'less realistic', obviously. -_-

Battlefield never caught me and kept me playing (because it doesn't cater to my taste) but from a completely unbiased and critical standpoint, Battlefield is the better series.  \r\n\r\nCall of Duty can be fun, but I have a feeling that Modern Warfare 3 is going to be the same as every other one of its predecessors*, and so  you might as well keep your money and enjoy COD on one of the older instalments.  \r\n\r\n[i]* Based on the fact that in the last 5 seconds of the reveal trailer, it shows a mission when you're racing down a river on boats (Modern Warfare 2 'Endgame'), where you're piloting an AC130 (COD 4 and MW2), where you're shooting from the side of a helicopter (COD 4 and MW2), one where you're underwater (diving in the exact same skins that you were in when you fought on that oil rig in MW2)...  And also on the fact that COD multiplayer has not changed since 4.\r\n\r\n[quote]On every single MW3 video out there there's about a million comments of BF fanboys saying all sorts of made of crap... Haven't seen a single COD fanboy post bull on a BF# video.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHeh.  When I think about it, I'd actually have to agree with this.  \r\n\r\n[quote][quote]I personally fall on the less realistic and more like a videogame side.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDefine videogame in that statement, please. :D[/quote]\r\n\r\nSomething that's 'less realistic', obviously.  -_-

offline

Deathdealer14

101 posts

Nomad

Posted July 3, '11 12:25am UTC

Dont want to take you job admins and all other people who work here at armorgames, (bless you for keeping everything awesome) but it should probably say BattleField Series vs. Cod Series, or instead of Cod Series, just Cod MW Series. Sorry about getting carried away, and anyways, I must say Cod ALL THE WAY!!!! I have never played BattleField, so I am keeping that in the maybe a good game section, and since I am a Cod person I will no matter what keep Cod in high standards.

offline

PwNdOnMaRsyud

38 posts

Nomad

Posted July 3, '11 1:56am UTC

I prefer CoD, but Battlefield is pretty good. Most people will be getting CoD, so, if your good (like me), and you want to face noobish player, get CoD. But, if you want to play something a little different, get Battlefield. Or, as you first stated, get both (like me).

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → Games → Battlefield 3 vs COD