Hey, I'm just going to kick some people in the digital balls out of spite. One moment please.
joe314159 (26535897932384626433832795028841971)
v1ct0rym0n5t3r
ticktatwert
johnnyboy3636
KaneShadow
dragonico
Can you all please show some sort of reason for your choosings? I mean really, "Battlefield 3, that's all I have to say"?
WTF?!
MAD BRO, THIS BETRAYS THE LAW OF AG.
Na, that's just me, but still - no point saying your point if you can't back it up bros.
So thanks to both ZeeWolf and Doombreed for that, but even so, I need to hurt you too :<
If you want realism and graphics choose Battlefield
Battlefield is more authentic, nowhere near realistic. If you want a good comparison for realism then I would vote for ARMA 2 and even some older games familiar to that are more familiar.
If you prefer action and intensity as well as a much more player friendly environment choose CoD.
The community is far from player-friendly, especially newbie-friendly.
I'm not going to say otherwise for Battlefield, though from experience of both (for sufficient amounts of time), Battlefield wins in terms of player friendliness.
Then you need to consider that any semi-intelligent person can pick up the basics anyway. You REALLY exaggerated on how hard it is to take a kill on Battlefield -- the same as any other shooter, point and shoot.
Of course you need to take into account bullet fall and travel time -- which can easily be observed and taken in if you're not stupid. Then you have to consider your gadgets and etc, which I would say is not used by the average Battlefield player (because they're too tunnel-visioned, bloodthirsty or dumb to do use them). It is too easy to look at what you have and learn how to use them. That stands for Call of Duty as well.
Action and intensity? Playing hardline with Battlefield is astonishing, if you've seen it. Being chased by a tank numbs your legs as blood and adrenaline bursts into your brain, telling your soldier to take cover. If you want fast game speed at all, go with Quake, not CoD. Battlefield 3 offers teamwork, innovation, adaptive play and at least SOME balance as opposed to CoD's one man army (or every man for himself), killstreaks, idiots yelling on their mic and rediculous maps on top of the nauseatingly stupid weapon balance.
Example would be MW2 (it's still largely played and is valid), hey quickscope noscope, here's how it works.
95% accuracy with quickscoping I had, that was after, quite literally, a SINGLE game of Quickscope noscope. How easy? Well, also blatantly overpowered.
If you couldn't kill him fast enough (which all weapons kill horridly fast), like say when you confront him face-to-face at ANY distance, he would have instantly the upperhand. Only if you had either:
Scar-H / ACR: This would be because the first bullet and later bullets will cause insane INSANE kick to the enemy, completely skewing their aim. You get the first shot with these and you are quite simply immune to damage from that target (especially on larger distances, even moreso against snipers).
Shotgun: Even this is a massive risk being as you can quite simply you know... die at a distance that is more than 7 feet, but anywhere between that is utter control that cannot be matched (you fire from the hip, so being hit by the above two weapons makes no difference).
Battlefield 3 has its problems I'm sure, but I'm glad it doesn't try and host tournaments for so-called "
rofessional" play. I play for the efficient score gain and the fact that being aware of my possessions actually aids me in real time, as opposed to adjusting your playstyle which you do not change until you change class.
As for ZeeWolf.
COD: Every game, at least 1/3 players are 12 year old kids who scream into their mics after being stabbed into the backs.
Battlefield: More adult players, which is more enjoyable to play with. The only downside that you will be **** on more often.
I wouldn't generalize. Manner in FPSs from my experience has always been awful compared to that of say... Starcraft II. That and I'm a 14 year old -- I've had people nearly twice my edge act half my age on Call of Duty and I would encounter the same thing on Battlefield 3 if I played it long enough (I've clocked undoubtedly more hours on CoD, despite hating it so much more).
That and the "adults" you refer to seem incapable of taking into account that the dead guy right next to them (who was suppressing a vital choke of the enemy) can be revived by them.
Yes, I am talking about me being the dead guy.
Or you know, that they can pick up MY kit and revive me, instead of letting me spawn, run back there and being my reviving spree (which can help sustain points for significantly longer. I would say it could easily clock in at 500% more time we can hold a position purely due to effective casualty management).
Practically no lurning curve but yet very enjoyable. It feels like a game and that is what Is what great about it.
I like how you say this, it bares a lot of irony. CoD has part in ruining the current game industry, especially with the DLC business and MW2. Homefront? I'll let ChillzMaster take on that.
No learning curve = no skill = no fun. People who think about these things realize they're being brainless and tend to dislike that idea. Thus don't enjoy the game. I also know the game is severely imbalanced and that there is better quality entertainment out there. Could I enjoy that? Hell no.
Maybe you think I'm being too cynical. Nope, I hate the developers for abusing people, the industry and the technology by making a very poor game and selling it out as one of the best of all time. Bollocks, I say.
Battlefield: Very realistic, slow paced yet fun.
It's not all that realistic.
It's well-paced, saying "slow-paced" implies something bad in the name of FPS. That is certainly not the case.
COD: Unfortunatelly, moving from MW2 to MW3 there is almost no changes what so ever,
CoD4 was better. There was less things that could've been exploited or abused which actually made the game much more balanced. Map design wasn't too bad (a lot of maps were very nice) and mods allowed for it lets my
gamers attend LANs.
Perfect for those who hate changes (I.E. Final Fantasy fans hating on newer and BETTER Final Fantasy games).
I can't necessarily go into that. But even looking at FFXIII-2 makes me think that it was likely much better in previous games. Sure, semi-turn-based strategy, but it seems so bland and even easy. Like CoD - flashy and cool, but bares no real good gameplay elements (hello Paradigm shifts though).
But since i'm not a 12 year old and I enjoy ****ting on people, get drunk at times and let my teammates down, I am hands down for Battlefield 3!
... I like how you just seemed to contradict that first statement by supporting the common mindset of said age.
Basically, Both games are solid.
Battlefield 3 I've not determined. I figured Mortars are pretty terrible and some maps like Seine Crossing Conquest, Operation Metro Conquest and Damavand Peak Conquest (my gaming experience on the Back to Karkand Pack maps is minimal and I often only play Conquest) need severe help if anything. But all in all, a lot of opportunities are there as the game is not fundamentally flawed (aside from a gadget and some maps? The way weapons handle, the effective methods of play, not including the mortar, and etc are all fine).
Last but not least:
This is a poor thread by default. Why? If you would like a discussion about CoD, whether to berate it (like I and Chillz had done for the first 30 pages) or to adore its gameplay, you can go to its
Sticky'd Thread.Comparisons between different games, including Operation Flashpoint (I think), Crysis 2 and Battlefield have been made between those and CoD in order to express different points and give an accurate read on whether it may be worth your purchase.
Alas, have fun bros.
- H
