AGS Steam Games

Forums → Games → [stickies]Cod or battle field?

39 8989
dipindat
offline
dipindat
7 posts
Nomad

I personally like bf3

  • 39 Replies
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

But we can compare the maps, the destruction, the addition of vehicles and everything else that makes them significantly different?

I never compared BF3 to CoD. I just said one thing I disliked about BF3 (the very large maps, this doesn't mean I dislike all of them, just some of them). Or rather, corrected Stephen but you decided turn it into this. I know there are many different things about the two games, which is why I won't compare them. It's like comparing Halo to Gears of War, wouldn't make much sense from my perspective.

I own both BF3 and MW3 (and previous games), play them often, and like and dislike some things about them, but that doesn't mean I absolutely hate their franchises.

Let me bring back my original post:
1) There are two-three overpowered weapons out of the what? 20-30 guns?
2) Not everyone enjoys running around a map for ten minutes to get one kill.
3) That's on every FPS game.
4) Wrong. Most of them do it for their k/d/r, and it happens on BF3 as well.

I don't see any comparing going on. I just stated that a few guns out of the thirty or so on CoD are overpowered, maps are small-medium so that people don't have to run around for a while to find others (I don't necessarily like all the maps on MW3, but that's irrelevant), I said people raging is on every FPS game, and that boosting still happens on games regardless.
Do not pick at the weaker points of a game in order to make a point, when the one you ought to be defending (in name of the thread) has worse ones.

Every game has weak points and people will always talk about them whether or not they get fixed. People are still talking about World at War being hacked. Learn to live with it and/or ignore the people talking about them.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

I never compared BF3 to CoD.

Then you didn't quite follow this thread. :/ Alas, there is some validity to your points, regardless of your goals.

I just said one thing I disliked about BF3 (the very large maps,

Which is the point of the game.

I dislike Yu-gi-Oh because it's Turn-Based.

... ?!

Judge something for what it is, not what it is to you. Am I saying CoD is terrible because it's fast paced? No, I'm judging it because it's done so poorly.

In which case, please explain which large maps you dislike and why. For instance, I dislike Operation Firestorm. The fight zone is very spread, the close quarters can be biased and difficult to adjust to being as its building based, you're very vulnerable and you got so much space to operate in where the front is indistinguishable.

Sure, PTFO is much more easily and widely played as a result -- but it lacks the essence of teamwork much of the time.

Or rather, corrected Stephen but you decided turn it into this.

Corrected? The first point:
1) There are two-three overpowered weapons out of the what? 20-30 guns?

Is still an indicator of an imbalance and a defeating of the point of having variety. Where everything is useful.
You even backed this up where you mentioned that Machine Pistols are prefered over normal Pistols.

2) Not everyone enjoys running around a map for ten minutes to get one kill.

Both an exaggeration and an invalid point. You can spawn anywhere close to the fight, getting there is not hard or time consuming.

3) That's on every FPS game.

Tackled that. Quake and Unreal. The screaming is also not apparent on Battlefield 3, not nearly as much as CoD. Any player on BF3 is indistinguishable from another, whereas the people who rage on CoD are the ones who do poorly. Actually, I've found that the whiners complaining about their team actually have some of the best scores.

4) Wrong. Most of them do it for their k/d/r, and it happens on BF3 as well.

Which is close to irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. Grand scheme?
1 64th of your team is not playing.
People's effectiveness could be 10x better if they all started using their darn things. This is from them using their equipment and receiving the benefits of others' equipment. But no.
That point is provided evidence by any good player who can make the strategic choices necessary to amplify his and his team's effect. He is a massive multiplier to the team, more so than a single average player.

Does that mean I support boosting? Of course not, but the actual effects are minimal, and even don't apply as a negative since a decent player can literally compensate for that and more.

you decided turn it into this.

I decided to "correct" you. For the point of the topic I deflected the points you made, although my main one would be that CoD isn't worth the money anyway, whereas Battlefield almost certainly is.

but that doesn't mean I absolutely hate their franchises.

I didn't say you did.

I don't see any comparing going on

I was effectively keeping it on-topic.

I just stated that a few guns out of the thirty or so on CoD are overpowered,

And any decent player would then use them.
Like, you know, Athene.

maps are small-medium so that people don't have to run around for a while to find others

No, what the hell? It's so it's fast paced. You could easily add jetpacks or speed boosts to compensate for any larger maps. But no, they want SPECIFIC gameplay. Running around unable to find others would be a problem with the spawn / travel system -- not the maps.
Which ironically IS an issue with CoD as well.

It could be all of them, it could be none of them, but blaming solely one is just dumb.

I said people raging is on every FPS game, and that boosting still happens on games regardless.

I've not encountered any hint of a booster and I've not seen sufficient rage to actually give a dump, in terms of BF3. The same way I mentioned IdrA -- one bad BM apple in the group doesn't condemn them all. But the vocal minority is close to a majority on CoD.

Learn to live with it and/or ignore the people talking about them.

So how do you propose to live with it when someone is infesting the server with hacks? Get it fixed. PunkBuster would be astonishing for it -- just like it was for CoD4 and also Battlefield. It's something you should not have to deal with, but the company who made the game.

- H
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

Then you didn't quite follow this thread.

The question is which you prefer over the other. A simple question that doesn't require for people to write paragraphs because most people would already know their reasons.
Judge something for what it is, not what it is to you.

What it is to me is my opinion about the game. Not to be taken so seriously as if I'm stating it as a fact. I dislike very big maps in a game, why write paragraphs about that. It's like me arguing with someone for preferring the Wii over the PS3 or Xbox 360. It's a difference in opinion.
Is still an indicator of an imbalance and a defeating of the point of having variety. Where everything is useful.
You even backed this up where you mentioned that Machine Pistols are prefered over normal Pistols.

I admit guns are overpowered in the game and some are widely preferred over others, but that's not my point. My point is that there are few overpowered weapons out of a bunch of them. Nothing more than that.

Also, with the akimbo proficiency on normal pistols that can easily make it more powerful than machine pistols, just with less ammo. And there's also a tactical knife attachment that makes knifing faster, which can be useful in close quarter combat. Easily makes it better than machine pistols because you won't appear on the map and takes people out in one hit.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you because I honestly don't care about everything else you are saying about the games. I'm open minded and consider the pros and cons, but I'm not going to argue over opinions.
Both an exaggeration and an invalid point. You can spawn anywhere close to the fight, getting there is not hard or time consuming.

I already talked about this. I only play TDM when I play BF3, so you don't often spawn close to the fight. Only way you would is if someone plants a spawn equipment thing. Forgot the name of it.
Tackled that. Quake and Unreal. The screaming is also not apparent on Battlefield 3, not nearly as much as CoD. Any player on BF3 is indistinguishable from another, whereas the people who rage on CoD are the ones who do poorly. Actually, I've found that the whiners complaining about their team actually have some of the best scores.

This is the same as the guns. My point is raging still happens, nothing more.
I decided to "correct" you.

You didn't correct me anywhere. I made simple points and you decided to write paragraphs about them. Of course I exaggerated about the maps, but that doesn't matter. The point about the exaggeration was that it usually takes a while to find people, which some people probably enjoy, but I don't, which makes it my opinion, and a fact that it usually takes a while to find people on TDM.
I didn't say you did.

I didn't quote anything specific from your post and said you did. I was just making that clear for everyone.
And any decent player would then use them.

Generally people dislike using the same thing all the time, because they get bored.
No, what the hell? It's so it's fast paced.

"Run around for a while to find others" as in fast paced. I know CoD is fast paced.
scruffyninja
offline
scruffyninja
13 posts
Blacksmith

I think the appreciation of game rests upon the style of play the player adopts. Fast shotgun style players will appreciate cod more than BF, and long range slower players will prefer BF - simple really

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

A simple question that doesn't require for people to write paragraphs because most people would already know their reasons.

So what would come of this thread if all I said was "CoD is terrible" and "Battlefield is good"? No, it's for interaction, not voicing an unbacked opinion that is as supported as snails living on Mars.

What it is to me is my opinion about the game.

Then it is flawed, unless you're a person who has the time. Do I have the time to make use of all the possibilities / stories in Skyrim? No, but that doesn't stop me from liking it.

Do I play with friends on Grand Theft Auto? No, but that doesn't mean I think it's bad-- I'm not in a suitable situation to judge the game for what it's supposed to be and the same applies to taste. For instance, I'm primarily an RTS gamer, but being as I don't think about skill levels on the same level (RTS > FPS in terms of skill required) and the way UI works, there's not a problem with that "bias".

Not to be taken so seriously as if I'm stating it as a fact.

An opinion should be as equally respected as a fact, as long as it comes from the right person and bred of sane mind. Logic and reason is the fundamentals of good decision making and opinions, therefore you can almost objectively argue which is the better.

I dislike very big maps in a game, why write paragraphs about that.

To explain why? If you can't support it then don't post. If you can support it, then save the time of something actually asking why and demonstrate some form of intelligence.

At this point, why should I bother continuing this discussion? I've made my point, now I can take my leave.



I admit guns are overpowered in the game and some are widely preferred over others,

...
From my experience all guns on CoD are used by many people,


Err... How many is "many", then?

My point is that there are few overpowered weapons out of a bunch of them.

The point is that one overpowered weapon, especially a sniper, can break the entire game.

Nothing more than that.

When you get a "few" overpowered weapons what you actually get is most others becoming irrelevant.

And there's also a tactical knife attachment that makes knifing faster, which can be useful in close quarter combat.

Which can prove more powerful than weapons. So if you have the situational awareness you can take advantage of your knife, or it can be based on chance for whether you have a significant upper hand or not -- you're gambling on a life or death.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you because I honestly don't care about everything else you are saying about the games.

Thanks for wasting your own time, in the meantime I'll approach someone who is smart enough to invest their time and try and make something of this.

I'm open minded and consider the pros and cons, but I'm not going to argue over opinions.

The "opinions" are backed up by the pros and cons. Pros and cons are also subjective, being as there is no formula saying that chance in Hipfire is bad. Your reasoning for being ignorant is invalid and hypocritical.

I already talked about this. I only play TDM when I play BF3

I already talked about that. TDM is a smaller part of the entire game that is flawed on much much more serious levels than a little bit of time to initiate a fight.

My point is raging still happens, nothing more.

Tell me the relevence in that. It's in everything -- school, games, homes, the internet, war, famine and native american tribes.

You didn't correct me anywhere.

There are speech marks or air-quotes there.

I made simple points

The first 3 have literally no relevence, with the points you're implicating, for reasons I've explained. The fourth is insignificant and very rare at best.

and a fact that it usually takes a while to find people on TDM.

Hence it being irrelevent.

Generally people dislike using the same thing all the time, because they get bored.

Which is what separates decent players from players. Decent players will use what works -- doesn't mean it's the same thing. A game that has one thing as the only working thing is bad, so there will be variety.

Overpowered means that they're pretty much the only viable option, among and because of its blatant imbalance.

"Run around for a while to find others" as in fast paced. I know CoD is fast paced.

Quake.
Unreal Tournament.

Quake, is fast paced.
UT? Closer to fast paced than CoD, I'd need to say.
They're better games, so why bother with the newest remake of CoD, when you can get these?

- H
bobynm13
offline
bobynm13
5 posts
Nomad

its kinda obvious battlefields more fun to play

Darktroop07
offline
Darktroop07
3,592 posts
Shepherd

BF3 far better I sold MW3 cause I didn't like it for my PC so i got battlefield3 which is far superior in many ways.

GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

So what would come of this thread if all I said was "CoD is terrible" and "Battlefield is good"? No, it's for interaction, not voicing an unbacked opinion that is as supported as snails living on Mars.

As you can see nobody here really cares to write out paragraphs about which they are choosing, and this thread is still up, so nobody really cares about it.
Then it is flawed

My opinion isn't flawed. Me disliking big maps in BF3 doesn't mean that my opinion on the game is automatically flawed just because you don't think the same. You have to understand that not everyone's opinion on something is the same as yours and that yours isn't any more right than anyone else's.
To explain why?

I have explained why several times, you are just overlooking it or don't like what I'm saying so you keep on going on about it.
At this point, why should I bother continuing this discussion?

Because you love to argue over people's opinions and how you think yours is better than theirs? It's apparent that's what you're doing and you've always done so in this forum.
Thanks for wasting your own time, in the meantime I'll approach someone who is smart enough to invest their time and try and make something of this.

I find it funny how you try to insult people you talk with in the forums. Shows how mature you really are. "Smart" enough to argue which of these two games is better? Do you realize how stupid that actually is? You have people who prefer CoD, people who prefer BF3, and people who enjoy both games. That's it. This is like the consoles wars thread, you're just going to circle jerk with people about your opinions. But if you truly enjoy wasting your time attempting to argue and insult people on the Internet who probably don't care for what you're saying, then go ahead. While others will use their time in a better way.
Tell me the relevence in that.

Read what I quoted from Stephen's post. I'm not going to walk you through everything.
The first 3 have literally no relevence, with the points you're implicating, for reasons I've explained. The fourth is insignificant and very rare at best.

Read the above. Do you not realize that my post was directed at Stephen and was meant for nothing else?
They're better games, so why bother with the newest remake of CoD, when you can get these?

"Better". Understand that people think differently than you.

Let me show you what you are doing:
Me: I dislike the color pink because it's too bright and hurts my eyes.
You: &quotaragraph about how I'm stupid and that my opinion is wrong because it doesn't match yours"
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,870 posts
Chamberlain

BF3 prob the choices are CoD: run and gun get a ton of kills BF3: realistic you get tanks and all that but CoD has Nazi zombies

Showing 31-39 of 39