Corby Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Well what kind of upgrades have they done to the new engine? New graphics? Noup. New physics? Noup. Anything that you can notice while playing?Sure they say it runs smoother but I'd say that you cant see the difference.How can you even comment when you haven't played it yet? The only game you can really comment on is BF3's beta, which to me, was boring and bland gameplay. Where-as the visuals and sounds were nice.Edit: bare in mind I'm commentating from a console's perspective as I have given up on all PC FPS's due to inevitable release of hacks that are way too freely available. Edited October 10, 2011 by Corby Link to comment
Nobana Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry but I don't notice a whole lot of difference between how Bad Company 2 looks and Battlefield 3 and don't come with your bullshit about how battlefield 2 is different from battlefield 3. There is a 6 year gap between those 2 they'd be fucking retarded to use the same engine. And it's not because you can't be asked to find out how the looks of Call of duty have changed over 4 years that they haven't.Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 dont look so different, and I havent said that they do. But you must admit there's a difference when comparing two games released in 2010 - 2011 and 2007 - 2011. Also, how is Battlefield 3 NOT different from Battlefield 2?I didnt understand the last sentence so I cant answer to it.Well what kind of upgrades have they done to the new engine? New graphics? Noup. New physics? Noup. Anything that you can notice while playing?Sure they say it runs smoother but I'd say that you cant see the difference.How can you even comment when you haven't played it yet? The only game you can really comment on is BF3's beta, which to me, was boring and bland gameplay. Where-as the visuals and sounds were nice.Edit: bare in mind I'm commentating from a console's perspective as I have given up on all PC FPS's due to inevitable release of hacks that are way too freely available. Yea, we'll see. Judging by the videos(yea yea videos tell nothing) it still has the 2D explosions and shit. Edited October 10, 2011 by Nobana Link to comment
Pufulet Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Shall we bring Counterstrike Global offensive as it too has guns and war and explosions and guns? michaelwang22 and TheGreenGrasshopper 2 Link to comment
Clavus Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 The drama is finally picking up pace I see. Link to comment
Dr.Minky Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Fuck both of them, Quake LIVE makes them its bitch. Link to comment
chezman123 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 You're comparing 2 different types of FPS games with each other.Modern Warfare 3 is a close quarter combat game that focuses less on teamplay and more on what the individual person can do for it's team. It involves using killstreaks to change the tide. Teamplay and tactics increase the chance of winning but are not necessary.Battlefield 3 on the other hand uses a wider and of course larger map to play on and focuses a lot more on teamplay. Because of the fact that it's such a large map a variety of vehicles is used which also spices up the gameplay. You can't win by simple going solo and taking out the team because this will only result in failure.Both games should be handle as games from the top rank (atm) and there should be no hate against either one of them. The only extreem negative thing about the Call of Duty series is that it's overpriced and stays that way for far too long. I think MW2 is still 60bucks on steam or something?BF3 --> teamplayMW3 --> 'brainless' playing (in a positive way)Basically this.Based on the comments in this forum, I think I will buy both games (yay). I ENJOY teamplay much more, but nobody ever seems to do that in CoD, so I'll at least try Battlefield 3. I might as well give it a fair shot. I've always liked the MW games MUCH more than the other CoD games, mainly for the innovative qualities each one has produced so far. (For example, I've always loved the Spec. Ops. in MW2, and in MW, the game was much more...polished.) Zombies just hasn't done it for me all this time. It's way too overrated.Well, I'm starting to get off topic. Those are my thoughts; do with them what you will. Link to comment
Lastion Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Why is there always a fight between these two games. Seriously, YES they are the 2 best shooters on the market, however since every1 like different food, why cant we like different games? Im tired of discussions over wich game is the better one. they are bothe just as good, but meant for different players. You don't like one???, then dont play it, but dont QQ over it either. Link to comment
Pufulet Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Why is there always a fight between these two games. Seriously, YES they are the 2 best shooters on the market, however since every1 like different food, why cant we like different games? Im tired of discussions over wich game is the better one. they are bothe just as good, but meant for different players. You don't like one???, then dont play it, but dont QQ over it either.What about Counter Strike? thats one of the best shooters too ya know :3 Edited October 25, 2011 by Pufulet michaelwang22 1 Link to comment
PEPPER Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 theres nothing more satisfying than a good bushwookie hunt Link to comment
TechnoNegro Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 bf3 is crap on consoles, cod is crap on pc (i have cod7 on pc), they upgraded the graphigs(aka. Bugged em so it wont work), added that shitty Dive to prone thingy and modded the players and weapons skins. But i bet there isint anything new for cod8. And for bf, they have added all kind of stuff, not just add new/old weapons Link to comment
Luke Nukem Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 To be honest if people are fighting over which game is better they really need to grow up. Yes Battle field is always going to be better graphical wise as COD is still running on a quake engine that makes the graphics only look better due the extreme shadowing. COD will be better as I call it the fashion statement game, oh all my friends have it I NEED IT NOW OTHERWISE I WILL NOT BE COOL!!! So they are just as bad as each other. Battlefield take to the skies and piss off everyone that are fighting on the ground. COD camp in corners and sponge 800 rocket launchers with low health. Guys just face the facts that both games have their own unique capabilities and just buy the one you want to play for christ sake. Also what TechnoNegro said, yes Battlefield was made on the Frostbite 2 engine developed for high-spec PC Gaming, whilst COD was developed on a PC games engine, but later developed for the Xbox. PS3 well no games have been mainly made for the PS3, but just converted.Peace. Link to comment
Silver Dot Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 MODERAN WARFAR IS MUCH BETTER Link to comment
EmRA Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 BF3 --> teamplay This whole thread is pure fucking gold hahahafighting over opinions Link to comment
Clavus Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Time to shoot this bitch out of the sky. Link to comment
Recommended Posts