Battlefield 3

[gatorr4life]

Excellent analogy. As far as I'm concerned, I'll take battlefield. I love the vehicles. COD is pretty good too though. Really can't go wrong with either one.

[GatorFan89]

Originally Posted by Ericgraves

The game engine is not too slow. In fact the game engine can handle those nice smooth movements you are talking about (and quite easily as well).

That slowness you are referring to is a design choice to make the game more tactical and less twitch. What is the point to try and stick to cover if anytime someone shoots at you a quick flick left and right and a dive to prone gets you out of trouble?

How do they do that? Well they set the movement acceleration much lower, which is more realistic unless the military manages to clone percy harvin and make him into a killing machine. On a side note if you have ever played a console game where the aiming was just off, it was most likely because the designers have the aim velocity constant. Many of the best shooters instead associate an acceleration (actually 4- [x axis, y axis] x [speed up slow down]) with your crosshair movements. While not a FPS, a good example of what a game with constant velocity is like try Max Payne for the old xbox. While the computer version was great, the console version was almost laughable sometimes in how bad the aim was.

Why do they do that? By reducing the speed your position becomes much more important, getting kills in battlefield is less about how well you can aim and more about where you are at. I for one love that as it rewards patience and experience.

But no, it is not because of the game engine. It is a common mistake though. The game engine in all honesty is flat out baller. Just think of all the meshes that game has to put out and the time it processes new ones. At the end of the multiplayer trailer you see the most astonishing thing. Someone shoots the side of the building and the facade falls down! The wall that is breaking down is actually modeled and breaks into pieces and falls down in the specific location the wall was shot. Honestly while it looks pretty cool, that is more of testament to how strong their game engine is.

Call of duty will outsell battlefield (2 to 1 I believe). Battlefield will meet more critical acclaim (metacritic scores of 94 vs. 90 is my guess). So which do we consider king?

Excellent post. People don't understand, Battlefield has slower movement because it's more realistic. When you're in war, you're carrying a lot of gear on you and you can't move like an Olympic sprinter like in CoD, you move slower like in BF. In Battlefield your aim and movement is slower because you're being weighted like in real life, when you're carrying 80+ pounds of gear, you're going to aim and move slower. It's just a fact.

Battlefield focuses on teamplay, not one moron running around with a massive M95 Barret 50. Cal Anti-Material Rifle unrealistically quickscoping people. Overall, my skill level can be better than someone in BF and I can aim better, but if they got a better position on me then they can usually kill me, as Eric said, the game is more about position than skill.

The Bad Company series was more like a BF/CoD hybrid, but very, very fun. BF2 was a true team-based game. It was rare in BF2 to see someone with 40 kills in a game. It is about teamwork, plus Dice added a new suppression system. When you're being shot at in BF3, your screen will flicker and shake, like in real life when you're being suppressed by fire it's going to nauseate you. This makes the game more tactical and strategic. Having someone with an M240 suppressing an enemy and then having a small squad of 2-3 move around to flank them.

Battlefield 3 > CoD

[gatormoe1]

Originally Posted by GatorFan89

It will definitely take sales from CoD. It's going to be the better game, hands down. It leans more towards realism than fast, arcadey gameplay.

I like to think of it like this, if the games were movies:

Call of Duty is your typical summer action film probably made by Michael Bay that is garbage and features a retarded amount of explosions and fire.

Battlefield is your Saving Private Ryan/Black Hawk Down film that tells a great story and tries to be true to actual war.

That's 100% opinion. Your bias towards BF comes out very heavy when you talk about it. In reality, that garbage summer flick is going to crush BF3 in sales and people will be playing it for longer. Only a select few want realism in a game. Most people want a game where you can go out and have fun.

That realism isn't what most people want. It feels like I have a 500 pound guerrilla on my back. Battlefield would have hit it out of the park and taken over the FPS world if they would have went away from that realism (slow gameplay) and replaced it with COD style (fast crisp movement). If you want realism, join the Marines.

To Ericgraves:
Yeah I know its not the engine, Frostbite 2 can handle anything, that's just how it came out.

[gatormoe1]

Originally Posted by GatorFan89

Excellent post. People don't understand, Battlefield has slower movement because it's more realistic. When you're in war, you're carrying a lot of gear on you and you can't move like an Olympic sprinter like in CoD, you move slower like in BF. In Battlefield your aim and movement is slower because you're being weighted like in real life, when you're carrying 80+ pounds of gear, you're going to aim and move slower. It's just a fact.

Battlefield focuses on teamplay, not one moron running around with a massive M95 Barret 50. Cal Anti-Material Rifle unrealistically quickscoping people. Overall, my skill level can be better than someone in BF and I can aim better, but if they got a better position on me then they can usually kill me, as Eric said, the game is more about position than skill.

The Bad Company series was more like a BF/CoD hybrid, but very, very fun. BF2 was a true team-based game. It was rare in BF2 to see someone with 40 kills in a game. It is about teamwork, plus Dice added a new suppression system. When you're being shot at in BF3, your screen will flicker and shake, like in real life when you're being suppressed by fire it's going to nauseate you. This makes the game more tactical and strategic. Having someone with an M240 suppressing an enemy and then having a small squad of 2-3 move around to flank them.

Battlefield 3 > CoD

You are one that can't be debated with. You ignore the facts that COD will outsell/outlast BF and keep saying BF is better. I think you've mentioned BF being better about 3-4 times now. It will have better graphics/sound but thats about it. The "realism" will always keep BF from being the type of game COD is.

[Swamp_of_Gators]

Games that use teamwork and strategy are boring to ADD kids with short attention spans. That's why quality teamwork games die out. Because little kids who make up a huge chunk of the market get board quickly if they can't just jump right into the action and get instant gradification.

That's the reason socom died. It was an amazing game. But gawd forbid a poor ADD kid had to wait and not shoot anythingfor 4 minutes because his impatient ass had to rush in and try to get 15 kills in the first 20 seconds for a round. And because of that, socom missed out on the huge market that is the 12-15 y/o ADD kiddy demographic. Now they're trying to replicate CoD's success, and the game is absolutely horrible.

[PIMking]

This is coming from a COD person here so keep this in mind.

I have yet to play a BF game, but with how bad Black ops is and it's pretty much the same game as MW2, and WaW. I get bored quick with it, I only play hardcore and I get tired of getting hit markers on someone and they run through it like I didn't hit them. I get tired of putting a whole magazine in someone on hardcore then they fall but have second chance and shoot me with a pistol. I get tired of someone that just hides around corners with a machine gun getting 4 kills a game. When I play COD I play with a group of friends on a team. We all talk to eachother and set up as a team in strategic points and just DESTROY the other teams. But overall the game isn't that impressive. I will purchase this BF and try it out. It looks good and I like playing realistic games. If I wanted to play a spawn camp unrealistic arcade game I would play Doom or Halo.

[GatorFan89]

Originally Posted by gatormoe1

You are one that can't be debated with. You ignore the facts that COD will outsell/outlast BF and keep saying BF is better. I think you've mentioned BF being better about 3-4 times now. It will have better graphics/sound but thats about it. The "realism" will always keep BF from being the type of game COD is.

CoD has been the same EXACT GAME for the last 5 years. Same engine. Same gameplay. They just add a new story and extra gun attachments each time. I don't see how you can even say gameplay in MW3 will be better than BF3. You mean the same gameplay that we've seen the last 5 years? Sure. You can camp behind a wall in CoD and spray people with your M249 SAW as they come in, but you do that in Battlefield and you'll learn quickly how different the gameplay is when someone puts a tank shell into the wall and blows you to high heaven. The destructibility of BF3's Frostbite Engine 2.0 is a GAMECHANGER. I didn't know teamwork was looked down upon in games nowadays. I completely agree with Swamp, I guess if you can get 40+ kills a game rushing like a bafoon, you get bored.

If MW3 were to actually do something innovative and new, I would definitely play it, but it's the same exact game as MW2 except with some new guns.

@PIMKing, definitely agree, man. You won't be disappointed with BF3, I assure you. The game rewards you for teamwork. In BC2, you get 50 points for a kill, but if you get a kill assist you get 30 points. If you play a Medic in BC2 and revive a teammate, you get 60 points, more points than a kill. BF is a teamwork based game. As Ericgraves said, the game is more about who has a better position on the other person than about who can aim faster.

IDK if you saw, but BF3 takes suppressive fire into account. If someone starts shooting at you and bullets are hitting really close to you, your screen will blur, shake and flicker to simulate a feeling of nauseation like you probably would get if you were really being shot at. It's a small detail, but adds to the realism. It also allows for better teamwork, i.e, suppressing and having a small group flank the guy who is suppressed.

[Ericgraves]

Originally Posted by PIMking

This is coming from a COD person here so keep this in mind.

I have yet to play a BF game, but with how bad Black ops is and it's pretty much the same game as MW2, and WaW. I get bored quick with it, I only play hardcore and I get tired of getting hit markers on someone and they run through it like I didn't hit them. I get tired of putting a whole magazine in someone on hardcore then they fall but have second chance and shoot me with a pistol. I get tired of someone that just hides around corners with a machine gun getting 4 kills a game. When I play COD I play with a group of friends on a team. We all talk to eachother and set up as a team in strategic points and just DESTROY the other teams. But overall the game isn't that impressive. I will purchase this BF and try it out. It looks good and I like playing realistic games. If I wanted to play a spawn camp unrealistic arcade game I would play Doom or Halo.

This was my mindset before I switched to battlefield. When I found battlefields dedicated servers and the lack of the "are you kidding me?" feeling I was sold.

Also if there is to be a debate on which is better (battlefield vs cod) then we should all know what we are arguing about.

The many points that people are bringing up are not actually mutually exclusive, so this debate doesn't really make sense. So in order to bring peace I am bringing out the talking points are various metrics we are using to compare games and which game is fitted for this.

• Sales- COD. Obviously COD will outsell battlefield. But battlefields sales should increase, while previously being outsold 3 to 1, look for COD to win 2 to 1 this year.
• Game Reviews- Most Likely Battlefield. Critics in the past have reduced scores on games which have not made the appropriate leaps forward (one recent example Bioshock 2). Because of the stagnation inside the Call of Duty series coupled with the fact three companies are designing the game shows that we can literally expect more of the same from Call of Duty. Battlefield though continues to grow and mature, expect the reviewers to fell pressure to give scores higher than the previous game thus propelling the scores of battlefield.
• Pure Adrenaline Multiplayer- COD. Sometimes called twitch, it is actually the adrenaline rush that is addicting. By creating high speed games COD guarantees the adrenaline rush that many people crave. Many people with ADD in fact are adrenaline junkies, I just want to throw that out there.
• Tactical- Battlefield. Battlefield is mainly about being tactical and lives for the "oohs and aahs." I would almost call battlefield an emotional game. Each choice you make can have an effect on the game. Do you double back guard your base? Or do you push forward to take away their infantry? Do you spec to take care of the tank or do you spec to take care of your kdr.
• Graphics- Battlefield. This one is not even close. Watch videos.
• Game Engine- Battlefield. Doesn't need to be put out there, a game engine can be judged really on how well they handle putting out the visuals and what can be accomplished in game.

You then have to wait them appropriately to determine what you consider the better game. No one truly disagrees with each other here, we just have different values.

Honestly these are two great games, with outstanding engines that are really at the top of their field. In some sense the battlefield vs. cod debate is spurned by the media and the companies promoting the games. The games are designed for vastly different experiences (multi player wise), and a comparison of which one is "better" can only come down to personal values. Thus any debate on which game is "better" is in some way mute. Instead it is better to just discuss the pros and cons of each game in relation to one another and in relation to the type of game you want to play.

Plus the sequel to EDF 2017 is coming out in july and that is bound to be the best game ever in existence. Giant freaking bugs and online co op, I am salivating.

EDIT-
My sales projection are purely a guess. Considering the amount of people talking about battlefield especially in comparison to when BF BC 2 came out, and the more aggressive ad campaign, I predict a 2 to 1 ratio (COD:BF). "Analysts" are predicting for the ratio to hold constant at 3 to 1, but these are the same "Analysts" who proclaimed the xbox kinect would "fall flat on its face."

The reason for the analysts are giving is because they believe battlefield is already well known in the market and thus the big ad campaign won't expand their base significantly while call of duty will continue to show a sale increase. I disagree with this view and believe battlefield is a well known name but most people are unsure of what they are offering. Kinda like "I have the Melting Pot, why should I try Colorado Fondue Company?"

I believe the new ad campaign to be the correct mix of beautiful graphics and adrenaline soaked images to make people give it a shot. Furthermore the earlier release date is a great gamble for the ADD crowd. Although I truly expect the ADD crowd to PAN this game, one thing impulsive teenagers hate to do is WAIT. Basically EA is going all in right now it seems cashing in all of their possible cards to gain the market shares they need. If they succeed and enlarge their fan base they do have a chance of remaining competitive for years to come.

Furthermore I honestly believe the fact that MW won 60 or so game of the year awards is what truly propelled this whole COD craze. It was the first time a console game which was heavy on the multiplayer aspect won game of the year so decisively. Imagine what FPS of the year could do for battlefield (GOY is off the table, it is an Elder Scrolls year after all).

[gatorr4life]

EDF?

[Ericgraves]

Earth Defense Force

EDF 2017-
http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Defense-...7931467&sr=8-3

EDF Insect Armageddon (the sequel)- http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Defense-...7931467&sr=8-1

It is honestly a budget game distilled down to what makes a game fun. Really makes you think about what makes a game good.

[gatorr4life]

Interesting. Why have I never heard of this? Strange.

[Ericgraves]

It is a budget game. Originally was only $20. Budget games don't get hype, sadly most of them aren't worth the money.

I went through all of the Xbox games on Amazon one day and read the reviews of games I had never heard of. Edf was the proverbial diamond in the rough. I don't want to make it out to be the best thing ever, but for a budget game it is surprisingly good.

[gatorr4life]

Ah, I see. I guess I could say darksiders was a diamond in the rough, for me. Probably not to the same extent. After I played it, I was shocked that people really didnt rate it that highly. Very underrated game.

[jojo1254]

thanks GatorFan89.. nice video shared..

[GatorFan89]

Originally Posted by jojo1254

thanks GatorFan89.. nice video shared..

You're welcome.

[Sir_Gibby]

The chance to play with 63 other people in the PC-version 64-person supported multiplayer really trumps all. It's no longer squad v squad combat but WAR. That and I don't have to listen to the infantile ramblings of kids and noobs who make up the vast majority of the COD demographic.

[GatorFan89]

New Gameplay. Updated original post.

[Ericgraves]

Back to karkand is out for ps3 (which I know a number of people play on here). I look forward to wake island because of the good times I had on it with battlefield 1943. For me have to wait a week, oh well. Still would be nice to hear thoughts.

I had a friend inform me of the awesomness that is the F2000, and it is very good. No three round burst so long distance shots become a pain (especially with side to side recoil). But they reduced the vertical kick back while maintaining damage and fire rate.

Another thing I have become fond of doing is using the Mod 11 with a red dot sight instead of a scope. It is pretty powerful. Hit someone in a headshot 220 meters away in that configuration. I honestly felt bad for the guy cause that should not happen.

Also the more I play the more I realize how little KDR actually matters in this game. I feel the people with the high kdrs round after round that aren't actually topping the scoreboards are actually doing a disservice to the team. I mean, if you are good it is relatively easy to name your kdr (even if you aren't good actually). I saw someone who had a legit 6 to 1. But the tactics he relied on pretty much guaranteed this. Kinda funny.

Trying to bring this post back up due to all the battlefield talk in the mw3 topic.

edit- Wrong thread

[gatorr4life]

Originally Posted by Sir_Gibby

I don't have to listen to the infantile ramblings of kids and noobs who make up the vast majority of the COD demographic.

You do realize you can turn them off? Or are you saying most PC users are usually older?

[GatorFan89]

@eric, I have a 2.7 KDR (I play on PC) and I play lots of objective. My skill level is high though it was in the 600's, which is very high on PC. I am not sure what exactly goes into skill, but it's always been high for me and I assume it has to do with your KDR but also your objective, there is a guy on my friends list on BF3 that has a 2.4 KDR which is really good on PC at least, you hardly see people with anything over a 2.2, I stand out a lot with the 2.7, but anyways, this guy has a 2.4 KDR and his skill level is like 150, so I assume he just tries to just kill everyone.

PS3 did get the new maps already, us PC players and the 360 players get them the 13 I think. I can't wait for Gulf of Oman, I loved that map in BF2.