Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
COD or Battlefield 3
drel
Member Posts: 918
I'm not sure which is the better game , CoD or Battlefield 3?
And which has the best platform to play on?
Any help?
Comments
It really depends on what you want out of it. Battle Field usually has bigger maps and vehicle combat, where CoD has fast paced rush em or camp style gameplay. Both are fun if you play with the right people, forming teams and squads is simple with good communication. As for platform its down to your personal preference, whether you like controllers which can be for consoles and PCs or mouse and keyboard its really up to you. Battlefield is already released and CoD is a few days away. I usually try to go with the game majority of friends are playing. Then you always know you have a good team.
The most interesting thing I find in discussing the two games is this...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3: Above and Beyond the Call
BF3's smack attack on CoD is a trip, no?
Hopefully you get some decent replies to this, as there has been some discussion over the past couple of weeks about the games.
Have you looked over on MMORPG.com's sister site - FPSguru? Link should be at the top of your screen.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Battlefield 3 = Huge maps , more room for tactics and stealth
Cod = is more like a close quarters combat game
There is no "witch one is better" there 2 totaly diffrent types of FPS games i think both are great and for platform i play both on Xbox360 and PC so its up to u
both,
You actually gotta play the games and get a feel for them to really see which one works you. On paper, Battlefield is a lot more appealing to me but I play the call of duty series more often.
The choice as to which game is purely subjective.
A note on the platform: the PC will have superior graphics to both the ps3 and the 360 assuming you have the hardware to meet the demands. In addition, you can purchase a controller identical to the 360's and use it to play from your PC.
So the choice doesn't really pertain to your preferred control style, it's dependant on your hardware. (That and other factors like friends on each platform, etc) Doing my duty to +1 the glorious PC materrace.
As for MW3, platform will make a difference. In the recent years trend of Activision, they're continuing to snub the PC.
Let me be blunt and get this out first. I absolutely dislike what COD has become after MW1. MW1 was a great game, but the sequels are cheap cash grabs. I challenge anyone to show me how improved MW2, Black Ops, and MW3 is over MW1. What the sequels (to include the "PC" versions) are capable of in multiplayer are inferior compared to PC MW1, which had 64 players. Graphics? They're the same game.
Unless you NEVER played MW1, or MW2, or Black Ops, why would you buy MW3? They're the same d*mn game!
Now, why I chose BF3. Firstly, I'm a PC gamer and I bought the game on the PC for all the bells and whistles the game engine can offer on my platform of choice. Also, BF continues the tradition of large maps. Maps that have both open areas as well as dense areas for shorter ranges. Maps that also contend with vehicles (tanks, APCs, HUMVEES/Jeeps, scout, attack, transport helicopters, etc). The vehicles add whole different dimensions to gameplay. And infantry still have ways to kill the unwary vehicle drivers / crew. We have some very, very proficient tank killers out there. And if you are on a tangent about only having infantry to fight, well, the "Infantry Only" filter is there on the server browser for you to use.
Lastly, BF games had a focus on Team Play. You get points for capturing and defending objectives, naturally. But you also get alot of points for supporting teammates. Feeding ammo, health packs, rez fallen members within a short timespan. You get points for spotting targets that eventually get killed by your team. You even get more points to these actions if it directly supports members of your squad, even more incentive to stay with your squad.
A good example is the Recon Class' SOFLAM unlock. Fairly early to get. It's a laser designator that can also zoom in like biinoculars. I can spot targets with it. Vehicles can be targetted and marked with the laser at a longer distance, but aircraft at a shorter one. You get a few points for designating a vehicle. But while the vehicle is designated, anyone on your team with a missile (not rockets like RPGs / SMAWs) will have instant lock. Javelins automatically will perform a devastating top attack on tanks. They don't even need to look at the tank. They can also fire at aircraft with deadly precision provided its designated: Even their chaff and flares will not work because the missiles ignore it and focus on the laser designation. The SOFLAM by itself isn't a big deal. But the SOFLAM in conjunction with teamplay, is extremely dangerous.
The only teamplay that exists in COD now is just the fact that you are on the same team.
That's it.
Edit to add: Another thing that's amusing about Post MW1 COD's lack of progress. Are you telling me, that even after MW1's tremendous success (critical acclaim, recognition, alot of $$$) that Infinity Ward & Activision can release 3 more expansion packs (yeah, that's what MW2, BOps, and MW3 really are) and not improve nor push the envelope any further? MW1 came out in 2007. It's now 2011 and MW3 is about to hit. And it's essentially the same godd*mn game. That's 4 years and after alot of money has been made. Talk about maximizing profits for providing little in return. And people still fall for it by the bucketloads.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
To reply to Warmaker.
Modern Warfare 2 is an enormous improvement over the first MW1, and here is just a list of new things added to MW2:
- Perks have 2nd functionality
- customizable killstreaks
- controllable killstreaks
- added the ability to use weapons such as automatic pistols and shotguns as your secondary weapons, added riotshield and lock on launchers
And yes, the graphics have improved. MW3 improves on the game even further.
- Killstreaks have been completely overhauled and changed into point streaks, you can get more points by doing things such as capturing objectives, shooting down air support etc. You can now cycle through your rewards and use which ones you want to use first
- Added Weapon profincies, your weapon can now level up and you can pick a specific proficincy that makes that weapon better
- being able to pick between three different strike packages. Assault (typical rewards) Support (based on supporting your team, doesn't reset) and Specialist (You unlock more perks as you get more points)
- There is now matchmaking in spec ops mode, as well as a ranking up system
These are just the new features, there are also new point streak rewards, new weapons, new attachments, new perks, new game modes etc.
And you're seriously trying to argue that MW3 is the same game with no improvements? MW3 adds more to the franchise than BF3 did. What did BF3 do that the series didn't do before? It is pretty much Battlefield: BC2 with 64 players and the destruction dumbed down. Thats just on the PC, because the console version only has 24 players.
Sure fooled me. When I see those trailers or watched my friends play COD, I had a hard time telling them apart. This includes footage of MW3.
As for BF3, take a look at the engine and what's been done in the main BF series. I stayed away from the BF Bad Company portion since that is a console-centric offshoot. Jesus Christ, they even removed Prone position from them. The engine is a huge leap over what's been done before.
There is one change I dislike however is the removal of the Commander feature. More support abilities have been spread out among the classes.
Also, while the core of what makes Battlefield, Battlefield is still there, it is still leaps and bounds offering a wider set of FPS gaming experience than the competition. Only the hardcore Milsim ARMA series offer wider scope, but a big emphasis on "hardcore" and "sim" (which I don't have a problem with, but I do know alot of gamers will).
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I only have played BF3 (and Bad Company 2).
BF3 is an arcade game. Okay some "hardcore"servers allow you to spawn only on the commander (or a sniper device), but still arcade means zerg.
The grenade and rpg spam is still present at certain maps. Add the mortars of the support class and you can create a killing zone on an open map.
Snipers "only" have their sniper guns. No other kill from a safe distance. They do have some nice devices for group and team uses.
Overall BF3 is a polished fps. They tried to make it a team-based game and iin my opinion they have succeeded. Every class brings something usefull to the table. Although the engineer with the fast closequarters machineguns and the rpg is the most seen class on the field. (okay I have to admit, they do have a lot of nice other goodies; mines, repairtools, eod robot and aa-rockets) (I love to read chat when I "snipe" a sniper with my aks-74u, they are acurate and with infrared you can see everything)
A mouse and keyboard is far superior to a controller in fps games.
it also depends how much money are you wanting to spend ...bf3 is at its reg. cost 55-60$
but cod 3 will run you 60$ and also if you want the lil special percs they are asking you to pay a small monthly fee "optional" and or buy **i think its called cod mw3 elite** that has spec guns skins and such that will also run around 50-60$ they maybe the same thing idk
soo..if your REALLY wanting the full effect of the new COD MW3 its gonna run you about 100$ wich imo is outragious
the last thing i want is to see this being a huge succuss not because its COD but more in the line as console games geting bumped up to the 80$ - 100$ mark ..we all know we are in a copycat genra and if 1 company sees this working ..you will see more companys doing it as well..but lets hope not
btw i have the new bf3 on xbox360 and its amazeing! not only the multiplayer but the campain is great as well..wich alot of fps skip on.. i think im passing on COD / MW3
For multiplayer gameplay = is all about BF3.
IMHO battlefield 3 is a better game. Some people like the CoD playstyle (very lone-wolf / rambo run & shoot gameplay).
Battleflied 3 is more of a teamgame. You can be a 1 man army, but a good/ coordinated team will still demolish you.
CoD is more catered towards consoles, while BF3 has always been a PC-oriented franchize.
Both games work well on either PC or Console, but overall I find CoD more enjoyable on the Xbox, and BF3 more enjoyable on the PC.
- Also, people have mentioned the additional costs of CoD, which are pretty outrageous for the full game.
BF3 can also have some additional costs depending on how involved you wanna get. The full game is available for the normal box price (50$), however, if you play it on a PC you may want to invest in a joystick (if you wanna do a lot of flying) and DICE does tend to release an expansion some months after the game is released, so I'd expect another 40$ or so purchase in 4-6 months time).
Buy MW3 and youll be getting the last cod in a new box more or less. CoD is all about just running in and pray and spray more or less. There are no real tactics or team play to it. So if thats what you want then go for that. But with BF3 you have a more team centric game. On PC it has 64 player maps with vehicles and some improved graphics over the console version. Personally, BF3 is much more fun and looks a lot better than MW3 does. I would pick BF3 over CoD any day. Not to mention that Dice (BF3 developers) have said they intended to update this game and continue with it rather than releasing a new game every year like CoD. So if you buy MW3 now then prepare to have to buy Treyarch's CoD next year, then the new Activision CoD the year after that.
I do enjoy both games because they both have great things to offer; however, one thing to keep in mind is that you CAN'T play bf3 locally, meaning your friends can't play with you on the same console. This came as a surprise to me and was a huge disappointment. How hard would it have been to add this feature?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"-Voltaire
You forgot to add that CoD loves to release this small map packs as well that you'll want to pay for in order to get the full expirence. So its not just BF3 that has those expansions (though the BF2 ones did seem to be a little bigger than the ones that CoD released). But CoD does seem to have more costs than BF3 does. With them releasing a new game every year, and their elite service (optional) if your into that.
this is a silly and quite over asked question BF3 vs MW3 omg which to buy...
The awsner is simple buy both.
They are very very different games from 1 another, bf3 is a massive game full of vechiles and uber huge maps with destructible envirorments and graphics that make you forget its a game. MW3 is an arena style (small map) shooter with an incredibly fast pace much faster than bf3 less about tactics more about pwning people. BF3 has a huge team system and really needs you to play with your team / squad if you want to do well, mw3 is a game where you can be that lone ranger talk to no1 go out there and dominate the scoreboard..
Basicaly I believe if you are a fps fan there is room in your life for both games, sometimes you may want a large scale slower pace beautiful battle full of teamwork and vechiles, sometimes you may want to just log in talk to noone and get out there and be the super hero 1 man army you want to be that day in a super fast paced small map arcade style action shooter..
I really do believe both games are 2 far different to compare and that they are both awsome in there own ways and if you are a true fan buy both if you can only afford 1 of the games then decide what do you want large scale teamwork epicness or fast paced headshooting non stop action..
THIS
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
I dont think they are too far off. They are both FPS with progression. I'll even go as far to say that during beta there was one map that was fast paced and required teamwork in BF3 but you could easily go lone ranger and rampage.
BF3 has everything CoD does and more (minus the singeplayer, but CoD's singler player only lasts about 6 hours normally, so I wouldnt buy that game just for that anyway).
Nice vid. I actually saw someone comment that you had to "pay to play online" in bf3. Some people just post first and read facts later...
Im a big fps fan but not of the newer generation of "COD clones" like the mmo genre
the fps genre has suffered over the past 5 years imo, there all campfests with airstikes
& other noob friendly functions.
The long & short is BF3 is a " COD clone" like the newer medal of honor its pathetic,
with no nieche of its own, this is a poor game & in no way an improvement of BF2,
its got the graphics of BFBC but with the same poor playability & stupid loadtimes.
You cant even configure your keys unless your in game, you cant do anything whilst
dead & awaiting spawn, you have no free look whilst in vehicles, this is a pure console
port & a pretty bad one, pure lazy EA crap as per usual.
Ontop of it all theres a load of problems with origin & the server browser, which is a webpage
& not an in-game browser, like all EA games theres 500 steps to install & when you finally get to
play its seriously not worth the wait.
...bring back the classic shooters
The Deathstar destroyed planets...Lucas Arts destroyed Galaxies
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Played:
SWG | EVE | WOW | VG | LOTRO | WAR | FML | STO | APB | AOC | MORTAL | WOT | BP | SW:TOR
Neither is "better" since they are different in gameplay.
BF3 = more ot a total war experience. Fight on foot in armor and in the air on large maps where teamwork and working with your squad makes a lot of difference. Vanilla rules BF3 to me strikes the perfect balance of realism vs fun however I also like playing Hardcore.
MW3 = as with the other COD titles the game is all about infantry combat on smaller maps, organised teams can still be picked apart by a handfull of really good players operating on their own. Vanilla CoD always feels too arcadey for me, it shouldnt take 2/3 of an assault rifle magazine to kill someone, that said Hardcore mode in Black Ops was perfect IMHO and I played the majority of my time on Blops in HC.
So it really depends what you want from the game as to which one is "better" for you.
If you want to get the best experience on the PC, get BF3.
If you want to get the best experience on the Consoles, get MW3.
MW3 is built with consoles in mind using dated technology that can still work well on 360 and PS3, which are very dated. Not a lot of innovation and the general feeling has not changed at all, besides a few addicting modes. If you don't plan on swapping from the analog stick, stay with this.
BF3 is built with top of the line technology that can look amazing on the PC, and scale decently to 360 and PS3, but it is obviously not as good of a game on the consoles. For instance, on consoles BF3's frame rate is locked to 30, and the graphics seem to be below (low) setting on PC.
COD is no less of an arcade game. Which is fine since nobody is looking for realism. Battlefield and Call of Duty games would have no players if everybody who plays them right now looked for realism.
In terms of destructability and physics however, BF3 does a pretty good jobs at providing more realism, but not in pace and setup.
BF3 is hailed as a Strategy shooter first. This is what I consider it and I think it fits the niche pretty well.