ok so i can only afford to get one right now and the other probably for christmas. im torn on which on to chose right now. Iv always been a big fan of the COD series and the familiar multi player and controls seem to sway me that way, but im not happy with this payment thing they are asking for and from what i read they multi player may not be as good as black ops was. iv never really played the battlefield games but iv heard big things and everyone is telling me how 3 is going to be so much better then cod. i like playing with my friends but since most my friends has ps3 and mine yellow lighted im stuck with getting it for my xbox which is probably better for multi player anyway. so what you guys think, battlefield or cod first?
well if u wanna buy the same game as u did last year, go for COD. if u wanna try something new buy BF3. I just got the new battlefield, it kicks ass but it cant and shouldnt be compared to COD. 2 COMPLETELY different games on different engines. otherwise id say BF3 is the way to go
You're going to get a lot of biased opinions here. Best of luck. I've already prefer COD, but Battlefield really has closed the gap significantly with their release this year. I don't think you can go wrong with either.
For the record to all who peruse this thread in coming hours, make sure to log onto BF3 this week if youve been frustrated about the servers. With the MW3 release, it's so much easier to play for hours without getting kicked off. I usually lose connection 5 or 6 matches in and had to reboot the system or restart the game through the control panel. Tonight I lost track of time and am now about to work a 6-12 instead of my usual 10-6 (better for my east coast itinerary anyway) on no sleep. Also, squad play that matters (with headsets and coordination) is on the rise again. /winning OP, if you can shell out 120 for both, just do it. I've been a CoD fan for my entire life. BF2 Bad Company and BF3 have made me a lot more into their series too. I liked 1942 but World at War beat that into the curb like a red headed step child. Now to me they're on par and it's about preference. Do you like going on rampages without the team needing your help so much? CoD it up. Do you like going on rampages as a squad with tanks and planes at disposal always instead of just when you get x kills in a row? BF3 it up. It's all preference and mood based now IMO.
battlefield requires patience and has a higher learning curve...if you want to simply have a shootout and not the tactical teamwork based game (which battlefield works if you have friends playing too) go with COD. Battlefield looks better though in terms of graphics.
If you've played MW1 & MW2, you've probably played MW3. Actually, I should say, if you played MW1, you've played MW2 & MW3.
Very original thoughts. Core gameplay remains relatively unchanged, which is a good thing if you like the games. There are plenty of positive changes in this one, small changes, but positive non the less.
The Call of Duty games are chaotic. You rarely see teammates working together. It's about running and gunning. You can play with strategy in MW, but you'll rarely see a teammate covering you. Battlefield's squad based gameplay is much more tactical. I hate to see these games compared, because they're completely different.
If you are talking about Core Team Deathmatch, I'd completely agree. That's why I never play that shit. It's nothing but a bunch of idiots running around and firing bullets everywhere. Hardcore anything is always a much better option.
If I play COD, I play Hardcore HQ. When I play Battlefield, I only play the Hardcore modes. BF3 is just more my style. If someone wants to play like a dumbfuck and run around shooting nades all over the place, he won't be successful in BF3. You can do well in COD playing like a dumbfuck.
The engine from MW1 to 2 to 3 is practically the same. The gameplay is practically the same. Unless you're playing the game for single player then it's practically the same game.
I play cod because it's what my fiends play but I don't have anything against battlefield. With that said fom the limited time I had with bad company 2 an battlefield 3 I felt a lot of the same game too. They are shooters, they don't change all tht much by definition.
Which is why I stopped playing them years ago. Sure it's true that BC2 and BF3 are quite similar which is quite unfortunate. BF3 could have been much better than it is. Any shooter that you play tends to play different than another. Whether it be the balance of the game engine, weapons, vehicles, "realism" things like fast deaths, no hud, etc. They all have a niche. MW however, hasn't evolved at all since MW1. They're still using the Quake 3 engine (about 10 years old) while DICE is using a new engine that they're constantly making better (Frostbite 2) and looks phenomenal on PC, works with Direct X 11, 64 bit processors, and allows for destructive environments. If games like MW stay popular using 10 year old technology, then the gaming world will never advance because developers will know that the people will buy games regardless of technological advances since people just buy the hot game of the moment.
