While the campaign is enjoyable, and usually better than Battlefields, I never found it anything special. 2: Wow, no. That's a complete matter of opinion, and something the majority will argue against. The online multiplayer is good, and usually fun, but not the best. Far from it. 3: The weapons are nearly ALWAYS messed up in some way, and the majority end up using one weapon, like the Intervention or UMP in MW2 and the AK74U and Famas in Blops. 4: CoD graphics are far from amazing. Far.
See, the main thing I don't understand about this (besides the graphics, as others have stated) is how has Treyarch patching Black Ops quickly and often ruined it?
Beacause then there aren't as many exploits to take advantage of so you actualy have to work at ranking up and getting good like you're intended to.
I like COD story's. They are more planned out than battlefield. Battlefield bad co 2 story sucked after that first mission. But BattleField id say has always had better graphics than COD. Plus Battlefield has frostbite engine, which allows for amazing destruction on the map. say some1 is camping in a house. You can bow up the entire house or just make a hole in the house where he his camping. In COD you can't,
You're an idiot. 1: Negotiable. I personally loved everything about BC2's campaign, especially the fact that it lasted more than 2 hours unlike MW2. 2: FAR from. In fact aside from Cod2/4 they've been generally awful. Look at the running record. Cod3 was a joke, Cod WaW died within what, 6 months of it's release? MW2 is broken in every aspect, and Black Ops (to be frank) is the slowest CoD title to date. 3: There are just as many weapons in Battlefield, if not more. And unlike the Call of Duty series they're not ridiculously overpowered. 4: Do I really need to say anything...
They're both military shooters that take advantage of holographic sights and a regurgitated selection of weapons, etc. I understand that there are only so many modern firearms in existence that you can add, but what the ****. I do not want to see another ****ing G3 in a shooter. Regardless my vote goes to BF3, because I like the Bad Company series. BF3 cannot easily mar the great gameplay streak DICE has going. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - Red Dot Sniper Montage‏ - YouTube
battlefield hasnt really had a story until bad company, and those stories have always been tongue in cheek and has never been serious. what's to say BF3 hasnt hired a great writer to pen a great story for the game? now, call of duty on the other hand managed to splice up a story in black ops which was seriously flawed and had terrible pacing. personally, i never enjoyed the story of bad company, but the scenes set up through the pacing and momentum of the story did fit well and i had a comfortable experience, rather than getting mad and fed up like i did with black ops. on the other hand, MW2 wasnt so bad, although as it neared the end it did feel like it was dragging on. (probably by the estate mission)
cod4 had a really good story with good pacing, but after that, meh. it went downhill. i own bad company 2 and never even tried playing the campaign, but i love the multiplayer.
To be honest I was a little surprised by the poll results. I never imagined I would see only 4 votes for a COD game, and 29 votes for BF. I personally have played the COD series all the way through, and only started playing BF when it hit console. Yet, I have to say that after playing the Bad Company series, I will never go back. No doubt BF3 will never be the COD killer, but in my opinion it is the better game. As mentioned above, it has become quite clear that COD is out to do nothing more than take our money. MW2 was relased far to soon, resulting in many game-breaking glitches, and it took months for them to patch them. Why? Because ultimately they did not care. Either way people would continue to buy their games, and continue to play them. Yet, overall, the reason I choose BF3 over MW3 is because it is a team based game. COD games are filled with try hards, and corner campers who care nothing more than to raise their K/D, which is something that is not found to much in BF games. And to be honest with you I hope that COD beats BF, because I really don't want to see all the COD fans migrating to, and ruining, BF3. Just as a disclaimer, so I don't get flamed, I do not believe that all COD players are like this, just a vast majority. Well, I guess I am done now.
1) The best campaigns I've played in the shooter genre are Halo and Gears, hands down. Maria's death in Gears 2 was one of the more moving video game moments I've experienced in a while. CoD 4 had a sweet campaign, everything else was just meh and not too memorable. 2) CoD multiplayer is one of the few console multiplayers where I see mods run rampant. (MW and WaW) and MW2 was shot to ****. Nowhere even close to the best online multiplayer. At least in my humble opinion. 3) Riiiight... MW: P90 WaW: MP40 MW2: UMP BlOps: Famas 4) Kids say the darndest things...CoD's graphics are average at best. If you want good graphics, then pick up Crysis. 5) Someone already asked this, but I feel the need to reiterate; how on earth is patching a game bad? Wouldn't it be better to fix defects that deteriorate from the otherwise best online multiplayer? On topic, I don't know if I'll buy either, because I'm about to be a broke college student in two weeks lol and I'm saving my money to get Gears 3, Skyrim, Halo, and maybe the new Forza. If I had to choose though, I'd get Battlefield for a nice change of pace, because I'm starting to get burnt out on CoD.
The main reason I am picking up BF3 is because of the destructible environments and massive vehicular battles. Those two things are what I find most enjoyable in games and are not even offered in MW3. I'm still going to pick up MW3 after I rent it (if it's good enough) because I think of it more as arena-based. The stories in both series absolutely sucked. I don't think I have ever completed one besides CoD4 and even then, I did not enjoy it. BF3 seems to be showcasing a lot of their campaign so maybe there will be a change.
I'll be picking up Cod, because all my friends are getting it, and its more fun to play a decent game with friends than an arguably better game with randoms.
Great...Like there weren't aready enough people with turtle beach headsets in that game with the unfair advantage of bieng able to hear enemy footsteps on the other side of the map.... I'm with BF3, that game actually requires teamwork and I feel has a better community. No offense CoD fans, but on BF games I tend to get verbally abused a lot less and unlike on CoD when you ask your team to do something the response isn't usually "F**K OFF"
If you're looking for a good story, then I would steer away from Battlefield. It looks like the campaign will just be a series of missions, similar to the early Call of Dutys, although that is just speculation on my part.
I'm not expecting a compelling story or anything like it from either series. I was pointing out that DICE is showcasing their campaign more than any other Battlefield which makes me think they really listened and improved it.
The story did develop quite a bit from BF1 to BF2. Maybe it'll develop futher in BF3? TBH to get a decent story they need to move away from the rubbish jokes and dumb characters who wouldn't last 5 seconds in a real war. Or at least make the characters stop screwing around in every cutscene (in BF1 they'd be playing rock paper scissors in EVERY cutscene, even if they were under enemy fire...WTF?)
Battle field: bad company 1 and 2 yes... I know there where games before but everyone calls bad company 3 BF3 soooo...
it is battlefield 3, not bad company 3. the 2 bad company games were more like spin offs, this game coming out this fall is BF 3 and is the next true battlefield game in the series after BF 2