Battlefield 3 FTW! I'm tired of all the Call of Duty stupid kill streaks, it makes it less realistic and small maps.
If you're concerned about it being 'realistic,' I suggest you stop playing video games and participate in real life.
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1OCVRJEvssM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Yay CoD. So predictable and repetitive.
If youve played more than 10 minutes of COD, then youd know that the odds of what you showed is about 1 in 10 trillion.
The mechanics of the game itself turn me off. Melee that is instant, unloading a clip in less than a second, reloading that takes less than a second. All it does is promote an endless stream of bullets to point and shoot, kill your enemy in less than a second with the most minimal amount of aiming. What you call fluid and responsive, I call simplified and lacking skill.
Why shouldn't melee be instant? And you cannot unload a clip in less that a second or reload a weapon in less that a second
Im talking about the control mechanics and responsiveness. The BF series is clunky whereas the COD games are very tight.
I'd rather be on my 50th session of BF3 than having sex with the same person for the 50th time. Only new/strange puss > BF3.
BF3. Still trying to decide if I get it for PS3 or if I want to build a new PC and do that way. I'd prefer PC, but really don't want to spend that kind of money just to play one game.
and I'm hoping BF3 will be much more fluid. BF2 was damn fun, still is. But yes, the controls do suck. 64 man dedicated servers....'nuff said.
Im hopeful that more fluid controls will be the case as well...Im really rooting for BF3 to be "the" game. I love what I have seen out of it thus far, I just really want it to hold up that level of excellence in other areas as well.
Yeah I know, I played the hell out of BF2. But thing is, most the servers I played on were 32 players. Most the 64 player servers had around half of those guys just idling or teammates fighting each other over jets.
CoD doesn't have the kind of squad mechanics that the Battlefield games have. Every time I play/watch an online game of CoD, everyone is pretty much doing their own thing. Little/no coordination. In BF there is a squad leader/command system built into the game, working as a team is the best way to win.
Working as a team is the best way to win in COD as well. You dont win domination/search and destroy/demolition games consistently if you dont work with your team. Ive played plenty of games in BF that placed me on a team of players that had no interest in working as a team. Both games require teamwork to win. There is no way to deny that. Also, that fee nonsense would suck...that would be complete horsecrap.
This. Plus the ability to break environments, the countless amount of vehicles, and the massive maps where sniping is actually useful.
Definitely getting both. I have supported both franchises in the past, but up to this point, I have enjoyed CoD much more. I really tried hard to get into BFBC2, but it just never happened for me. I wanted to and I appreciated some of the little nuances that they incorporated into their product, but the pace of the game was just too slow for my liking. Hopefully Battlefield bridges that gap for me this time between realism and action. Their game looks clearly superior in terms of graphics, but I'm more interested in the gameplay and "fun factor" in the long run.
