Can't wait. I'm sick of the COD series and their miserably small maps. Time for more destruction, love the frostbite engine. Spent many hours playing BF2. Looking forward to 64 man servers in BF3.
Battlefield is large-scale combat. Call of Duty is more of a squad-based tactical shooter in CQC environments. Some people prefer small-scale, some people prefer epic. I prefer epic, but I always felt Battlefield controls felt incredibly clunky.
wrong.... battlefield 2 is a squad based tactical large-scale combat fps... while cod is a small scale run around with your heads cut off fps. Battlefield series especially 2 and the project reality mod have squads and 90% of the time people actually stay with their squad.
what is up with the graphics? visually it looks great but they ruined it with some grey filter that makes it look bad. Needs way more color, looks monotone and not realistic at all.
The animations of the soldiers are unreal...COD looks nothing like that. The sprinting scenes are the most impressive.
If you want to win, COD is most definitely tactical in game types such as domination, demolition, Search and Destroy, etc... There are no tactics in team deathmatch...but every other game type requires teamwork if you want to consistently win.
You do realize COD Modern Warfare STOLE much of its gameplay from Battlefield 2, which came out in 2005.
To put it simply, COD is arcade style while Battlefield is more of a simulation style. If I'm playing a shooter, I'm only in it for the realism. This game will be real!
I'm one of the people that prefer CoD to Battlefield. I own several Call of Duty games and BFBC2 and I just never really got into the latter. I enjoyed some aspects of Battlefield, but I prefered the faster pace of Call of Duty. This however looks amazing and if it still looks like this when it is released on PS3, I will most definitely buy it and give it another shot. The graphics are absolutely ridiculous. Only problem I see is that when your character runs, the gun doesn't sway nearly as much as all of your squad mates. I think they need to change that.
If you want to argue. Modern shooters stole their ideas from counter-strike. which is to this day the GOAT of fps's
I don't think I'd call it a COD killer. The games attract two different types of audiences. Most COD players are put off by the teamwork aspect of Battlefield.
Like rez said, you cannot win consistently in COD if you do not play as a team outside of team deathmatch saying otherwise makes no sense
I never liked COD. Why not play a real FPS that requires skill like CS1.6? Oh wait cuz no one cares about gameplay only graphics.
Sorry, compared to other FPS, COD (past COD2 anyways) is not that team-oriented. Having a system that rewards kills over objectives is idiotic. A killstreak that automatically ends the game? Horse****.
Ridiculous. It's impossible to be a fan of both games, because there are so many annoying fanboys running around. So many people complain about CoD players not playing tactically, and not playing the objective. Yet I've seen tons of people in Battlefield sitting in the corner of the map camping with snipers not giving a damn about the objectives; nor communicating with their team. Don't impose a double-standard just to prove your point. Like I said before. Battlefield is large-scale, slower-pace tactical skirmishes. While CoD is more of a small-scale, urban-set, faster-paced tactical firefight. All this "this game takes skill, blah blah blah". Well... all of that is subjective. I can be the best Battlefield player in the world, but that won't necessarily ensure my dominance if I switch to CoD and vice-versa.
All I can say is that none of those games really take that much skill compared to Lair. In that game, I navigated a dragon with pure Sixaxis control and defeated a mountain. A MOUNTAIN! Try doing that with CoD.
