Again, if you want to win consistently in objective based game types in COD, you absolutely have to have teamwork. Otherwise, your W/L ratio will be in the 0.90-1.10 range, on average. It doesnt matter if there are kill whores out there or not...there are plenty of tactics involved in COD games. Communicating with your teammates on enemy locations, when youre planting/defusing a bomb, which flag you should cap next, etc...all requires teamwork and tactic if you want to do well.
From when I've played objective based matches in COD, you can have someone completely dominate and the team usually wins. In BF2 you had your chopper/tank whores who went 50-1 but were still on the losing team because it had absolutely no effect on winning. I like both games for their own things, but I prefer Battlefield. I enjoyed being a commander from time to time on BF2 and if you found the right server, people actually followed commands.
No. If you want a tactical shooter, check out Ghost Recon, Socom, or KZ2; if you want a squad-based shooter, check out Battlefield, Rainbow Six, or MAG. Comparing to the other shooters in the market, the amount of tactics and squad work required in CoD is so minimal that it can be described as the complete opposite of a squad-based tactical shooter, which is basically the reason it became the most popular arcade shooter around.
I LOVED Battlefield 2 so much and I'm very happy this is coming. The Bad Company games were good but not as good as BF2 or 1942. With the 64 player multiplayer, sounds like this is back to the old days.
It was the PC version, so of course it looks much better than anything else out there. It is basically running on hardware that is substantially more powerful that what most developers aim for (might as well be "next-gen" hardware). Most developers don't bother supporting this new hardware, so games don't usually look this good, but there's no reason to think these aren't in-game shots. Maybe in-game shots for a PC with a $400-$500 GPU, but in-game shots nevertheless.
DICE did say that the game was running on a PC with a graphics card that you can go buy today, so it's definitely not that far off from what a lot of people may be playing once the game hits. As for the 360/PS3 looking like this. No chance in hell. I'm hoping the next gen consoles start coming out in 2012 or 2013, so games like this could be a standard.
DICE demoed the game a bit at GDC. The presentation ended up being recorded by a camera: (crappy quality) <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SNRf4ClUVZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Download: http://www.multiupload.com/9F4K2LZO0F Probably will be a direct feed, HD version next week. Looks impressive of course. That one scene will make most people's jaw drop I imagine. Also some crappy cam footage of a new tech demo for Unreal Engine 3 (something like 3.975...basically Unreal 4 without changing the name). Wasn't planning on posting it here, but probably some links on Youtube or elsewhere if anyone's curious. Also very impressive. Think it used 3 GTX 580s, although it was unoptimized. Also going to be a full reveal next week Maybe no new consoles, but finally some nice "next-gen" graphics.
Fanboys are only denying themselves of things if they automatically assume, in this discussion, Call of Duty OR Battlefield. I was guilty of only playing IW's Modern Warfare games only. I still think they are outstanding and insanely fun games, both SP and MP. I didn't spend my time b****ing about it's faults, I just played and enjoyed it. As Black Ops was being released, the masses were salivating at it, and I held a reservation as I had never enjoyed any of Treyarch's products yet. I tried Black Ops, and simply did not enjoy it. To me, it took away the things that made MW1/2 fun, and didn't add anything else. After that, I decided to try BFBC2. The fact that it was on sale for like 7-8 bucks certainly was a motivating factor, but I'm so glad I tried it. I can't really compare MW and BF...apple to orange type deal, but I'd be a fool to write one off. They are both great games, and each side pushes the other to keep making better games. If you don't have that, you end up with something like the same NFL Madden game year after year since there's no real competition. For anyone to look at what Battlefield 3 looks like at this moment (given it is pre-release) and hates on it, is just going to miss out. Then again, it's just a game
I agree with nearly everything esstookaytd said. Don't know why people are aruging about this. I loved both Modern Warfare games and Black Ops. I am getting a bit tired of the series, but I've put so many hours into those three games that I can't say I didn't enjoy them (I think me getting tired of them is because Activision is kinda running it into the ground by pushing a new one out every year). And BF2 is probably my favorite multiplayer game ever. BF is more open with larger maps and vehicles. CoD is more close quarters with small maps. This makes quite a bit difference. Also, don't know whats not to be excited about BF3. It looks really promising from what we've seen, by a great developer, and sequel to one of the best games ever.
hd trailer release of gameplay <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nzz-_LnftaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
wow! <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aPu7-LtLKmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
