COD fans, what keeps you from switching to Battlefield?

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

russiaAK47

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

Gotham-Calls

my point exactly, you cant give me a specific detail. have you played BF?

I imagine the fact that it's more complex.

most people I know play both, I don't understand these brand loyalties sometimes

most people I know play both, I don't understand these brand loyalties sometimes

ZIVX

It's not brand loyalty.

Some of us just don't enjoy playing bad games like MW3, or paying for the same thing for the fourth time.

Probably because COD requires no skill, and when they play BF it will be evident that they had none.

:o

Probably CoD is easier to get into and more addicting for casual gamers.

I will be getting both but i will probably enjoy MW3 more since i like Arcade shooters more.

One is easy (Call of Duty). One takes skill (Battlefield).

:P

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"]

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

russiaAK47

my point exactly, you cant give me a specific detail. have you played BF?

1) matches take no longer than 10 minutes(quick accesible and i can just play and stop whenever)

2)battlefield does not take more skill, in fact no game takes any skill. just becoming comfortable with how the game feels and controls. i easily adapted my cod game to battlefield.Always top 3 on the scoreboard.

3)customization is way better and easier to do.silencer on whatever gun, not just for certainn guns.

4) Gameplay just feels better, smooth and quick.

5)no teammate aspect on most modes. I don't have to rely on my teammates.

6)search and destroy is fast paced and exciting to play. you never know whats going to happen.

7)Doesn't try to do things it can't, such as try to be too realistic. its an arcade military shooter, fast paced and addictive.

CoD is fast, you get in and do a quick match or two in 10-15 minutes. It's smooth and easy. And some people just into CoD's gameplay and don't want to change.

And I don't understand the argument about skill. So what, does Bad Company 2 take so much skill?

I play games to escape reality if i wanted to feel what real war was like ill join the army or at the very least

play Military paintball. For me there is nothing better than getting home from a long day of work hoping on COD owning

some noobs with some friends and feeling like rambo while i do it.

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"] call of duty stomps all over battlefield.

Gotham-Calls

my point exactly, you cant give me a specific detail. have you played BF?

1) matches take no longer than 10 minutes(quick accesible and i can just play and stop whenever)

2)battlefield does not take more skill, in fact no game takes any skill. just becoming comfortable with how the game feels and controls. i easily adapted my cod game to battlefield.Always top 3 on the scoreboard.

3)customization is way better and easier to do.silencer on whatever gun, not just for certainn guns.

4) Gameplay just feels better, smooth and quick.

5)no teammate aspect on most modes. I don't have to rely on my teammates.

6)search and destroy is fast paced and exciting to play. you never know whats going to happen.

7)Doesn't try to do things it can't, such as try to be too realistic. its an arcade military shooter, fast paced and addictive.

ok so cod takes less skill, since your #7 point says try to be too realistc. um i like realism. i dont like fake and bs respawns and bs shooting. i like to think about tactics, i dont like to run and gun like a mindless zombie. ok thanks

Probably because COD requires no skill, and when they play BF it will be evident that they had none.

:o

theuncharted34

O NO i own in both but still enjoy COD more i must be a god gamer

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"]

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

my point exactly, you cant give me a specific detail. have you played BF?

russiaAK47

1) matches take no longer than 10 minutes(quick accesible and i can just play and stop whenever)

2)battlefield does not take more skill, in fact no game takes any skill. just becoming comfortable with how the game feels and controls. i easily adapted my cod game to battlefield.Always top 3 on the scoreboard.

3)customization is way better and easier to do.silencer on whatever gun, not just for certainn guns.

4) Gameplay just feels better, smooth and quick.

5)no teammate aspect on most modes. I don't have to rely on my teammates.

6)search and destroy is fast paced and exciting to play. you never know whats going to happen.

7)Doesn't try to do things it can't, such as try to be too realistic. its an arcade military shooter, fast paced and addictive.

ok so cod takes less skill, since your #7 point says try to be too realistc. um i like realism. i dont like fake and bs respawns and bs shooting. i like to think about tactics, i dont like to run and gun like a mindless zombie. ok thanks

BF in not real my friend in any way shape or form

I like both but prefer CoD. Battlefield feels "weird", the movement is kind of robotic and I hate the hit detection. It feels a bit like a gamble when you go 1 vs 1 with someone, in CoD it's easier to tell when you're going to down them.

Also, vehicles are overrated. I much prefer quick and fluid infantry combat over large scale battles. Not that I hate them.

It's mainly the vehicles I don't like. There's no work other than running there first at the beginning of the game and even if you die you spawn off back at the start and wait for it to pop back again trying to beat out anyone else happening to be waiting for it too, leading you to get kills in the 200 range and above while every one else has under 80. There are no-vehicle servers but that's just dull. COD put in killstreaks and at least you have to work for them (except for W@W with the stupid tanks) while also adding the threat of having vehicles able to devestate a team. Also there's way more game modes (even with the added gamemodes in BC2 it's still far less than half of what COD offers). Litterally the only good points are the number of players and the sizes of the maps.

Getting both so instead of being a little whiner I get the best of both worlds.

After seeing COD's spec ops, I just had to buy the game

battlefield is the same thing as call of duty. conquest is full of a bunch of spawn killer campers and such. not realistic, not even close. battlefield woul'dnt even be where it is now if it weren't for call of duty.

I'm casual and like games that hold my hand. Plus I have a fetish for 15 dollar map packs.

I also don't like the thought of innovation, just keep feeding me the same game for 4 years.

Call of Duty and Battlefield are two different things. They're not really comparable, other than both being "modern military shooters".

Probably CoD is easier to get into and more addicting for casual gamers.

Orchid87

How so? They both do the same things..One just feels heavier then the other..BF feels slower..COD is a little faster..not a lot different otherwise...

I doubt any of the COD fanboys will switch to BF because they like to bash it and COD is the only game they play.

These forums remind me of everyday life...Everyone is worried what everyone else is doing instead of minding their own business. Always trying so hard to convince everyone else that THEIR ways are right and everyone elses is wrong..

COD or BF? honestly who cares?

Halo or KZ? really? Does it matter to you?

Christian or Atheist? not your business

xbox vs ps3 vs nin vs pc? They all play games and all have pretty much the same games...so what?

eh, people get on my nerves...bet I get a TOS for this...even though its just the truth..

Probably because COD requires no skill, and when they play BF it will be evident that they had none.

:o

theuncharted34

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Probably because COD requires no skill, and when they play BF it will be evident that they had none.

:o

Rayne718

[QUOTE="Rayne718"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Probably because COD requires no skill, and when they play BF it will be evident that they had none.

:o

Ilikemyname420

thankyou BF is not realistic in any way shape or form

I'm more of a fan of COD, but i'm getting both. I will say though I find BF hard to get in to when the matches I'm in are always one sided. And having bad teammates not doing their jobs makes the game extremely frustrating. One of the reasons I do like BF is because its a completely change of pace and feels fresh than what I'm regularly used to with COD. Getting it for the 360 as some of my friends are actually considering buying it this time.

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

russiaAK47

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

Phazevariance

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"]

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

just wondering, seems to me that battlefield is superior in every category, from graphics to gameplay to realism. maybe im wrong, can you give specifics?

Gotham-Calls

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"]

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"] No, you're right. It is superior in every way.

mitu123

CoD takes almost no skill (faster reflexes arent skill in my book). CoD is easier and more accessible to casuals.tommyas

Tell that to martial artists..lol..no skill..so I guess that means someone whos never played it can boot it up and hang with the pros right? Thats like saying Tetris take no skill..or checkers..What makes BF take more skill...running around shooting, throwing grenades,dying,spawning? Oh thats in every game..lol..crazy.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"] no your'e wrong its inferior in everyway.

Ilikemyname420

CoD takes almost no skill (faster reflexes arent skill in my book). CoD is easier and more accessible to casuals.tommyas

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"] no your'e wrong its inferior in everyway.

Ilikemyname420

[QUOTE="tommyas"]CoD takes almost no skill (faster reflexes arent skill in my book). CoD is easier and more accessible to casuals.Dark4ever01

CoD = let autoaim do the work, pull the trigger, very VERY imbalanced.

Battlefield = have to aim with no auto aim to help you, small hitboxes that aren't stupidly large to compensate for auto-aim or controllers, bullet spread, bullet travel, bullet weight, normalized weapons so no one has a big advantage.

Battlefield doesn't take much thought, but in comparison with the thought CoD? It might as well be a complex game of chess for CoD players. Have to focus on objectives and teamwork? NOOO I WANT TEH KILLSTREAKS!!!

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Definitely not graphics and sound...and teamplay.

ChupacabraIII

Teamwork is needed in Battlefield. Good luck with that on consoles.Merex760

good grief..lol..good luck with that on any platform dude..