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?

russiaAK47

[QUOTE="Merex760"]Teamwork is needed in Battlefield. Good luck with that on consoles.VanDammFan

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

Play on PC. Teamwork is just the nature of the platform.

They use the word "casuals" because when talking about a mega popular game, apparently only casuals play it... Battlefield isn't ultra popular, so I'm guessing only the hardcore and L33T players play it :roll: COD sells 10x's more than any BF game for a reason no matter what you hardcore'ers say on teh internetzBodyElite

Black Ops = 25 mil

Bad Company 2 = Approaching 9 million.

Sales =/= quality.

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

[QUOTE="Merex760"]Teamwork is needed in Battlefield. Good luck with that on consoles.ChubbyGuy40

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

Play on PC. Teamwork is just the nature of the platform.

What?? 25+ million people don't buy a game because it sucks now... You fanboys talk out of your a**esBodyElite

*Says fanboys talk out of their asses*

*says CoD sells x10 more than any Battlefield*

Nice fail logic.

Do you have proof everyone enjoys each copy bought?

[QUOTE="Merex760"]Teamwork is needed in Battlefield. Good luck with that on consoles.VanDammFan

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

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?

gamer620

[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?

gamer620

I agree with everything you said.... but you could play COD and use teamwork, but the game it self does not force you to do so. In Bf you pretty much have to use teamwork for the game to fuction which is all good till you meat you teamates :x I do like BF though once you find a good server with balanced teams it can be a lot of fun and a good change of pace from COD.

Switching? Why can't i play both? :o

I must be ripping another dimension open with that crazy suggestion....

[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?

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.

Ilikemyname420

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.

Gotham-Calls

go play some of the old BF2 servers, Spawn killing is most definately not tolerated.Pretty sure theres a few on BC2 that enforce the same rules.

Battlefield 2 was before Call of Duty and was the big mutiplayer FPS of its time.

CoD has actually copied quite a few things from Battlefield one cause say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ;)

I'll put in my 2 cents why I like Bad Company 2 better:

Destruct able Environments: The match changes as you play. As the environment changes, you need to change your tactics, which helps a lot with keeping the match interesting and the immersion factor up.

Rush Mode: This mode defines Battlefield. It's the best mode IMO that combines both teamwork and very exciting matches. This mode alone is worth playing Battlefield.

Better GFX and Sound: Now, some people may think I'm grasping at straws when I point out Battlefield has better GFX and sound, but the truth is, these both help the immersion, especially the sound. The sound is phenomenal. Everything sounds great and will change where you are on the battlefield. I also like when your team and the enemy team yells and reacts to situations that are happening on the Battlefield. That also helps the immersion quite a lot.

Vehicles: Vehicles provide a lot more ways you can take the fight to the enemy and are also fun to blow up with C4 :D There is nothing more satisfying then sneaking up behind a tank, planting 2 C4 charges then... BOOM!! Never gets old.

Teamwork is rewarded: In Battlefield, you get points whenever you help your team. Whether it be reviving team mates, giving team mates ammo, reparing vehicles or even just spotting enemies, you will get points that add to your rank. You don't even need to fight, and you might make it close to the top of the point list just by helping your team.

Dog Tags: I don't care what people say, Dog Tags are a great reward for knifing someone. In Battlefield 3, the dog tags will be customizable, so when you get someones dog tags, it feels more personal.

That silky, gold, baby powder smooooth 60 frames per second, man.

That silky, gold, baby powder smooooth 60 frames per second, man.

Lucianu

I play on PC. What is this measly 60FPS you speak of? Have the consolites yet to reach 120FPS yet?

[QUOTE="Lucianu"]

That silky, gold, baby powder smooooth 60 frames per second, man.

ChubbyGuy40

I play on PC. What is this measly 60FPS you speak of? Have the consolites yet to reach 120FPS yet?

Anything past 60 fps is superfluous.

jjccjj92

No it's not. It makes the picture even more natural and smooth. A must in fast-paced games like FPSes.

Plus there's be no point in 120hz displays if over 60FPS was unnecessary.

The fact that COD is a huge bundle of fun exploding with monkey bombs and zombies? It's just fun, get over it, that's why it sells.

God the Battlefield fans just don't give up, do they? Battlefield could be the most realistic, tactical, teamwork oriented, and graphically amazing game on the planet but CoD games just have that extra fun factor that keeps us coming back for more. Don't you get it? CoD isn't supposed to be realistic. It's pure, simple arcade-style action. And most people find that FUN.

I want to PLAY a game, not a simulation. I WANT to just run off and do my own thing, I couldn't care less about having uber-teamwork with a bunch of random people I've never met. I just want to find people and kill them. Plain and simple. That's why I love COD. It's fast paced, fun, over the top, addicting, and it's simply the best of it's kind as far as arcade style FPS goes.Messiahbolical-

Give up on what? Pointing out the obvious flaws in it's ancient gameplay and how gullible their fans are for buying the same thing for a third time? Battlefield isn't supposed to be realistic either.

Good, so play Battlefield. Battlefield isn't a simulation. ArmA 2 is a simulation.

God the Battlefield fans just don't give up, do they? Battlefield could be the most realistic, tactical, teamwork oriented, and graphically amazing game on the planet but CoD games just have that extra fun factor that keeps us coming back for more. Don't you get it? CoD isn't supposed to be realistic. It's pure, simple arcade-style action. And most people find that FUN. I want to PLAY a game, not a simulation. I WANT to just run off and do my own thing, I couldn't care less about having uber-teamwork with a bunch of random people I've never met. I just want to find people and kill them. Plain and simple. That's why I love COD. It's fast paced, fun, over the top, addicting, and it's simply the best of it's kind as far as arcade style FPS goes.Messiahbolical-

Its also casual and laughably easy, even a 5 year old can maintain a solid k/d ratio. Basically a game for casuals, just like Wii Sports.

Play for fun all you desire, its your time afterall. But don't compare the infinitely superior Battlefield to it.

>

Its also casual and laughably easy, even a 5 year old can maintain a solid k/d ratio. Basically a game for casuals, just like Wii Sports.

Play for fun all you desire, its your time afterall. But don't compare the infinitely superior Battlefield to it.

Lucianu

Who the hell cares? It's a game. I couldn't care less about my kill death ratio, how "easy" it is, how "casual" it is... it's a f***ing game. I play it to have fun. I never claimed I wanted to be this "pro gamer"(what a joke :roll: ) that all of you Battlefield fanboys claim you are for playing it over CoD. lol Seriously... the fanboyism in some of these posts is ridiculous. Have you all lost track in what the whole point in gaming is? You play what you find fun, and I'll play what I find fun.Messiahbolical-

Then why are you angry at me for? If you didn't care, then you would have admiting to the fact that its a casual game just like Wii Sports, which it is. Wii Sports might require more skill though, i don't know for certain. I'm not a Battlefield fanboy, i'm just seeing, with my own eyes, what the vastly superior game will be.

Give up on what? Pointing out the obvious flaws in it's ancient gameplay and how gullible their fans are for buying the same thing for a third time? Battlefield isn't supposed to be realistic either.

Good, so play Battlefield. Battlefield isn't a simulation. ArmA 2 is a simulation.

ChubbyGuy40

Then why are you angry at me for? If you didn't care, then you would have admiting to the fact that its a casual game just like Wii Sports, which it is. Wii Sports might require more skill though, i don't know for certain. I'm not a Battlefield fanboy, i'm just seeing, with my own eyes, what the vastly superior game will be.

Lucianu

Actually,I can enjoy both although I prefer COD.

What's this switching crap?Like I'm in some camp.

[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

Actually,I can enjoy both although I prefer COD.

What's this switching crap?Like I'm in some camp.

Lto_thaG

i like both aswell, but there are some parts of CoD that do need drastic overhauls and im very vocal bout that :P

[QUOTE="Lucianu"]

That silky, gold, baby powder smooooth 60 frames per second, man.

ChubbyGuy40

I play on PC. What is this measly 60FPS you speak of? Have the consolites yet to reach 120FPS yet?

Two different games. CoD is fast paced run and gun whereas BF games are far more diliberate and team oriented. I play both, but it really depends on what kind of gaming mood Im in. The big issue I have with BF games is there always seems to be a few guys on your team that are far too self absorbed and forget their roles. I hate when an Assault or a Medic wont drop ammo or health packs. All they are interested in is getting kills or objectives.

CoD...Faster paced gameplay, Tons of unlocks, Killstreaks and Perks keep it fresh

BF....Big battlefields, vehicles that can turn the tide, environmental destruction

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.

Gotham-Calls

I find it amazing that some people here are using hit detection as a strike against BF! COD/MW has some of the worst hit detection I have ever seen across all FPS'. I like and play both games. At one point I preferred COD, but now I prefer BF but still enjoy and play both. Both have pluses and minuses but when debating try and keep the argument realistic. If your a COD fanboy and call out BF on hit detection you are delusional. Hit detection is the most glaring problem with the COD/MW series IMO.

[QUOTE="Dark4ever01"]

[QUOTE="tommyas"]CoD takes almost no skill (faster reflexes arent skill in my book). CoD is easier and more accessible to casuals.ChubbyGuy40

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!!!

I love BF but the hit detection was terrible.

THe BF fans got there reason and now whining how BF is beter. Who gives a damn COD will continue to stomp BF and people will continue they feel is better unlike you forum dwellers. This was a thread to bash COD not find reasons why its better, notice BF fans are answer even though its not your question. But anyway go on WASDIE mod me as anything against BF is illegal so f it. Corrupt like the british police.

Trust me, I'm not angry at you and I don't care if CoD is the most casual franchise on the planet. I'm just tired of reading the same things over and over by these Battlefield fanboys everywhere I go. They're all over the internet spamming lately... on Youtube, gaming forums, CoD forums, chat rooms, even on Facebook. I've never seen another franchise with this much fanboyism before. It's just getting really annoying to the point where it makes me not want to get Battlefield 3, a game that I was really excited for at one point in time, just because I'm so tired of hearing about it and how "superior" it is to CoD.Messiahbolical-

Its hype before release, it'll go down after that. Play what you wanna play without listening to what people think. Its your experience that matters, man.

Most of the people replying here haven't even played Battlefield. The closest they have come to playing Battlefield is playing the Bad Company games. So they have no clue what Battlefield really is.

THe BF fans got there reason and now whining how BF is beter. Who gives a damn COD will continue to stomp BF and people will continue they feel is better unlike you forum dwellers. This was a thread to bash COD not find reasons why its better, notice BF fans are answer even though its not your question. But anyway go on WASDIE mod me as anything against BF is illegal so f it. Corrupt like the british police.

viper-kid

as i've said in a few topics you just keep fighting the good fight champ :roll:

Most of the people replying here haven't even played Battlefield. The closest they have come to playing Battlefield is playing the Bad Company games. So they have no clue what Battlefield really is.

AmazonTreeBoa

Battlefield 2 was before Call of Dutyrazgriz_101

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

Most of the people replying here haven't even played Battlefield. The closest they have come to playing Battlefield is playing the Bad Company games. So they have no clue what Battlefield really is.

Messiahbolical-

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]No.

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

Most of the people replying here haven't even played Battlefield. The closest they have come to playing Battlefield is playing the Bad Company games. So they have no clue what Battlefield really is.

starjet905

In its current form of multiplayer(Cod4 was the big step for CoD) it was 2 years before CoD.

A few ideas were directly taken ffrom BF2,the biggest one being the EXP system and the whole idea of challenges ;)

Also most of the newer Cod's directly have took lifts from UT (domination) and counter strike (search and destroy).

It imitates instead of innovates most of the time.