COD fans, what keeps you from switching to Battlefield?

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

The ****s deserved everything they got. inbread idiots destroying thier own areas, smart move.

back on topic. accessibility has been pretty much the only legit response in this thread.

cod is a camping shooter which is easy for people to get in. battlefield has steep learning curve and is strategic...probably majority of people buying cod, when buying games play them on easy mode since hard is just to stressful and hard for them

bf3 all the way

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]Battlefield 2 was before Call of Dutystarjet905

[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

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.

HaloPimp978

I play CoD for campaign and BFBC2 had a simply awful campaign.

People like the arcade style of COD.. being constantly rewarded, being in the middle of the battle instantly...

I wasn't aware I was required to choose one.

do we have to choose.

is it possilble to like 2 games.

or do i have to draw a line and defend my chosen peice of software like a mental

[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="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.

AmazonTreeBoa

Most of the people here have never played CoD, Call of Duty Modern Warfare/World at War/Black Ops =/= Call of Duty.

Jeez. People are acting like if you COD and then go Battlefield instead like there's not going back. Like going from Mac to PC or something. I can buy both games and play both games and enjoy them both. I admit that the COD is really stale now and MW3 doesn't excite me a whole lot. Except for maybe its new Spec Ops mode.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"] You do realize that Bad Company IS Battlefield... right? :|StealthMonkey4

Most of the people here have never played CoD, Call of Duty Modern Warfare/World at War/Black Ops =/= Call of Duty.

Smaller Maps

Better Create a Class system

Perks

Killstreaks

Arcade style shooting

I think what it comes down to is that some people just want something that makes them feel good and feel good about themselves. CoD is a game where everyone has a shot at winning for a while.

A competitive shooting game shoves your personal weaknesses and failures right in your face and forces you to confront them and do something about it. Some people can't handle that.

Basically, CoD is like a big fuzzy teddy bear for people who are mediocre at everything.

I think what it comes down to is that some people just want something that makes them feel good and feel good about themselves. CoD is a game where everyone has a shot at winning for a while.

A competitive shooting game shoves your personal weaknesses and failures right in your face and forces you to confront them and do something about it. Some people can't handle that.

Basically, CoD is like a big fuzzy teddy bear for people who are mediocre at everything.

superfluidity

I have more fun playing MW2 than BFBC2.

I find it faster.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

I think what it comes down to is that some people just want something that makes them feel good and feel good about themselves. CoD is a game where everyone has a shot at winning for a while.

A competitive shooting game shoves your personal weaknesses and failures right in your face and forces you to confront them and do something about it. Some people can't handle that.

Basically, CoD is like a big fuzzy teddy bear for people who are mediocre at everything.

Androvinus

Some games simply provide more opportunities for players to go on a winning streaks regardless of skill level.

CoD is kind of like the Mario Kart of shooters, where someone who would normally be hopelessly left behind has many opportunities handed to them. It's ingenious marketing on Activision's part and I totally understand why they do it, but it is what it is.

I haven't played the game since MW2, but some examples are: spawning in locations that give someone free kills, weapons that kill in one hit and don't expose the shooter to attack (grenade launcher, knife in many situations) or hiding in grass as a sniper. Combine these things with unrealistic shooting mechanics where you basically just point in the enemy's general direction and hold down fire, and you have a recipie for a game that lets anyone rack up some kills.

Somehow I was unable to find a legit reason, so here is why:

- Easier learning curve and less punishing (with many modes having no cooldown timer for dying)

- Faster paced, can jump in a game and get several kills within a minute with matches rarely being longer then a half hour at most

- More polish, you have to admit that the BF games tend to be rather buggy with hit detection and glitches with the wall compared to the usually polished Modern Warfare series

- Better single player, a lot of people get into games for the campaign, and so far BC2's efforts have all been lacking compared to the campaigns of CoD

- Better co-op, while BF is amazing in MP, the co-op has been a huge downpoint. Onslaught was basically 4 redone maps against dumb bots, as compared to the well recieved Spec Ops and Zombies from the CoD franchise

- Less individual glory, BF is amazing with friends, but not quite as much alone and doesn't reward twitch shooting or individual skill as much as planning so its for a different type of gamer really

- Assorted other features and things (improved ranking system, more customization, perks, killstreaks, insane mode variety, etc.)

So there you have it. A few reasons why someone might have a preference over another. Personally I love both games, and I think BF3 will be better then MW3, but so far both series have had their ups and downs. CoD4 was revolutionary and miles more fun then Bad Company 1 for me, while Bad Company 2 was much more fulfilling online then MW2 was. No need to bring out the biased hate.

Somehow I was unable to find a legit reason, so here is why:

- Easier learning curve and less punishing (with many modes having no cooldown timer for dying) Acessibility ok.

- Faster paced, can jump in a game and get several kills within a minute with matches rarely being longer then a half hour at mostAcessibility ok.

- More polish, you have to admit that the BF games tend to be rather buggy with hit detection and glitches with the wall compared to the usually polished Modern Warfare series You mean CoD? the game where you can chest/headshot someone a few times but die in 1 hit to the leg the other? Its more polished because theres barely anything to polish.... balance is awful with some things so thats not polish either.

- Better single player, a lot of people get into games for the campaign, and so far BC2's efforts have all been lacking compared to the campaigns of CoD Agreed, but we cant judge either in that department yet since this is the first Battlefield SP Campgin (NOT BAD COMPANY)

- Better co-op, while BF is amazing in MP, the co-op has been a huge downpoint. Onslaught was basically 4 redone maps against dumb bots, as compared to the well recieved Spec Ops and Zombies from the CoD franchise BF has overall better online Co-OP spec ops was just a minigame, and zombie mode isnt in this new game... just as you say "redone maps with waves of bots".

- Less individual glory, BF is amazing with friends, but not quite as much alone and doesn't reward twitch shooting or individual skill as much as planning so its for a different type of gamer really Disagree, I do amazing alone.

- Assorted other features and things (improved ranking system, more customization, perks, killstreaks, insane mode variety, etc.) 10x the costumization of BF Bad company games, I doubt there will be any gap between the 2 on this subject now.

So there you have it. A few reasons why someone might have a preference over another. Personally I love both games, and I think BF3 will be better then MW3, but so far both series have had their ups and downs. CoD4 was revolutionary and miles more fun then Bad Company 1 for me, while Bad Company 2 was much more fulfilling online then MW2 was. No need to bring out the biased hate.

SPYDER0416

I agree with some, but others are preferences that just dont go by what I consider logic.

in fact no game takes any skill.

Gotham-Calls

:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|

[QUOTE="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?

GTSaiyanjin2

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.

[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?

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"] You do realize that Bad Company IS Battlefield... right? :|StealthMonkey4

Most of the people here have never played CoD, Call of Duty Modern Warfare/World at War/Black Ops =/= Call of Duty.

[QUOTE="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?

GTSaiyanjin2

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.

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

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

Elann2008

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

because it takes skill whereas as call of duty is running and gunning and you are awarded 5-10 extra kills every time you get a kill streak. call of duty sucks monkey ****

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

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

Elann2008

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

Simply because it's so boring... Period!

[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.

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"]

[QUOTE="russiaAK47"]

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

DasBeerBoot

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.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] and bf3 taks more skill? i don't understand this? how is camping around a bomb for enemies to come defuse the bomb taking alot of skills? Chris_Williams

Yes because thats all there is to BF... theres not different classes with actual different functions, an array of vehicles to get good at, and more difficult gun mechanics... Birdy09

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

Battlefield games are so boring to me. I don't enjoy getting sniped from half-way across a map and then having no idea where that sniper even was. Large maps, slow-gameplay, terrible progression system, bad hit detection, no splitscreen options, no splitscreen online, lack of enough game modes, lack of ability to converse with whole (at least in Bad Company 2), none of my friends play this game, and not enough action.

Call of Duty has better single-player, better co-op options (Spec Ops and Nazi Zombis destroy anything Battlefield has used), far better options for playing with my friends locallly (splitscreen online in Black Ops was the best addition to the CoD series in Black Ops), a far batter progression system, emblems and callsigns that make it fun to keep playing the game (although Black Ops didn't have these, hopefully MW3 will), much faster action (some people don't like to wait 20 minutes to find the action), much better controls (CoD has always had super smooth controls), and much more overall popularity. CoD is the go-to game because that is what everyone plays at my work, school, and friends circle.

Battlefield is too slow, too hardcore, takes too much patience, and is not a game for the casual masses. Hardcore gamers can enjoy the realism, but I don't think that is what most average gamers want anyway. They want a game they can jump into immediately and play without a difficult learning curve. CoD is easy to start playing immediately, but it also gives enough options for veteran players to stay engaged. The Battlefield series doesn't show any signs of understanding that concept yet.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"] Yes because thats all there is to BF... theres not different classes with actual different functions, an array of vehicles to get good at, and more difficult gun mechanics... Androvinus