COD fans, what keeps you from switching to Battlefield?

I enjoy both series. Can't wait for MW3 and BF3.

[QUOTE="Androvinus"]

[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... Gotham-Calls

That's MW2. Black Ops remains more realistic than any Battlefield game.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]You do realize that Battlefield Bad Company=/=Battlefield....right? :|

AmazonTreeBoa

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

No, I quoted the right person. You said BFBC =/= Battlefield, if that's true than Black Ops, MW2, and World at War should all not be considered CoD either... BFBC is a Battlefield game, the name is "Battlefield" Bad Company.

Also, from Wikipedia: "Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a first-person shootervideo game developed by the Swedish firm EA Digital Illusions CE and published by Electronic Arts for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360and iOS systems. It is a part of the Battlefield series and was released worldwide in March 2010."

No, I quoted the right person. You said BFBC =/= Battlefield, if that's true than Black Ops, MW2, and World at War should all not be considered CoD either... BFBC is a Battlefield game, the name is "Battlefield" Bad Company.

Also, from Wikipedia: "Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a first-person shootervideo game developed by the Swedish firm EA Digital Illusions CE and published by Electronic Arts for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360and iOS systems. It is a part of the Battlefield series and was released worldwide in March 2010."

StealthMonkey4

Every CoD past 2 =/= CoD, since the original was a PC title. That's how that logic would work. 2 and after were meant for console, just like Bad Company was meant for console.

It's not part of the core Battlefield series. It used a very different design and gameplay, but mixed it with Battlefield style maps on a smaller scale.

[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="Gotham-Calls"]

[QUOTE="Androvinus"] That is the biggest lie I have heard concerning battlefield. The guns handle much more easily. Sniper rifles have no sway (i think they do in BF3). There is no bullet drop off damage for smgs, assault rifles, lmgs etc. The guns have very little recoil too. It is extremely easy to snipe someone with an smg because the recoil is so small. The visual recoil is greater than the physical recoil. And dont even get me started on shotguns.

DangerousLiquid

That's MW2. Black Ops remains more realistic than any Battlefield game.

That post provided many lulz.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

No, I quoted the right person. You said BFBC =/= Battlefield, if that's true than Black Ops, MW2, and World at War should all not be considered CoD either... BFBC is a Battlefield game, the name is "Battlefield" Bad Company.

Also, from Wikipedia: "Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a first-person shootervideo game developed by the Swedish firm EA Digital Illusions CE and published by Electronic Arts for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360and iOS systems. It is a part of the Battlefield series and was released worldwide in March 2010."

ChubbyGuy40

Every CoD past 2 =/= CoD, since the original was a PC title. That's how that logic would work. 2 and after were meant for console, just like Bad Company was meant for console.

It's not part of the core Battlefield series. It used a very different design and gameplay, but mixed it with Battlefield style maps on a smaller scale.

No, that's not how the logic would work, PC title or console title, it doesn't matter...:| they're all CoD games, sure they may have differences and some are made by Treyarch while some are made by IW but they are all still in the CoD series. The same way it doesn't matter about the "core Battlefield" and the "non-core Battlefield," :roll: It's simply a Battlefield game, end of story, they all even have the same Dev...

You can't just make up your own rules regarding whether a game belongs with a series or not....

No, that's not how the logic would work, PC title or console title, it doesn't matter...:| they're all CoD games, sure they may have differences and some are made by Treyarch while some are made by IW but they are all still in the CoD series. The same way it doesn't matter about the "core Battlefield" and the "non-core Battlefield," :roll: It's simply a Battlefield game, end of story, they all even have the same Dev...

You can't just make up your own rules regarding whether a game belongs with a series or not....

StealthMonkey4

Yes that is how the logic would work. How are you going to try and correct him on what he sad? It's not our fault you didn't understand what he was trying to say.

It has the Battlefield name, therefor it falls under the Battlefield franchise, but Bad Company is NOT a "Battlefield" game. The same way every CoD after 2 (Meant to say 2) does not play like the originals. (CoD 3 doesn't exist. That one was just terrible.) You can apply this to many franchises, like Super Mario. SMG is a Super Mario game, but it is not a Super Mario Bros game.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

No, that's not how the logic would work, PC title or console title, it doesn't matter...:| they're all CoD games, sure they may have differences and some are made by Treyarch while some are made by IW but they are all still in the CoD series. The same way it doesn't matter about the "core Battlefield" and the "non-core Battlefield," :roll: It's simply a Battlefield game, end of story, they all even have the same Dev...

You can't just make up your own rules regarding whether a game belongs with a series or not....

ChubbyGuy40

Yes that is how the logic would work. How are you going to try and correct him on what he sad? It's not our fault you didn't understand what he was trying to say.

It has the Battlefield name, therefor it falls under the Battlefield franchise, but Bad Company is NOT a "Battlefield" game. The same way every CoD after 2 (Meant to say 2) does not play like the originals. (CoD 3 doesn't exist. That one was just terrible.) You can apply this to many franchises, like Super Mario. SMG is a Super Mario game, but it is not a Super Mario Bros game.

I do understand what he's saying, it simply doesn't make any sense....

So it's a Battlefield game and is in the Battlefield series, and is made by the same Developer, but it's not a Battlefield game.... wut...?:|

Of coursethey don't play like the originals, series' change over time, still doesn't make it a sepearate series or anything. MW2, WaW, BO, CoD1, and CoD2 are all equally CoD games even though they are all different... And that's completely irrelevant and does't change what I was saying.

@el3m2tigre

Looks like someone got tired of getting owned by nukes, predator missiles, harriers and AC-130s in Modern Warfare 2 and never touched a CoD game ever again. You should give BLACK OPS a go, it's a totally different story, no more commandoes, OMA, overpowered killstreaks or noobtubes. ;)

If COD doesn't take skill, why do I suck so much at it? :(

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

No, that's not how the logic would work, PC title or console title, it doesn't matter...:| they're all CoD games, sure they may have differences and some are made by Treyarch while some are made by IW but they are all still in the CoD series. The same way it doesn't matter about the "core Battlefield" and the "non-core Battlefield," :roll: It's simply a Battlefield game, end of story, they all even have the same Dev...

You can't just make up your own rules regarding whether a game belongs with a series or not....

ChubbyGuy40

Yes that is how the logic would work. How are you going to try and correct him on what he sad? It's not our fault you didn't understand what he was trying to say.

It has the Battlefield name, therefor it falls under the Battlefield franchise, but Bad Company is NOT a "Battlefield" game. The same way every CoD after 2 (Meant to say 2) does not play like the originals. (CoD 3 doesn't exist. That one was just terrible.) You can apply this to many franchises, like Super Mario. SMG is a Super Mario game, but it is not a Super Mario Bros game.

I do understand what he's saying, it simply doesn't make any sense....

So it's a Battlefield game and is in the Battlefield series, and is made by the same Developer, but it's not a Battlefield game.... wut...?:|

Of coursethey don't play like the originals, series' change over time, still doesn't make it a sepearate series or anything. MW2, WaW, BO, CoD1, and CoD2 are all equally CoD games even though they are all different... And that's completely irrelevant and does't change what I was saying.

StealthMonkey4

No you're not. It makes 100% sense.

There's Battlefield, and there's Bad Company. One is made to play on a large scale with teamwork and points. The other focuses on a smaller scale, less players, and less emphasis on teamwork.

How does this not make sense to you. :| If you don't understand this, then you've never played any original Battlefields.

I guess by that logic Mario 64 isnt a mario game, neither is Mario Galaxy. I suppose Crysis 2 isnt a Crysis game either. Mario Kart Double Dash isnt a Mario kart game. Most certainly Metroid Prime is not a Metroid game. And of course Duke Nukem Forever cant be a Duke Nukem game:roll:

Androvinus

Well your guessing is wrong. You clearly didn't read it. There are many different Mario games, such as Super Mario, Super Mario Bros, ect. You can't say SMG is a SMB game, because it isn't. They are two different gameplay styles. MK: DD is part of the Mario Kart franchise and a MK game, but it's its own identity due to 2 player co-op right? (I don't remember DD that well.) Metroid Prime is part of the Metroid franchise, but is not a Metroid game (since those are side scrollers right?) DNF is part of the Duke Nukem franchise, it's its own game (Every Duke has been different from the last.)

And no Crysis 2 is not a Crysis game. I refuse to acknowledge it as one :P

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I do understand what he's saying, it simply doesn't make any sense....

So it's a Battlefield game and is in the Battlefield series, and is made by the same Developer, but it's not a Battlefield game.... wut...?:|

Of coursethey don't play like the originals, series' change over time, still doesn't make it a sepearate series or anything. MW2, WaW, BO, CoD1, and CoD2 are all equally CoD games even though they are all different... And that's completely irrelevant and does't change what I was saying.

ChubbyGuy40

No you're not. It makes 100% sense.

There's Battlefield, and there's Bad Company. One is made to play on a large scale with teamwork and points. The other focuses on a smaller scale, less players, and less emphasis on teamwork.

How does this not make sense to you. :| If you don't understand this, then you've never played any original Battlefields.

I see Battlefield on the caseviper-kid

Because it's part of the Battlefield franchise, but it's not a "Battlefield" game. There's Battlefield, and Battlefield: Bad Company.

But I guess CoD fans wouldn't know that.

[QUOTE="viper-kid"] I see Battlefield on the caseChubbyGuy40

Because it's part of the Battlefield franchise, but it's not a "Battlefield" game. There's Battlefield, and Battlefield: Bad Company.

But I guess CoD fans wouldn't know that.

BF fans making excuses. Battlefield is on the case and if it was Bad Company then why didn't they call it 'Bad Company'? BECAUSE ITS BATTLEFIELD viper-kid

You don't even know what the hell the argument was about. Please don't interupt when you don't understand.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

No, that's not how the logic would work, PC title or console title, it doesn't matter...:| they're all CoD games, sure they may have differences and some are made by Treyarch while some are made by IW but they are all still in the CoD series. The same way it doesn't matter about the "core Battlefield" and the "non-core Battlefield," :roll: It's simply a Battlefield game, end of story, they all even have the same Dev...

You can't just make up your own rules regarding whether a game belongs with a series or not....

ChubbyGuy40

Yes that is how the logic would work. How are you going to try and correct him on what he sad? It's not our fault you didn't understand what he was trying to say.

It has the Battlefield name, therefor it falls under the Battlefield franchise, but Bad Company is NOT a "Battlefield" game. The same way every CoD after 2 (Meant to say 2) does not play like the originals. (CoD 3 doesn't exist. That one was just terrible.) You can apply this to many franchises, like Super Mario. SMG is a Super Mario game, but it is not a Super Mario Bros game.

You guys have already lost this argument. Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The main title of the game is Battlefield-- even dice would agree it is a Battlefield game-- albeit a subtype. Bad Company 2 isn't that different from Battlefield, its not like the difference between Halo and Halo Wars. They are similar games, differing primarily in scope not in game-genre.

You guys have already lost this argument. Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The main title of the game is Battlefield-- even dice would agree it is a Battlefield game-- albeit a subtype. Bad Company 2 isn't that different from Battlefield, its not like the difference between Halo and Halo Wars. They are similar games, differing primarily in scope not in game-genre.

GojiMaster

We didn't lose anything. I made a quick flowchart because people cannot grasp what was being stated. No one, ever once stated, it wasn't part of the Battlefield franchise. However, it is a different styIe of game from the main Battlefield series. They are two seperate styIes that DICE created. Bad Company was simply created because they needed filler while they were developing Battlefield 3.

@el3m2tigre

Looks like someone got tired of getting owned by nukes, predator missiles, harriers and AC-130s in Modern Warfare 2 and never touched a CoD game ever again. You should give BLACK OPS a go, it's a totally different story, no more commandoes, OMA, overpowered killstreaks or noobtubes. ;)

DangerousLiquid

I've played Blops. Got to 3rd prestige. Black Ops IS much more balanced than MW2.

[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]

@el3m2tigre

Looks like someone got tired of getting owned by nukes, predator missiles, harriers and AC-130s in Modern Warfare 2 and never touched a CoD game ever again. You should give BLACK OPS a go, it's a totally different story, no more commandoes, OMA, overpowered killstreaks or noobtubes. ;)

el3m2tigre

I've played Blops. Got to 3rd prestige. Black Ops IS much more balanced than MW2.

Then no need to complain about it is there. :)

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I do understand what he's saying, it simply doesn't make any sense....

So it's a Battlefield game and is in the Battlefield series, and is made by the same Developer, but it's not a Battlefield game.... wut...?:|

Of coursethey don't play like the originals, series' change over time, still doesn't make it a sepearate series or anything. MW2, WaW, BO, CoD1, and CoD2 are all equally CoD games even though they are all different... And that's completely irrelevant and does't change what I was saying.

ChubbyGuy40

No you're not. It makes 100% sense.

There's Battlefield, and there's Bad Company. One is made to play on a large scale with teamwork and points. The other focuses on a smaller scale, less players, and less emphasis on teamwork.

How does this not make sense to you. :| If you don't understand this, then you've never played any original Battlefields.

There's Battlefield, then there's Battlefield, Bad Company. Regardless of what small changes may be there, you can't just say BFBC isn't in the Battlefield series. I have played them, they are different, but are not in a different series... :|

There's Battlefield, then there's Battlefield, Bad Company. Regardless of what small changes may be there, you can't just say BFBC isn't in the Battlefield series. I have played them, they are different, but are not in a different series... :|

StealthMonkey4

Well I'm done here. You obviously don't understand what was being stated, so there's no point in dragging this on. I already created a flow chart to explain, because obviously reading isn't at a functional level to some people.

[QUOTE="GojiMaster"]

You guys have already lost this argument. Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The main title of the game is Battlefield-- even dice would agree it is a Battlefield game-- albeit a subtype. Bad Company 2 isn't that different from Battlefield, its not like the difference between Halo and Halo Wars. They are similar games, differing primarily in scope not in game-genre.

ChubbyGuy40

We didn't lose anything. I made a quick flowchart because people cannot grasp what was being stated. No one, ever once stated, it wasn't part of the Battlefield franchise. However, it is a different styIe of game from the main Battlefield series. They are two seperate styIes that DICE created. Bad Company was simply created because they needed filler while they were developing Battlefield 3.

Battlefield Bad Company is a part of the Battlefield series, some flowchart made by you in paint won't change that... :|

The *s**** " or other diffences between the games doesn't change the fact that they are all a part of the Battlefield series, not every game in a series is always exactly the same as the previous... :| Is Killzone 3 not an official Killzone game because they changed the player and weapon weight and have a different plying "s**** "..? :roll:

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

There's Battlefield, then there's Battlefield, Bad Company. Regardless of what small changes may be there, you can't just say BFBC isn't in the Battlefield series. I have played them, they are different, but are not in a different series... :|

ChubbyGuy40

Well I'm done here. You obviously don't understand what was being stated, so there's no point in dragging this on. I already created a flow chart to explain, because obviously reading isn't at a functional level to some people.

BC is a Battlefield game, and it sucks hard, just like the rest of the BF series. EOD.

Must be the teamwork, the buttery smooth framerates, and growing online community, accessibility (which is a big plus when you want to get together and play with a bunch of friends, especially those not too into the series, but willing to give an arcade shooter more of a chance). Ah man, so many reasons.

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]

@el3m2tigre

Looks like someone got tired of getting owned by nukes, predator missiles, harriers and AC-130s in Modern Warfare 2 and never touched a CoD game ever again. You should give BLACK OPS a go, it's a totally different story, no more commandoes, OMA, overpowered killstreaks or noobtubes. ;)

DangerousLiquid

I've played Blops. Got to 3rd prestige. Black Ops IS much more balanced than MW2.

Then no need to complain about it is there. :)

Who's complaining?

well for one the online is slow an boring, but bf2 kills all fps's online, i cant wait for the new bf game( i just hope it doesnt play like that crap bad comany). f the new cod.

Battlefield Bad Company is a part of the Battlefield series, some flowchart made by you in paint won't change that... :|

The *s**** " or other diffences between the games doesn't change the fact that they are all a part of the Battlefield series, not every game in a series is always exactly the same as the previous... :|

Is Killzone 3 not an official Killzone game because they changed the player and weapon weight and have a different plying "s**** "..? :roll:

StealthMonkey4

Bad Company is part of the Bad Company series. It was created to be over-the-top and humorous because DICE needed filler while they developed Battlefield 3. Battlefield and Bad Company are both part of the Battlefield franchise, but they are different series. Bad Company even got killed off because its no longer needed. Battlefield Heroes is part of the Battlefield franchise, but it's its own game/series. Battlefield P4F is a combination of BC and Battlefield, but it's its own series.

There's evolution between games in each series, and that goes for every franchise. We aren't trying to seperate it simply because it has Bad Company in the name :|

Going by that logic, the past 3 CoD games are nothing more than $60 patches.

BC is a Battlefield game, and it sucks hard, just like the rest of the BF series. EOD.

DangerousLiquid

Bad Company 1 is better than any CoD, mostly because it has a good single player.

Smaller Maps

Better Create a Class system

Perks

Killstreaks

Arcade style shooting

whitetiger3521

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

Battlefield Bad Company is a part of the Battlefield series, some flowchart made by you in paint won't change that... :|

The *s**** " or other diffences between the games doesn't change the fact that they are all a part of the Battlefield series, not every game in a series is always exactly the same as the previous... :|

Is Killzone 3 not an official Killzone game because they changed the player and weapon weight and have a different plying "s**** "..? :roll:

ChubbyGuy40

Bad Company is part of the Bad Company series. It was created to be over-the-top and humorous because DICE needed filler while they developed Battlefield 3. Battlefield and Bad Company are both part of the Battlefield franchise, but they are different series. Bad Company even got killed off because its no longer needed. Battlefield Heroes is part of the Battlefield franchise, but it's its own game/series. Battlefield P4F is a combination of BC and Battlefield, but it's its own series.

There's evolution between games in each series, and that goes for every franchise. We aren't trying to seperate it simply because it has Bad Company in the name :|

Going by that logic, the past 3 CoD games are nothing more than $60 patches.

BC is a Battlefield game, and it sucks hard, just like the rest of the BF series. EOD.

DangerousLiquid

Bad Company 1 is better than any CoD, mostly because it has a good single player.

They are still Battlefield games, they are not in their own series, you can't just seperate games into seperate series and pass it off as fact...:roll: The past 3 CoD games were all new games in the series... :?

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

Battlefield Bad Company is a part of the Battlefield series, some flowchart made by you in paint won't change that... :|

The *s**** " or other diffences between the games doesn't change the fact that they are all a part of the Battlefield series, not every game in a series is always exactly the same as the previous... :|

Is Killzone 3 not an official Killzone game because they changed the player and weapon weight and have a different plying "s**** "..? :roll:

ChubbyGuy40

Bad Company is part of the Bad Company series. It was created to be over-the-top and humorous because DICE needed filler while they developed Battlefield 3. Battlefield and Bad Company are both part of the Battlefield franchise, but they are different series. Bad Company even got killed off because its no longer needed. Battlefield Heroes is part of the Battlefield franchise, but it's its own game/series. Battlefield P4F is a combination of BC and Battlefield, but it's its own series.

There's evolution between games in each series, and that goes for every franchise. We aren't trying to seperate it simply because it has Bad Company in the name :|

Going by that logic, the past 3 CoD games are nothing more than $60 patches.

BC is a Battlefield game, and it sucks hard, just like the rest of the BF series. EOD.

DangerousLiquid

Bad Company 1 is better than any CoD, mostly because it has a good single player.

I'm sure it would have scored higher than 8.5 if it were better than "any CoD".

I'm sure it would have scored higher than 8.5 if it were better than "any CoD".

DangerousLiquid

If it was on PC it would have. Meanwhile none of them have beaten BF2, which would've been a 9.5 by the new scale.

They are still Battlefield games, they are not in their own series, you can't just seperate games into seperate series and pass it off as fact...:roll: The past 3 CoD games were all new games in the series... :?

StealthMonkey4

They are still part of the Battlefield franchise, but different series.

Even if I am wrong about that, this wasn't the point of what he was trying to say. Battlefield and Bad Company play differently, and they are not the same game. That is the point he was trying to get across. It's the same reason why I can say I hate the MW series, but I don't mind Black Ops. That's because they play differently (But not to the extent of BF and BC.) I don't hate CoD, just the MW series.

BTW to bypass the styIe censor, use a capital i instead of L.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

They are still Battlefield games, they are not in their own series, you can't just seperate games into seperate series and pass it off as fact...:roll: The past 3 CoD games were all new games in the series... :?

ChubbyGuy40

They are still part of the Battlefield franchise, but different series.

Even if I am wrong about that, this wasn't the point of what he was trying to say. Battlefield and Bad Company play differently, and they are not the same game. That is the point he was trying to get across. It's the same reason why I can say I hate the MW series, but I don't mind Black Ops. That's because they play differently (But not to the extent of BF and BC.) I don't hate CoD, just the MW series.

BTW to bypass the styIe censor, use a capital i instead of L.

You are the only one saying that. Just give up you win some you lose some. But this argument is pointless as these are your opinions not facts, as you are trying to depict and BC are part of Battlefield series whether you like it or not. viper-kid

You should listen to your own advice. :| Like I said, you don't know what this was even originally about do you? (You'd have to go back and read it.)

[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]

I'm sure it would have scored higher than 8.5 if it were better than "any CoD".

ChubbyGuy40

If it was on PC it would have. Meanwhile none of them have beaten BF2, which would've been a 9.5 by the new scale.

Too bad BF2 is only at 91 @ MC. Too bad most reviewers (and gamers) don't share GS' opinion.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]

I'm sure it would have scored higher than 8.5 if it were better than "any CoD".

DangerousLiquid

If it was on PC it would have. Meanwhile none of them have beaten BF2, which would've been a 9.5 by the new scale.

Too bad BF2 is only at 91 @ MC. Too bad most reviewers (and gamers) don't share GS' opinion.

lol metacritic. Who takes that website seriously anyway? MW1 beat Bf2 by 1 point, one. Battlefield 2 got that score by multiplayer only. It had no single-player. CoD games have been in decline every year on MC.

[QUOTE="viper-kid"]You are the only one saying that. Just give up you win some you lose some. But this argument is pointless as these are your opinions not facts, as you are trying to depict and BC are part of Battlefield series whether you like it or not. ChubbyGuy40

You should listen to your own advice. :| Like I said, you don't know what this was even originally about do you? (You'd have to go back and read it.)

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

They are still Battlefield games, they are not in their own series, you can't just seperate games into seperate series and pass it off as fact...:roll: The past 3 CoD games were all new games in the series... :?

ChubbyGuy40

They are still part of the Battlefield franchise, but different series.

Even if I am wrong about that, this wasn't the point of what he was trying to say. Battlefield and Bad Company play differently, and they are not the same game. That is the point he was trying to get across. It's the same reason why I can say I hate the MW series, but I don't mind Black Ops. That's because they play differently (But not to the extent of BF and BC.) I don't hate CoD, just the MW series.

BTW to bypass the styIe censor, use a capital i instead of L.

Alright, fair enough. I know, I didn't know if it was against the ToU, so I asked and will edit it when I get my response.

[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

If it was on PC it would have. Meanwhile none of them have beaten BF2, which would've been a 9.5 by the new scale.

ChubbyGuy40

Too bad BF2 is only at 91 @ MC. Too bad most reviewers (and gamers) don't share GS' opinion.

lol metacritic. Who takes that website seriously anyway? MW1 beat Bf2 by 1 point, one. Battlefield 2 got that score by multiplayer only. It had no single-player. CoD games have been in decline every year on MC.

It didn't have SP because DICE sucks @ making SP. We know that. And don't expect the BF3 SP to be of high quality, please.

It didn't have SP because DICE sucks @ making SP. We know that. And don't expect the BF3 SP to be of high quality, please.

DangerousLiquid

Yet the one time they do, it's better than any SP that IW or Treyarch made.

Why shouldn't I? Trailers have far more variaty than CoD ever has.

Alright, fair enough. I know, I didn't know if it was against the ToU, so I asked and will edit it when I get my response.

StealthMonkey4

It's not against the ToU to bypass the styIe censor. You just can't go against the swearing censor. Some words, like styIe and cIass are filtered because of possible HTML errors/hijacks/exploits I think.

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="whitetiger3521"]

Smaller Maps

Better Create a Class system

Perks

Killstreaks

Arcade style shooting

ExplosiveChorro

people camp on battlefield

spawn camping is a big problem in battlefield

guns on battlefield don't recoil either, i was killing people with an smg from long distance

shotguns have ridiculous range in battlefield

maps have too many camping spots and snipers are hard to spot.

being in a squad full of campers and snipers, who make me have to run to get to where all the action is, thus making our team lose the game.

builidings that can be destroyed and destroy the objective/bomb in rush. very annoying especially when our team is defending so well.

tanks are overpowerd

attack helis are overpowerd

guns aren't customizable

not rewarded enough for playing

[QUOTE="ExplosiveChorro"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

Smaller Maps

Better Create a Class system

Perks

Killstreaks

Arcade style shooting

Gotham-Calls

people camp on battlefield

spawn camping is a big problem in battlefield

guns on battlefield don't recoil either, i was killing people with an smg from long distance

shotguns have ridiculous range in battlefield

maps have too many camping spots and snipers are hard to spot.

being in a squad full of campers and snipers, who make me have to run to get to where all the action is, thus making our team lose the game.

builidings that can be destroyed and destroy the objective/bomb in rush. very annoying especially when our team is defending so well.

tanks are overpowerd

attack helis are overpowerd

guns aren't customizable

not rewarded enough for playing

[QUOTE="Gotham-Calls"]

[QUOTE="ExplosiveChorro"] lets add on to this list.... camping griefing spawncamping camping guns have little to no recoil dual wield shotguns smaller maps commando pro + marathon Pro ballistic knife knifing killstreaks fail perks camping community is 10 yr olds camping non-destructable buildings did i say camping?ExplosiveChorro

people camp on battlefield

spawn camping is a big problem in battlefield

guns on battlefield don't recoil either, i was killing people with an smg from long distance

shotguns have ridiculous range in battlefield

maps have too many camping spots and snipers are hard to spot.

being in a squad full of campers and snipers, who make me have to run to get to where all the action is, thus making our team lose the game.

builidings that can be destroyed and destroy the objective/bomb in rush. very annoying especially when our team is defending so well.

tanks are overpowerd

attack helis are overpowerd

guns aren't customizable

not rewarded enough for playing

They are very different so its silly to say COD4 is the say as MW2 or MW3 a game thats not even out. Go use a scope in COD4 and they use the only bolt action scope available in MW2 and tell me they are the same. Pretty much everything in MW2 is worse so please dont call the games the same.... it makes you sound ignorant.

Fun. Games are about fun. Play whatever games you have FUN with, not whichever games some random snooty internet nerds tell you to play.

[QUOTE="ExplosiveChorro"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

Smaller Maps

Better Create a Class system

Perks

Killstreaks

Arcade style shooting

Gotham-Calls

people camp on battlefield

spawn camping is a big problem in battlefield

guns on battlefield don't recoil either, i was killing people with an smg from long distance

shotguns have ridiculous range in battlefield

maps have too many camping spots and snipers are hard to spot.

being in a squad full of campers and snipers, who make me have to run to get to where all the action is, thus making our team lose the game.

builidings that can be destroyed and destroy the objective/bomb in rush. very annoying especially when our team is defending so well.

tanks are overpowerd

attack helis are overpowerd

guns aren't customizable

not rewarded enough for playing

So let me guess. You only played Bad Company 2 right?