EA has failed to put a dent in COD's dominance

It's quite sad when the worst shooter in the series actually sells the most. I guess people gave in to the "annual purchase" tradition. I'm not surprised though, my friend said he can't wait for the next COD.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="2beers_in_hand"]

Its just so how much the COD has ingrained in the psyche of the public. BF3 is the Superior shooter when it comes to online play. I guess people like to just run around poorly designed maps and and fill each other full of lead in unrealistic ways.

landofcookies

A game doesn't need to be realisitic to be fun.

Modern Warfare is quite realistic though. It's fast, and you die quickly.

Not sure if serious...

CoD is like Christianity and BF is like the Atheist.

Joedgabe

Thats complete BS, no one in thier right mind would think they havent made an impact.... this BF has already sold more than previous titles it hasnt been out a month, I have yet to procure my copy.

As for COD its really simple, it has brand awareness prallel to no other game in the industry, even tween girls play cod, and he who has the twilight market rules the universe FACT!

I'm not surprised though, my friend said he can't wait for the next COD.

el3m2tigre

[QUOTE="Joedgabe"]

CoD is like Christianity and BF is like the Atheist.

Merex760

i think what he means is that most of the population is christian and only a few are athiest...

thats all he means..

Never understood why people care about sales, you have fun with what you bought or you don't who cares what others do.lulmont

Bought both games, then has a moment of clarity and returned them.

Considering BF3 was EA's largest launch in history,

i think they are content

Well the better game is subjective, but I think the reason why COD sells so well is because it's fun and people like to play it. It's not that hard to understand, it's called supply and demand. Oh and most of the COD haters on here are hypocrites because if you check their 360/PSN gamertags you will find that they play COD on a regular baisis lol.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="2beers_in_hand"]

Its just so how much the COD has ingrained in the psyche of the public. BF3 is the Superior shooter when it comes to online play. I guess people like to just run around poorly designed maps and and fill each other full of lead in unrealistic ways.

landofcookies

A game doesn't need to be realisitic to be fun.

Modern Warfare is quite realistic though. It's fast, and you die quickly.

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

A game doesn't need to be realisitic to be fun.

ermacness

Modern Warfare is quite realistic though. It's fast, and you die quickly.

lol none of these games are "realistic" and you don't want them to be, trust me. Real life combat is NOTHING like anything in BF, COD, or anything else. I always laugh at people who think X game is more realistic than Y game, these people don't know what real combat is like. I hope you never find out either, it scars your mental health.

[QUOTE="2beers_in_hand"]

Its just so how much the COD has ingrained in the psyche of the public. BF3 is the Superior shooter when it comes to online play. I guess people like to just run around poorly designed maps and and fill each other full of lead in unrealistic ways.

RR360DD

A game doesn't need to be realisitic to be fun.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

Their goal has failed, therefore they failed? Why would you need a link for that, anyway?

landofcookies

They would not humiliate themselves with such news.

The point is simple. Their goal was to hinder COD's dominance, and it hasn't happened.

It's all about the market share. Seeing as how well Battlefield 3 is doing, I'd say EA was successful to some extent with their goal.

No worries, they still have their crappy yearly sport games rehashes to financially sustain them.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

In late August, EA said their goal with Battlefield 3 was to "take market share" from Call of Duty, "reducing its dominance in the FPS market from 90% to 70%."

Well, that seems to have failed, thus far, as Modern Warfare 3 is doing much better than Black Ops did last year, thus making the dominance even clearer.

1. It was the most preordered game in Activision's and in gaming history.

2. Day-1 shipment was the largest ever in the gaming industry.

3. Day-1 sell-through sales topped $400 mln in 2 territories. A record.

4. 5-day sell-through sales topped $775 mln worldwide. Another record.

EA were foolish to think they could hinder Call of Duty's dominance.

landofcookies

Their goal has failed, therefore they failed? Why would you need a link for that, anyway?

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

A game doesn't need to be realisitic to be fun.

ermacness

Modern Warfare is quite realistic though. It's fast, and you die quickly.

BF is not realistic. It takes like 3-4 bullets with the sniper to kill an enemy. That would not be the case in real life.

[QUOTE="Warhawk_"]

BTW it is funny how BF3 was to be the COD killer when COD MW3 sold way more then the previous COD games. I actually thought that BF3 would put a dent then MW3 but I guess not. EA needs to stop trying to make their war shooters to fight against COD like with the Medal Of Honor reboot and BF3 and just actually care about the games themselves. Really sad that you have to force yourself to fight against COD.

2beers_in_hand

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

Modern Warfare is quite realistic though. It's fast, and you die quickly.

landofcookies

BF is not realistic. It takes like 3-4 bullets with the sniper to kill an enemy. That would not be the case in real life.

What's more is that the battles in both CoD and BF do not represent actual warfare. In a real war, you often have no idea where you're being fired at from and where your enemies are.

People need to get the idea of BF being realistic out of their heads.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

Modern Warfare is quite realistic though. It's fast, and you die quickly.

landofcookies

BF is not realistic. It takes like 3-4 bullets with the sniper to kill an enemy. That would not be the case in real life.

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

[QUOTE="ermacness"]Far from it. In terms of war, BF is WAY more realistic than CoD by aeons.

DraugenCP

BF is not realistic. It takes like 3-4 bullets with the sniper to kill an enemy. That would not be the case in real life.

What's more is that the battles in both CoD and BF do not represent actual warfare. In a real war, you often have no idea where you're being fired at from and where your enemies are.

People need to get the idea of BF being realistic out of their heads.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

BF is not realistic. It takes like 3-4 bullets with the sniper to kill an enemy. That would not be the case in real life.

ermacness

What's more is that the battles in both CoD and BF do not represent actual warfare. In a real war, you often have no idea where you're being fired at from and where your enemies are.

People need to get the idea of BF being realistic out of their heads.

BF has slightly more realism in that the guns behave somewhat more like they would in real life (because they have recoil and you actually lose half-empty rounds you change), but at the end of the day I just think that 'realism' is not a good parameter to judge either game by, as both are indeed less representative of modern combat than a round of paintball.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

What's more is that the battles in both CoD and BF do not represent actual warfare. In a real war, you often have no idea where you're being fired at from and where your enemies are.

People need to get the idea of BF being realistic out of their heads.

DraugenCP

BF has slightly more realism in that the guns behave somewhat more like they would in real life (because they have recoil and you actually lose half-empty rounds you change), but at the end of the day I just think that 'realism' is not a good parameter to judge either game by, as both are indeed less representative of modern combat than a round of paintball.

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="ermacness"]BF isn't realistic at all, but if you had to get "as close" to realistic as possible between CoD, and BF,....... aahhh, you kow where I'm going with this.;)

landofcookies

BF has slightly more realism in that the guns behave somewhat more like they would in real life (because they have recoil and you actually lose half-empty rounds you change), but at the end of the day I just think that 'realism' is not a good parameter to judge either game by, as both are indeed less representative of modern combat than a round of paintball.

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

P.S. You die quickly in BF3 as well, it's just that sniper rifles isn't a 1 hit kill if you don't get a headshot, where as in MW3, it is in most cases. That's why you get a irky little exploit in the game called **drums rolling** "QUICK SCOPE KILLS" **end drum rolling**. You can literally assault in Cod with a sniper rifle, AND BE EFFICIENT because of this.:lol:

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

BF has slightly more realism in that the guns behave somewhat more like they would in real life (because they have recoil and you actually lose half-empty rounds you change), but at the end of the day I just think that 'realism' is not a good parameter to judge either game by, as both are indeed less representative of modern combat than a round of paintball.

ermacness

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

P.S. You die quickly in BF3 as well, it's just that sniper rifles isn't a 1 hit kill if you don't get a headshot, where as in MW3, it is in most cases. That's why you get a irky little exploit in the game called **drums rolling** "QUICK SCOPE KILLS" **end drum rolling**. You can literally assault in Cod with a sniper rifle, AND BE EFFICIENT because of this.:lol:

Are you guys seriously arguing about which game offers a better preparedness level of real life combat? Because the only way to really be prepared for combat is to be in it.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

turtlethetaffer

P.S. You die quickly in BF3 as well, it's just that sniper rifles isn't a 1 hit kill if you don't get a headshot, where as in MW3, it is in most cases. That's why you get a irky little exploit in the game called **drums rolling** "QUICK SCOPE KILLS" **end drum rolling**. You can literally assault in Cod with a sniper rifle, AND BE EFFICIENT because of this.:lol:

Are you guys seriously arguing about which game offers a better preparedness level of real life combat? Because the only way to really be prepared for combat is to be in it.

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

landofcookies

Not sure if serious.

It's not about how quickly you die; it's about how the battle is fought in the first place. As I said, in real life, you often have no clue where your enemies are, and, most of the time, you are merely opportunistically firing in the general direction of where you think your adversary is from behind cover. It's not like in CoD where the bad guys coveniently pop out of cover every once in a while so you can shoot them in their heads. For the record, I'm not implying that this says anything about CoD's quality: games don't need to be realistic to be good, that's why they're games. But the fact of the matter is that Call of Duty has more in common with whack-a-mole than it has with actual warfare.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, here's an article where they let a war journalist play both BF3 and MW3 to analyse the televised realism, and his conclusion was that both games have nothing in common with the reality of war. Only problem: it's in Dutch, so Google Translate is your friend.

http://www.depers.nl/cultuur/610427/Arnold-Karskens-vindt-het-niks.html

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

DraugenCP

Not sure if serious.

It's not about how quickly you die; it's about how the battle is fought in the first place. As I said, in real life, you often have no clue where your enemies are, and, most of the time, you are merely opportunistically firing in the general direction of where you think your adversary is from behind cover. It's not like in CoD where the bad guys coveniently pop out of cover every once in a while so you can shoot them in their heads. For the record, I'm not implying that this says anything about CoD's quality: games don't need to be realistic to be good, that's why they're games. But the fact of the matter is that Call of Duty has more in common with whack-a-mole than it has with actual warfare.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, here's an article where they let a war journalist play both BF3 and MW3 to analyse the televised realism, and his conclusion was that both games have nothing in common with the reality of war. Only problem: it's in Dutch, so Google Translate is your friend.

http://www.depers.nl/cultuur/610427/Arnold-Karskens-vindt-het-niks.html

Just because a game isn't totally realistic doesn't mean that you can just discredit any form of realism that "said" game may have. I have yet to say that any game mimics real life war. I hate it when someone comes into the argument and states that because it isn't the Alpha Dog in "said" category means that any advancements in have in that regard is instantly discredited.:roll:ermacness

What advancements? Call of Duty isn't "not totally realistic", it's "totally not realistic". Dying in a couple of shots and having a relatively verosimil presentation don't change that as the combat in the game has nothing to do with actual combat that is seen in wars these days.

Again, I'm not implying anything about the game's quality, so instead of hating it when people point out that CoD is, in all aspects, an idealisation of war as we like to perceive it, hate the people that are trying to make a case for this game by pointing towards its alleged realism.

they failed to put a dent in CoD but its the best selling BF game ever so obviously their aggresive marketing campaign worked. i still think the multiplayer in BF is more fun and rewarding than CoDmems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]they failed to put a dent in CoD but its the best selling BF game ever so obviously their aggresive marketing campaign worked. i still think the multiplayer in BF is more fun and rewarding than CoDermacness

[QUOTE="ermacness"]Just because a game isn't totally realistic doesn't mean that you can just discredit any form of realism that "said" game may have. I have yet to say that any game mimics real life war. I hate it when someone comes into the argument and states that because it isn't the Alpha Dog in "said" category means that any advancements in have in that regard is instantly discredited.:roll:DraugenCP

What advancements? Call of Duty isn't "not totally realistic", it's "totally not realistic". Dying in a couple of shots and having a relatively verosimil presentation don't change that as the combat in the game has nothing to do with actual combat that is seen in wars these days.

Again, I'm not implying anything about the game's quality, so instead of hating it when people point out that CoD is, in all aspects, an idealisation of war as we like to perceive it, hate the people that are trying to make a case for this game by pointing towards its alleged realism.

I can see that you're the type of guy who believes that if somethings are not the best at it, why dispute it in the 1st place, where I don't believe in that saying at all. You basically attacked us for arguing at which was "MORE REALISTIC" (notice that i didn't say "totally realistic"), because none of them are actually realistic to real warfare. You can't push off YOUR vision onto others, and expect them to flow along with it.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]they failed to put a dent in CoD but its the best selling BF game ever so obviously their aggresive marketing campaign worked. i still think the multiplayer in BF is more fun and rewarding than CoDmems_1224

I agree. I say give it about 5- 6 more years (coughcoughgamescoughcough) and it will die down eventually.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="ermacness"]Just because a game isn't totally realistic doesn't mean that you can just discredit any form of realism that "said" game may have. I have yet to say that any game mimics real life war. I hate it when someone comes into the argument and states that because it isn't the Alpha Dog in "said" category means that any advancements in have in that regard is instantly discredited.:roll:ermacness

What advancements? Call of Duty isn't "not totally realistic", it's "totally not realistic". Dying in a couple of shots and having a relatively verosimil presentation don't change that as the combat in the game has nothing to do with actual combat that is seen in wars these days.

Again, I'm not implying anything about the game's quality, so instead of hating it when people point out that CoD is, in all aspects, an idealisation of war as we like to perceive it, hate the people that are trying to make a case for this game by pointing towards its alleged realism.

I can see that you're the type of guy who believes that if somethings are not the best at it, why dispute it in the 1st place, where I don't believe in that saying at all. You basically attacked us for arguing at which was "MORE REALISTIC" (notice that i didn't say "totally realistic"), because none of them are actually realistic to real warfare. You can't push off YOUR vision onto others, and expect them to flow along with it.

I'm pointing this out because I don't think the realism argument is relevant because the amount of realism in either game is disposable. So that's why I don't think that saying "BF3 is more realistic than MW3, therefore it is better" (which some have said or at least implied) is a good argument at all, as the amount of realism in BF3 is still very low. Debating about realism in relation to quality really only makes sense when discussing simulation-type games.

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

DraugenCP

Not sure if serious.

It's not about how quickly you die; it's about how the battle is fought in the first place. As I said, in real life, you often have no clue where your enemies are, and, most of the time, you are merely opportunistically firing in the general direction of where you think your adversary is from behind cover. It's not like in CoD where the bad guys coveniently pop out of cover every once in a while so you can shoot them in their heads. For the record, I'm not implying that this says anything about CoD's quality: games don't need to be realistic to be good, that's why they're games. But the fact of the matter is that Call of Duty has more in common with whack-a-mole than it has with actual warfare.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, here's an article where they let a war journalist play both BF3 and MW3 to analyse the televised realism, and his conclusion was that both games have nothing in common with the reality of war. Only problem: it's in Dutch, so Google Translate is your friend.

http://www.depers.nl/cultuur/610427/Arnold-Karskens-vindt-het-niks.html

Still, they have an advantage. I didn't say they were experts.

In war, a complete newbie would rush everything (CoD gamer) and has a higher chance of surviving vs. a BF gamer, who would slow down everything.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

What advancements? Call of Duty isn't "not totally realistic", it's "totally not realistic". Dying in a couple of shots and having a relatively verosimil presentation don't change that as the combat in the game has nothing to do with actual combat that is seen in wars these days.

Again, I'm not implying anything about the game's quality, so instead of hating it when people point out that CoD is, in all aspects, an idealisation of war as we like to perceive it, hate the people that are trying to make a case for this game by pointing towards its alleged realism.

DraugenCP

I can see that you're the type of guy who believes that if somethings are not the best at it, why dispute it in the 1st place, where I don't believe in that saying at all. You basically attacked us for arguing at which was "MORE REALISTIC" (notice that i didn't say "totally realistic"), because none of them are actually realistic to real warfare. You can't push off YOUR vision onto others, and expect them to flow along with it.

I'm pointing this out because I don't think the realism argument is relevant because the amount of realism in either game is disposable. So that's why I don't think that saying "BF3 is more realistic than MW3, therefore it is better" (which some have said or at least implied) is a good argument at all, as the amount of realism in BF3 is still very low. Debating about realism in relation to quality really only makes sense when discussing simulation-type games.

P.S. People state that BF3 is better than CoD because it's more tatical than CoD, in which CoD present itself as a tatical game.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="landofcookies"]

In MW, you die quickly. In real life, you would die quickly.

BF does not decipt war well. If you were to go out to war, and were a BF gamer, you would be slaughtered.

CoD gamers are used to adrenalin-pumped action. IRL, you will die in 1 second if you're in battle at close range or something. CoD gamers have an advantage.

landofcookies

Not sure if serious.

It's not about how quickly you die; it's about how the battle is fought in the first place. As I said, in real life, you often have no clue where your enemies are, and, most of the time, you are merely opportunistically firing in the general direction of where you think your adversary is from behind cover. It's not like in CoD where the bad guys coveniently pop out of cover every once in a while so you can shoot them in their heads. For the record, I'm not implying that this says anything about CoD's quality: games don't need to be realistic to be good, that's why they're games. But the fact of the matter is that Call of Duty has more in common with whack-a-mole than it has with actual warfare.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, here's an article where they let a war journalist play both BF3 and MW3 to analyse the televised realism, and his conclusion was that both games have nothing in common with the reality of war. Only problem: it's in Dutch, so Google Translate is your friend.

http://www.depers.nl/cultuur/610427/Arnold-Karskens-vindt-het-niks.html

Still, they have an advantage. I didn't say they were experts.

In war, a complete newbie would rush everything (CoD gamer) and has a higher chance of surviving vs. a BF gamer, who would slow down everything.

Like I stated before" don't try to force YOUR opinion onto everybody else". You may think that the realism is "disposable" but another one may not. No matter how "disposable" the realim may be, it's still there and apparent. It isn't like there isn't ANY realism there at all.ermacness

The thing is this is not my opinion, these are just facts. The way real wars are fought is radically different from what's represented in both BF3 and MW3. This has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

In war, a complete newbie would rush everything (CoD gamer) and has a higher chance of surviving vs. a BF gamer, who would slow down everything.

Okay, thanks for confirming that you were joking all along. My faith in humanity is somewhat restored.

In late August, EA said their goal with Battlefield 3 was to "take market share" from Call of Duty, "reducing its dominance in the FPS market from 90% to 70%."

Well, that seems to have failed, thus far, as Modern Warfare 3 is doing much better than Black Ops did last year, thus making the dominance even clearer.

1. It was the most preordered game in Activision's and in gaming history.

2. Day-1 shipment was the largest ever in the gaming industry.

3. Day-1 sell-through sales topped $400 mln in 2 territories. A record.

4. 5-day sell-through sales topped $775 mln worldwide. Another record.

EA were foolish to think they could hinder Call of Duty's dominance.

landofcookies