Five Reasons Why Battlefield 3 Won't Outsell Modern Warfare 3

wow batman tell us something we dont know :?

I don't think anyone here thinks bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.

I don't think anyone here think bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.MFDOOM1983

I don't think anyone here thinks bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.

MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]I don't think anyone here think bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.Your-Sandwich

[QUOTE="Your-Sandwich"][QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]I don't think anyone here think bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.H3AV3NS

time to bring out the old cliche sales =/= quality

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]

I don't think anyone here thinks bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.

H3AV3NS

fail

none of them believe that bf3 will outsell mw3. they are just wonder "what ifs".

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="Your-Sandwich"] Excactly. I don't care what game will have the most players, I only care about what game will be of highest quality.MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] So why do you think Call of Duty got this popular in the first place? People like low-quality games?H3AV3NS

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] So why do you think Call of Duty got this popular in the first place? People like low-quality games?H3AV3NS

You remind me of a certain fellow!

=D

Heres my 5 reasons

1. Because it requires skill

2. It doesn't come with Mac & Cheese for the kids.

3. It isn't advertised to death

4. It's fanbase isn't made of mostly kids

5. It graphics too intense for COD gamers eyes.

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] So why do you think Call of Duty got this popular in the first place? People like low-quality games?H3AV3NS

not really it can just take one sensible person to go for the objective..Most of the time the chat channel is some little kid spouting abuse cause you "stole" his kill.

Sorry but 4 man squad parties or 8 man xbl parties and 2 squads is way better for 1.I can cut out the little kid on my team all together quite literally 2.we can plan how we go and work as a 4 man crew or 2 4 man crews and split enemy defences etc.

Also theres a lot less arguements bout who does what class cause any good FPS player adapts to what is best for the situation, im usually a medic i hardly score from killing but instead fulfilling my role as a support to the rest of the team.CoD nullifys that with really horrendousyl designed perks.

...and only one reason why your five reasons won't matter to gamers.

Sales are just figures.

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]Becuase being a one man army is more fun than using teamwork for some people?MFDOOM1983

well done good sir, now tell us somthing we dont know.....

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]Becuase being a one man army is more fun than using teamwork for some people?

razgriz_101

not really it can just take one sensible person to go for the objective..Most of the time the chat channel is some little kid spouting abuse cause you "stole" his kill.

Sorry but 4 man squad parties or 8 man xbl parties and 2 squads is way better for 1.I can cut out the little kid on my team all together quite literally 2.we can plan how we go and work as a 4 man crew or 2 4 man crews and split enemy defences etc.

Also theres a lot less arguements bout who does what class cause any good FPS player adapts to what is best for the situation, im usually a medic i hardly score from killing but instead fulfilling my role as a support to the rest of the team.CoD nullifys that with really horrendousyl designed perks.

MW3 is more popular with kids?

battlefield seems very popular in russia

Meh, I'm more interested in BF3, if only for the fact I don't like the arcade shooter style of CoD.

Well that and I prefer more tactical shooters.

* sigh *

Can't we make a sticky BF3 vs MW3 ?
I'm getting tired of these threads.

Well I hope MW3 keeps its fanbase. I don't want some 9 year old kid migrating to play BF3.

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] Ever played S&D, HQ, Demolition or Domination? If you want to succeed here, you need good teamwork.H3AV3NS

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] Ever played S&D, HQ, Demolition or Domination? If you want to succeed here, you need good teamwork.H3AV3NS

not really it can just take one sensible person to go for the objective..Most of the time the chat channel is some little kid spouting abuse cause you "stole" his kill.

Sorry but 4 man squad parties or 8 man xbl parties and 2 squads is way better for 1.I can cut out the little kid on my team all together quite literally 2.we can plan how we go and work as a 4 man crew or 2 4 man crews and split enemy defences etc.

Also theres a lot less arguements bout who does what class cause any good FPS player adapts to what is best for the situation, im usually a medic i hardly score from killing but instead fulfilling my role as a support to the rest of the team.CoD nullifys that with really horrendousyl designed perks.

Its not the same as battlefield.

In a good game of a battlefield especially 2 a small squad pretty much always feels like its a small cog in the whole scheme of things and a good commander re-emphasised that through the way the game would play and if he led well providing good cover and getting squads to do what was needed.

Battlefield feels much better from a teamwork point of view sure team tactical is all you can throw, but battlefield relies upon more than 4 good shooters who dont rip one another for their stats or where they are from but instead ones who can use their gear like defibs and packs at the right time and place.

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

not really it can just take one sensible person to go for the objective..Most of the time the chat channel is some little kid spouting abuse cause you "stole" his kill.

Sorry but 4 man squad parties or 8 man xbl parties and 2 squads is way better for 1.I can cut out the little kid on my team all together quite literally 2.we can plan how we go and work as a 4 man crew or 2 4 man crews and split enemy defences etc.

Also theres a lot less arguements bout who does what class cause any good FPS player adapts to what is best for the situation, im usually a medic i hardly score from killing but instead fulfilling my role as a support to the rest of the team.CoD nullifys that with really horrendousyl designed perks.

razgriz_101

Its not the same as battlefield.

In a good game of a battlefield especially 2 a small squad pretty much always feels like its a small cog in the whole scheme of things and a good commander re-emphasised that through the way the game would play and if he led well providing good cover and getting squads to do what was needed.

Battlefield feels much better from a teamwork point of view sure team tactical is all you can throw, but battlefield relies upon more than 4 good shooters who dont rip one another for their stats or where they are from but instead ones who can use their gear like defibs and packs at the right time and place.

* sigh *

Can't we make a sticky BF3 vs MW3 ?
I'm getting tired of these threads.

Sagem28

They never end up well. It's usually just one side bashing CoD like crazy and the other trying to troll the Battlefield fans. :P

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] You can always play Team Tactical, with your party of 4. Very addictive and intense, have played it a lot myself.H3AV3NS

Its not the same as battlefield.

In a good game of a battlefield especially 2 a small squad pretty much always feels like its a small cog in the whole scheme of things and a good commander re-emphasised that through the way the game would play and if he led well providing good cover and getting squads to do what was needed.

Battlefield feels much better from a teamwork point of view sure team tactical is all you can throw, but battlefield relies upon more than 4 good shooters who dont rip one another for their stats or where they are from but instead ones who can use their gear like defibs and packs at the right time and place.

nah sorry the "smooth" pop gun physics and crappy animations despite its 60fps make CoD look dated and feel dated tbh.The perk system and killstreaks are about as balanced as an inebriated chimp and theres not much of a rewarding feeling.

The last good game was CoD 4, after that activision should have took it back in kept CoD4 ticking over and overhaul the engine (something which direly needs done) and get it far far far more optimized.

Also pot calling the kettle black bout tactics when you were boasting bout team work in team tactical..my my that irony is delicious.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] You can always play Team Tactical, with your party of 4. Very addictive and intense, have played it a lot myself.H3AV3NS

Its not the same as battlefield.

In a good game of a battlefield especially 2 a small squad pretty much always feels like its a small cog in the whole scheme of things and a good commander re-emphasised that through the way the game would play and if he led well providing good cover and getting squads to do what was needed.

Battlefield feels much better from a teamwork point of view sure team tactical is all you can throw, but battlefield relies upon more than 4 good shooters who dont rip one another for their stats or where they are from but instead ones who can use their gear like defibs and packs at the right time and place.

I can play bf2 & bfbc2 at 60fps as well.

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

Its not the same as battlefield.

In a good game of a battlefield especially 2 a small squad pretty much always feels like its a small cog in the whole scheme of things and a good commander re-emphasised that through the way the game would play and if he led well providing good cover and getting squads to do what was needed.

Battlefield feels much better from a teamwork point of view sure team tactical is all you can throw, but battlefield relies upon more than 4 good shooters who dont rip one another for their stats or where they are from but instead ones who can use their gear like defibs and packs at the right time and place.

razgriz_101

nah sorry the "smooth" pop gun physics and crappy animations despite its 60fps make CoD look dated and feel dated tbh.The perk system and killstreaks are about as balanced as an inebriated chimp and theres not much of a rewarding feeling.

The last good game was CoD 4, after that activision should have took it back in kept CoD4 ticking over and overhaul the engine (something which direly needs done) and get it far far far more optimized.

Also pot calling the kettle black bout tactics when you were boasting bout team work in team tactical..my my that irony is delicious.

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

Its not the same as battlefield.

In a good game of a battlefield especially 2 a small squad pretty much always feels like its a small cog in the whole scheme of things and a good commander re-emphasised that through the way the game would play and if he led well providing good cover and getting squads to do what was needed.

Battlefield feels much better from a teamwork point of view sure team tactical is all you can throw, but battlefield relies upon more than 4 good shooters who dont rip one another for their stats or where they are from but instead ones who can use their gear like defibs and packs at the right time and place.

supdotcom

I can play bf2 & bfbc2 at 60fps as well.

b-b-b-b-b-but not on Consoles wheere CoD is like "king" because of peoples sheep like behaviour in general in the world xD.Dont mess with the bro gamers they will threaten to come to your house and beat you up cause you can beat em rofl.

[QUOTE="Your-Sandwich"][QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]I don't think anyone here think bf3 will outsell mw3. I for one hope its fanbase doesn't migrate over. The last thing bf3 needs are a bunch of k/d whoring players.H3AV3NS

Who cares about sales? 5 Reasons why Battlefield 3 will be better the MW3:

1. Better Graphics

2. Better Gameplay (Tanks, Jeeps, Jets, Helicopters)

3. 64 people online

4. Highly destructive enviroments

5. Frostbite 2 engine

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] Yeah, I already said BF is more about tactics, but that doesn't make the game any better. Even you have to admit that CoD has got the better, more smooth and "attractive" gameplay (@60FPS). Not to mention all the features (perks, killstreak rewards) that make the game much more addictive. Even Naughty Dog followed in the footsteps of Modern Warfare, and admitted they were extremely impressed with the multiplayer portion of the Call of Duty series, and is not doing something similar in UC3.H3AV3NS

nah sorry the "smooth" pop gun physics and crappy animations despite its 60fps make CoD look dated and feel dated tbh.The perk system and killstreaks are about as balanced as an inebriated chimp and theres not much of a rewarding feeling.

The last good game was CoD 4, after that activision should have took it back in kept CoD4 ticking over and overhaul the engine (something which direly needs done) and get it far far far more optimized.

Also pot calling the kettle black bout tactics when you were boasting bout team work in team tactical..my my that irony is delicious.

Still too little too late.Update endgine and horrible animations or no dice, it still looks like a complete and utter relic from 06.CoD features what your meaning basically OHH EEHHMM GEEE I CAN HAZ NEW GUNZZZ CUZ I KAN RANK UP WAOAWEEE SOO REWARDING.

Rewarding games push you to do something diffrent, RB is fairly rewarding some things like the drum trainer especially feel rewarding simple as it sounds its learning you a skill which if you have any common sense could be translated fairly easily onto a drum kit with a little common sense.

Im a huge CoD 4 fan put in roughly 300h on PS3 and i can tell you CoD went downhill rapidly when MW2 came out..All thats good bout BO is the zombies the MP is still a horrid shadow that tkaes on board a lot of mistakes from MW2.

CoD was good when it was a simple straight up arena like shooter now its an overbloated camfest totally based on killstreaks along with omgeee i got a diffrent colour gun so im like cooler.

Who cares about sales? 5 Reasons why Battlefield 3 will be better the MW3:

1. Better Graphics

2. Better Gameplay (Tanks, Jeeps, Jets, Helicopters)

3. 64 people online

4. Highly destructive enviroments

5. Frostbite 2 engine

dream431ca

You're becoming a legend, SHREDDER, what's this, your 10th account here, man?

I applaude your perseverance despite the unspeakable odds, here's a song that goes with you.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Who cares about sales? 5 Reasons why Battlefield 3 will be better the MW3:

1. Better Graphics

2. Better Gameplay (Tanks, Jeeps, Jets, Helicopters)

3. 64 people online

4. Highly destructive enviroments

5. Frostbite 2 engine

H3AV3NS

1) He said 5 reasons why battlefield will be better then mw3 and graphics is one of those reasons

2) battlefield doesnt have slow gameplay, yes its not as faced paced as COD but it sure isnt slow.

3) not sure really

4) On the quake engine? prepare for random walls disappearing into thin air

5) Frostbite 2 is a better engine then the one that MW3 is running on, there for it is better then Call of duty.

again he stated the reasons why battlefield is better then Call of duty, and 4 of those reason are correct.

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Who cares about sales? 5 Reasons why Battlefield 3 will be better the MW3:

1. Better Graphics

2. Better Gameplay (Tanks, Jeeps, Jets, Helicopters)

3. 64 people online

4. Highly destructive enviroments

5. Frostbite 2 engine

noxboxlive

1) He said 5 reasons why battlefield will be better then mw3 and graphics is one of those reasons

2) battlefield doesnt have slow gameplay, yes its not as faced paced as COD but it sure isnt slow.

3) not sure really

4) On the quake engine? prepare for random walls disappearing into thin air

5) Frostbite 2 is a better engine then the one that MW3 is running on, there for it is better then Call of duty.

again he stated the reasons why battlefield is better then Call of duty, and 4 of those reason are correct.

We all know it will outsell Battlefield, just like we all know Battlefield we be a better game.BigBoss255

Pretty much this, nobody, nobody had ever said that BF3 will outsell MW3, in fact, i think that the only people that try so hard to "clear" this are the CoD fans, is like they know this is the only thing CoD surpass BF.

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Who cares about sales? 5 Reasons why Battlefield 3 will be better the MW3:

1. Better Graphics

2. Better Gameplay (Tanks, Jeeps, Jets, Helicopters)

3. 64 people online

4. Highly destructive enviroments

5. Frostbite 2 engine

noxboxlive

1) He said 5 reasons why battlefield will be better then mw3 and graphics is one of those reasons

2) battlefield doesnt have slow gameplay, yes its not as faced paced as COD but it sure isnt slow.

3) not sure really

4) On the quake engine? prepare for random walls disappearing into thin air

5) Frostbite 2 is a better engine then the one that MW3 is running on, there for it is better then Call of duty.

again he stated the reasons why battlefield is better then Call of duty, and 4 of those reason are correct.

[QUOTE="noxboxlive"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] 1. Graphics are everything? :S 2. Uh? Slower gameplay is somehow better? Having more vehicles doesn't make the gameplay "better". 3. So MAG is the best game in the world, am I correct? :O 4. BC2 had that, too. Nobody thought it was special. And IW has stated that highly destructive environments will be one of MW3's new features... 5. An engine doesn't make a game... Crysis 2's engine was great, yet the game turned out to be mediocre.H3AV3NS

1) He said 5 reasons why battlefield will be better then mw3 and graphics is one of those reasons

2) battlefield doesnt have slow gameplay, yes its not as faced paced as COD but it sure isnt slow.

3) not sure really

4) On the quake engine? prepare for random walls disappearing into thin air

5) Frostbite 2 is a better engine then the one that MW3 is running on, there for it is better then Call of duty.

again he stated the reasons why battlefield is better then Call of duty, and 4 of those reason are correct.

oh dear

1) Battlefield has better graphics then mw3.....not sure about your argument...

2) no slow gameplay isnt a bad thing.

3) uh?

4) yeah the quake engine, you said fully destructible enviroments, which the engine cant do, not sure what that has to do with graphics..

5) frostbite 2.0 is superior to Mw3 engine, tech wise and graphicly,

these are thing that Bf3 has over cod, [in tech anyway]

im really not sure what you are doing here, its some form of poor trolling but im not really sure, and btw RTWAAA isnt having alts against the TOU?

also to say i cant be bothered anymore, im going to hype skyrim..

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]

[QUOTE="H3AV3NS"] So why do you think Call of Duty got this popular in the first place? People like low-quality games?H3AV3NS

HAHAHAHAHA wow that has to be the funniest thing I've ever heard. No you don't need teamwork to succeed in any of those. Unless ofcourse you're saying that teamwork involves killing everyone (which I wouldn't consider that teamwork due to the fact everyone kills anyhow).