Is the Battlefield 3 > CoD MW 3 Feud real?

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Honestly, you'll just argue any point I make but in the end, even if the BC campaigns weren't perfect, they had some love and care in them that BF3 didn't in its campaign. And the direction it was headed in (a funny and Crysis like open ended campaign with hilarious partners and tons of destruction and freedom), is a much nobler goal then "do what Call of Duty did, but worse".

But I guess I shouldn't complain TOO much, I guess the BF3 campaign being terrible meant the multiplayer being awesomer. Then again, it makes me not want a campaign at all if they could do more with the MP.

XVision84

Exactly, Bad Company had spirit, but Battlefield 3 didn't. I actually really enjoyed Bad Company 2's campaign because it flowed pretty well and had distinct characters. Battlefield 3 was an uninspired military borefest, they need to go back to Bad Company-style storytelling.

Exactly! Though I knew the story wouldn't be anything special and the characters would probably be bleh, based on what I played in the BC games I thought it would be an actual improvement. I thought I'd see set pieces that weren't glaringly similar to those in other games, and open ended gameplay that gave me a few options instead of fighting down some tiny alleyway, and maybe even a campaign that was over 7 hours long. Plus at least the BC games didn't substitute constant QTE's for gameplay. If I was fighting my way through a plane in BC2, I wasn't stopping every 5 seconds to engage in painfully awkward fisticuffs with an enemy straggler.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Honestly, you'll just argue any point I make but in the end, even if the BC campaigns weren't perfect, they had some love and care in them that BF3 didn't in its campaign. And the direction it was headed in (a funny and Crysis like open ended campaign with hilarious partners and tons of destruction and freedom), is a much nobler goal then "do what Call of Duty did, but worse".

But I guess I shouldn't complain TOO much, I guess the BF3 campaign being terrible meant the multiplayer being awesomer. Then again, it makes me not want a campaign at all if they could do more with the MP.

Bebi_vegeta

Well it seems obvious you never played the first Bad Company game, so you are completely missing the point I was making. BC2 toned down the uniqueness, but I thought its just because they were tuning their gameplay to even out the set pieces and pacing to match the destruction and open endedness, instead they did neither and produced Generic 5 hour Military campaign number 535387405.

My point is they can either improve on the fun of the Bad Company games to make them more modern but still retain their identity AND have fun multiplayer (for people who play both and not JUST one mode), or they could ignore it and make it better for multiplaye fans. I'd like either, but I don't want a tacked on campaign just because EA made them do it, I want them to work on something they want to make. Either a single player that is at least fun and well worth my time, or none at all.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Honestly, you'll just argue any point I make but in the end, even if the BC campaigns weren't perfect, they had some love and care in them that BF3 didn't in its campaign. And the direction it was headed in (a funny and Crysis like open ended campaign with hilarious partners and tons of destruction and freedom), is a much nobler goal then "do what Call of Duty did, but worse".

But I guess I shouldn't complain TOO much, I guess the BF3 campaign being terrible meant the multiplayer being awesomer. Then again, it makes me not want a campaign at all if they could do more with the MP.

SPYDER0416

Well it seems obvious you never played the first Bad Company game, so you are completely missing the point I was making. BC2 toned down the uniqueness, but I thought its just because they were tuning their gameplay to even out the set pieces and pacing to match the destruction and open endedness, instead they did neither and produced Generic 5 hour Military campaign number 535387405.

My point is they can either improve on the fun of the Bad Company games to make them more modern but still retain their identity AND have fun multiplayer (for people who play both and not JUST one mode), or they could ignore it and make it better for multiplaye fans. I'd like either, but I don't want a tacked on campaign just because EA made them do it, I want them to work on something they want to make. Either a single player that is at least fun and well worth my time, or none at all.

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

tjricardo089

You can get 30+ kills in less than 5 minutes with killstreaks in COD while earning 30+ kills in less than 5 minutes BF is rare, that's why a lot of people like COD, however for a challenge BF is far better.

You can get 30+ kills in less than 5 minutes with killstreaks in COD while earning 30+ kills in less than 5 minutes BF is rare, that's why a lot of people like COD, however for a challenge BF is far better.

mitu123

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] I argue because I don't agree. The Bad company series is barely BF material for me, I only played 60h of B2C VS 300h BF2142... already at 30h for BF3. People saying they were disappointed about a BF or COD games because the SP was not what they expected, is just plain non sense. Both of the series are made to play online. If it was just me, there wouldn't even be a SP for these games. This is not a Crysis game, and fall far from anything FPS related SP wise.Bebi_vegeta

Well it seems obvious you never played the first Bad Company game, so you are completely missing the point I was making. BC2 toned down the uniqueness, but I thought its just because they were tuning their gameplay to even out the set pieces and pacing to match the destruction and open endedness, instead they did neither and produced Generic 5 hour Military campaign number 535387405.

My point is they can either improve on the fun of the Bad Company games to make them more modern but still retain their identity AND have fun multiplayer (for people who play both and not JUST one mode), or they could ignore it and make it better for multiplaye fans. I'd like either, but I don't want a tacked on campaign just because EA made them do it, I want them to work on something they want to make. Either a single player that is at least fun and well worth my time, or none at all.

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

monkeytoes61

I was in the NAVY, and BF3 is as realistic as it gets!

Just like in real life, you have to wait your turn to use the jets. If one blows up, my platoon would get assigned another one and it was free game for whoever got in first.

Also in real life as in BF3, you can use your mind to teleport inside an armored tank without even opening it, and you can wait out a .50 cal bullet wound to the chest if you stick behind cover.

Trust me, BF3 is ALL real life man.

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Well it seems obvious you never played the first Bad Company game, so you are completely missing the point I was making. BC2 toned down the uniqueness, but I thought its just because they were tuning their gameplay to even out the set pieces and pacing to match the destruction and open endedness, instead they did neither and produced Generic 5 hour Military campaign number 535387405.

My point is they can either improve on the fun of the Bad Company games to make them more modern but still retain their identity AND have fun multiplayer (for people who play both and not JUST one mode), or they could ignore it and make it better for multiplaye fans. I'd like either, but I don't want a tacked on campaign just because EA made them do it, I want them to work on something they want to make. Either a single player that is at least fun and well worth my time, or none at all.

SPYDER0416

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] Well BC never made it to PC... Also, I've never seen a game were they had both SP and MP amazing, it's one or the other.DragonfireXZ95

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

Nice opinions bro, but I was stating MY opinions, and also what the industry happens to think of the SP/MP of those games, along with an objective assessment of their worth in both single and multiplayer, so... yeah, nice to know one person disagrees ;)

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

SPYDER0416

Nice opinions bro, but I was stating MY opinions, and also what the industry happens to think of the SP/MP of those games, along with an objective assessment of their worth in both single and multiplayer, so... yeah, nice to know one person disagrees ;)

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] No, Uncharted's multiplayer was nowhere near amazing. And Halo Reach had a stupid campaign and mediocre multiplayer. Also Redemption's multiplayer was a travesty too. Call of Duty 4 had a crappy campaign except for like 1 mission and the MP was good, but no where near amazing itself.DragonfireXZ95

Nice opinions bro, but I was stating MY opinions, and also what the industry happens to think of the SP/MP of those games, along with an objective assessment of their worth in both single and multiplayer, so... yeah, nice to know one person disagrees ;)

Well at least one person has to disagree with the popular opinion, everyone knows that anti agreeing hipsters are... well, they don't really contribute to anything I guess.

But yeah, my points are still valid, and each of those games I listed has a robust and well reviewed multiplayer AND single player component, both portions brought up in reviews, as well as maintaining active online communities and well recieved fan responses, plus what I personally thought of them as well.

Also, to add: Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, great sp/mp. But hey, feel free to state your opinion, doesn't change mine, or that of ALL those other people.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Nice opinions bro, but I was stating MY opinions, and also what the industry happens to think of the SP/MP of those games, along with an objective assessment of their worth in both single and multiplayer, so... yeah, nice to know one person disagrees ;)

SPYDER0416

Well at least one person has to disagree with the popular opinion, everyone knows that anti agreeing hipsters are... well, they don't really contribute to anything I guess.

But yeah, my points are still valid, and each of those games I listed has a robust and well reviewed multiplayer AND single player component, both portions brought up in reviews, as well as maintaining active online communities and well recieved fan responses, plus what I personally thought of them as well.

Also, to add: Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, great sp/mp. But hey, feel free to state your opinion, doesn't change mine, or that of ALL those other people.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] They are nice opinions aren't they? I'm glad you think my opinions are so nice, and I'm glad you endorse them.

DragonfireXZ95

Well at least one person has to disagree with the popular opinion, everyone knows that anti agreeing hipsters are... well, they don't really contribute to anything I guess.

But yeah, my points are still valid, and each of those games I listed has a robust and well reviewed multiplayer AND single player component, both portions brought up in reviews, as well as maintaining active online communities and well recieved fan responses, plus what I personally thought of them as well.

Also, to add: Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, great sp/mp. But hey, feel free to state your opinion, doesn't change mine, or that of ALL those other people.

Cool, so we agree its just your opinion then, and I don't really have to care?

I mean hey, no reason to drag this out. I said my piece and stated my beliefs and facts on the matter with some explanation and sources, and you've stated what you think and... you've stated what you think basically. Agree to disagree then.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Well at least one person has to disagree with the popular opinion, everyone knows that anti agreeing hipsters are... well, they don't really contribute to anything I guess.

But yeah, my points are still valid, and each of those games I listed has a robust and well reviewed multiplayer AND single player component, both portions brought up in reviews, as well as maintaining active online communities and well recieved fan responses, plus what I personally thought of them as well.

Also, to add: Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, great sp/mp. But hey, feel free to state your opinion, doesn't change mine, or that of ALL those other people.

SPYDER0416

Cool, so we agree its just your opinion then, and I don't really have to care?

I mean hey, no reason to drag this out. I said my piece and stated my beliefs and facts on the matter with some explanation and sources, and you've stated what you think and... you've stated what you think basically. Agree to disagree then.

I like battlefield 3's MP, but people act like it is actually innovative, which is false.

Also people who claim Bf3 is realistic needs to actually realise that the sun irl is actually brighter than some flashlight.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Well it seems obvious you never played the first Bad Company game, so you are completely missing the point I was making. BC2 toned down the uniqueness, but I thought its just because they were tuning their gameplay to even out the set pieces and pacing to match the destruction and open endedness, instead they did neither and produced Generic 5 hour Military campaign number 535387405.

My point is they can either improve on the fun of the Bad Company games to make them more modern but still retain their identity AND have fun multiplayer (for people who play both and not JUST one mode), or they could ignore it and make it better for multiplaye fans. I'd like either, but I don't want a tacked on campaign just because EA made them do it, I want them to work on something they want to make. Either a single player that is at least fun and well worth my time, or none at all.

SPYDER0416

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

I like battlefield 3's MP, but people act like it is actually innovative, which is false.

Also people who claim Bf3 is realistic needs to actually realise that the sun irl is actually brighter than some flashlight.

OB-47

I hated bf3 qnd still have not tried mw3

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

I like battlefield 3's MP, but people act like it is actually innovative, which is false.

Also people who claim Bf3 is realistic needs to actually realise that the sun irl is actually brighter than some flashlight.

Bebi_vegeta

I have seen people call BF3 innovative. And the whole flashlight thing makes the wars in Battlefield look like a joke

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="OB-47"]

I like battlefield 3's MP, but people act like it is actually innovative, which is false.

Also people who claim Bf3 is realistic needs to actually realise that the sun irl is actually brighter than some flashlight.

OB-47

I have seen people call BF3 innovative. And the whole flashlight thing makes the wars in Battlefield look like a joke

Battlefield 3 was pretty "meh". I love the online, but it disappointed me with all the hype. It was like my new Modern Warfare 2 in hype to disappointment ratio.

That said, its stil got fun (if not innovative) online, and I'll be playing it for a long while if they can keep fresh content like Karkand rolling regularly.

Hopefully Battlefield 4 either has a great CoD beating campaign, or none at all. They really could do with going back to Bad Company 1's open ended campaign style, with some extra polish and set pieces.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] Well BC never made it to PC... Also, I've never seen a game were they had both SP and MP amazing, it's one or the other.Bebi_vegeta

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

I don't know if you read it, but I DID say Halo, and some unlimited spawning AI does not tarnish the otherwise fantastic campaign (which just about every other game since has ripped off in pacing, story and set pieces).

Plus Gears of War didn't really have all that great online. Gears 3 I'd probably add though, since it had great single and multiplayer.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="OB-47"]

I like battlefield 3's MP, but people act like it is actually innovative, which is false.

Also people who claim Bf3 is realistic needs to actually realise that the sun irl is actually brighter than some flashlight.

OB-47

I have seen people call BF3 innovative. And the whole flashlight thing makes the wars in Battlefield look like a joke

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Uncharted 2/3, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 4 say hi, and Red Dead Redemption's online was a great time waster too alongside the single player campaign (and it still has a very active community too).

Most of those are on consoles, but even a few PC games like Starcraft II have an amazing online component alongside some great single player stuff, so there are quite a few games with great single and multiplayer. Battlefield doesn't have to tack it on, they can do it well or not do it at all.

SPYDER0416

I don't know if you read it, but I DID say Halo, and some unlimited spawning AI does not tarnish the otherwise fantastic campaign (which just about every other game since has ripped off in pacing, story and set pieces).

Plus Gears of War didn't really have all that great online. Gears 3 I'd probably add though, since it had great single and multiplayer.