The many fallacies of the rivalry between Battlefield and Call of Duty.

I personally am just burnt out on CoD. A new game every year with fairly minimal improvements gets boring quickly. I know making drastic changes in gameplay for the heck of it is unreasonable, but when I saw the trailer for MW3 during E3 I couldn't help but feel like I had played that level several times already.

As for Activision being evil, I personally believe that is more attributed to Bobby Kotick (who really needs to learn a thing or two about consumer relations) and the Infinity Ward fiasco then MW2 not having dedicated servers.

The thing is, even though I don't particularly want MW3, I wouldn't be surprised if I end up getting it anyway. I am pretty sure most of my friends are gonna get it, so I may cave in and get it too just to be able to play with them.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]

I agree. Who cares if COD nowadays isn't as innovative as it used to be?

Look, let us assume I love cake. Chocolate cake. Yummy. Now, I eat it up. Wait, there is more chocolate cake, but it's the same! Feels the same, looks the same, tastes the same. But I still love it! I want more because I love cake.

The same could be said about COD IMO.

sSubZerOo

Yeah but, if you like cake and eat it, it's gone. So you have to go buy more. If you like CoD4, you can just go play CoD4 again. It doesn't disappear after you play it. It's like eating a chocolate cake and it was delicious, you're satisfied. The next day you see another chocolate cake, don't really want it but say "Well, I have to get this one because it has a different frosting border". Different frosting on the same cake, that's essentially what CoD is as a franchise.

I want cake now.

MW2 and CoD4 are not carbon copies of one another.. They are different games with significant differecnes to tell teh difference between the two.. If your logic made sound sense we wouldn't have people who prefered, COD4 over MW2, or Black ops over the otehrs etc etc.. Because by your logic they would all be the same.. But alas there are certain differences that has made the game different to the point for people that prefer it over another..

The differences between each CoD title are relatively small, but offer enough to keep people buying it. I don't really hate the franchise, in fact I play Black Ops a lot with my friend because the split screen functions so well. Even if there are other FPS franchises I like much, much more. I just thought the cake metaphor was off.

But while I enjoy CoD here and there they are relatively the same with each new iteration. You get different guns and a new era, and more perks/killstreaks but the core gameplay itself is the same. The engine is the same, it plays the same. I personally thought MW2 was the biggest mistep simply because IW didn't balance the game they just poured more killstreaks and perks into the mix and we got a ridiculous mess of a game. With new titles I expect new guns and familiar faces with different gameplay. That doesn't happen with CoD.

Activision wanted to give IW as much money as they needed? Do you not remember why IW broke up in the first place? That PoS Kotick was too greedy to pay IW the royalties and fees they deserved.

There's no excuse to not use dedicated servers. In fact, when IWNet got busted open, dedicated servers made the game so much better.

Bad Company was, as DICE stated, filler while they developed the engine for Battlefield 3. Now that Battlefield 3 is here and the engine is complete, Bad Company is dead. No we shouldn't of had Bf3 earlier. It would not be the technical marvel it is today.

ChubbyGuy40

http://www.develop-online.net/news/33181/Infinity-Ward-snubbed-ridiculous-MW2-budget

BF3 is not a technical marvel. It has limited destructible environments. You can blow up exterior walls... I have yet to see a full building be destroyed in MULTIPLAYER. And anything inside or underground is not destructible. The rest is what.. graphics, audio?

I have no doubt BF3 is going to be a great game, but... yeah.

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] You do realize Battlefield 2 and Tribes 2 did a lot of the stuff Call of Duty 4 did first, right?DarkLink77

1. Call of Duty is not innovative.

By that argument, one can say that Counter-Strike and its successors, Condition Zero and Source, are not particularly innovative in terms of gameplay either. Yet you see few people bashing the archaic gameplay found in both sequels. Why? Because the gameplay works. It's fast, fun, and furious. Why should anyone bother changing what isn't broken?

Call of Duty is famous for its run-and-gun gameplay, killstreaks, perks, and weapons that have little recoil. The number of copies it sells each year is an indication that the core gameplay is fine and needs little tweaking or adjustment. There is really no need to change the formula. It works, and it is fun enough that people are willing to keep buying sequels.

The_Capitalist

Comparing the sound fx between BF and COD is like comparing Crysis graphics to Halo 2 graphics. Way behind BF. Same with animations and pc version graphics.

Since Cod 4 the only improvements were breakable glass in MW 2 and in Black Ops they added wind effects.

I agree. Who cares if COD nowadays isn't as innovative as it used to be?

Look, let us assume I love cake. Chocolate cake. Yummy. Now, I eat it up. Wait, there is more chocolate cake, but it's the same! Feels the same, looks the same, tastes the same. But I still love it! I want more because I love cake.

The same could be said about COD IMO.

DangerousLiquid

People treat BF3 like its the second coming, but in all seriousness its really just looking to be a fun, different game then the CoD series. No reason to compare. if you don't like one and like the other it doesn't make one bad.

Personally through all this I think EA has been the worst. They make a snide remark about Elite (which is actually free), then they give out day one paid DLC, paid gun skins (free on CoD), free map packs that are just the same maps on different modes, and a bunch of other greedy tactics that are much worse then overpriced map packs. Not to mention that they're advertising consists of riding CoD's coattails, then reporting one day later about how much "CoD sux lol" and how BF rules. Its like EA's marketing is run by the 12 year old fanboys you see on the internet.

That doesn't make the game bad though. A lot of people here confuse quality in a game for the publisher's own greed, and EA being petty and annoying doesn't make me want BF3 any less. Same with CoD, Kotick might be kind of a jerk, but that doesn't make CoD any less fun for me. I just wish they would stop with it though. In the end, all this arguing and rivalry is doing is hurting the industry and turning fans of both games into even bigger jerks (or making it seem ok to be jerks). There's no need for one company to wish failure on the others when both games are so wildly different in key aspects and can both sell amazing without one having to fail.

Its like Valve hoping Halo 4 fails and dies so Half-Life sells more. Its unnecessary and doesn't make sense for them to wish that because they can just hope for great sales and NOT hope for another game to fail.