What is so new and refreshing about BF3?

I see alot of hate on COD saying that it's the same thing every darn year. I agree, but what does the Battlefield series do to keep it new? Nearly nothing.

All millitary shooters are the same, every year. Cod,Battlefield,Medal of Honor.

So don't think that you are a better person just because you chosse to play Battlefield. Me? I'm not buying a single multiplayer fps shooter for the rest of the year...

The difference between Battlefield 2142, Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 3 is quite evident, not too mention they are not yearly releases. And to top it all off, CoD (post 4) just sucks.

I see alot of hate on COD saying that it's the same thing every darn year. I agree, but what does the Battlefield series do to keep it new? Nearly nothing.

lasseeb

Clearly you didn't research the battlefield series before creating this thread

How is Battlefield the same every year when a true sequel to Battlefield 2 hasn't been released in like 6 years? :|

[QUOTE="lasseeb"]

I see alot of hate on COD saying that it's the same thing every darn year. I agree, but what does the Battlefield series do to keep it new? Nearly nothing.

lawlessx

Clearly you didn't research the battlefield series before creating this thread

The difference between Battlefield 2142, Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 3 is quite evident, not too mention they are not yearly releases. And to top it all off, CoD (post 4) just sucks.

NaveedLife

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

The difference between Battlefield 2142, Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 3 is quite evident, not too mention they are not yearly releases. And to top it all off, CoD (post 4) just sucks.

gmaster456

cod 3 still gets the crown for the worst game in the series

[QUOTE="gmaster456"][QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

The difference between Battlefield 2142, Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 3 is quite evident, not too mention they are not yearly releases. And to top it all off, CoD (post 4) just sucks.

cod 3 still gets the crown for the worst game in the series

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="gmaster456"] This guy pretty much sums it upsethman410

cod 3 still gets the crown for the worst game in the series

Nope.avi

Who cares if it's new or refreshing? It looks ****ing awesome.

I'll let you know once the game is out.

Who cares if it's new or refreshing? It looks ****ing awesome.

Teufelhuhn

When you're playing an intense 64 player conquest match on PC and are suppressing the enemy and covering your squad, while watching your friendly tank have a battle with another, and see a jet zoom over and take out the friendly tank, all while playing 1080p 60FPS w/ destructible environments, you'll understand.-RocBoys9489-

It's not called CoD and there's an actually somewhat different to it's predecessor

MW3 has used the same engine it had 4 years ago. BF3 looks better because it's on a diffrent engine. Even though it's shooting things, I feel like it'll be a fun game even still. It'll just feel diffrent from other FPS'es you know?

More realistic than CoD.

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

[QUOTE="lasseeb"]

I see alot of hate on COD saying that it's the same thing every darn year. I agree, but what does the Battlefield series do to keep it new? Nearly nothing.

lasseeb

Clearly you didn't research the battlefield series before creating this thread

Then why do you buy them if you know this :|

BF2 and BFBC2 play nothing alike. 2142 is different enough to distinguish itself from the other games. If you do indeed own them go play them again and see for yourself.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Let's see here. 64 players. Destructible environments. 'Nuff said.campzor

However, this gen there have been few games that do (Warband, MAG, Resistance are the only that come to my mind instantly), plus destrctible environments in mass is something even fewer games do. Along with the good graphics, sound, solid gunplay and vehicle combat it's drastically different from other FPSs that are out on the market right now.

Nothing substantial. People just overpraise the BF series and join the Cod hate bandwagon but CoD is still the best online Fps this gen. NerubianWeaver

Good level design, which is something most games forget to include in their multiplayer.

I see alot of hate on COD saying that it's the same thing every darn year. I agree, but what does the Battlefield series do to keep it new? Nearly nothing.

All millitary shooters are the same, every year. Cod,Battlefield,Medal of Honor.

So don't think that you are a better person just because you chosse to play Battlefield. Me? I'm not buying a single multiplayer fps shooter for the rest of the year...

lasseeb

I see alot of hate on COD saying that it's the same thing every darn year. I agree, but what does the Battlefield series do to keep it new? Nearly nothing.

All millitary shooters are the same, every year. Cod,Battlefield,Medal of Honor.

So don't think that you are a better person just because you chosse to play Battlefield. Me? I'm not buying a single multiplayer fps shooter for the rest of the year...

lasseeb

Nothing "new", just that Battlefield has meaningful class system, squad system, vehicles, encourages teamwork more, etc. In COD there really isn't "classes" as you can pretty much just choose whatever weapons you want and assign it to any class. There isn't any meaning to it other than sniper, shotgun, rifle, etc In Battlefield depending on what class you get, you get certain tools which can be very important, I.e. in Bad Company 2 - (Engineer = repair tool, anti-tank mine, RPG),(Medic = health packs, defribulator, Machine Guns),(Sniper = mortar strikes, motion sensors, sniper rifles, ghillie suit)(Assualt = grenade launchers, smoke, ammo reload packs, etc). It's not a perfect system as in Bad Company 2 the medic is a crazily overused class because of the combination of the M60 and the ability to revive/heal, but for the most part the balance between shooting and vehicle play is great in this series.

In COD things like "chopper gunner" and mortar strikes are typically given as cheap "killstreaks", tanks are hardly present at all (World at War there might be 1 tank on a map, in other COD games you get NOTHING because the maps are too small). In Battlefield it's part of the game at all times with maps that are huge compared to COD. Air/land/sea vehicles are scattered over the map and at your bases and anyone can hop in one to get to the objectives. Unlike Modern Warfare you get FULL CONTROL over the helicopters, and you can be pilot, gunner, or you can just go along for the ride in a Blackhawk, the helicopters can carry like 5 players at a time with all human players piloting and shooting (again unlike COD where it's basically autopilot). Some of the maps have epic battles with 3 or 4 tanks and a couple of jeeps on each team. Mortar Strikes and laser guided missles are available to recon/sniper class at all times, etc...

These things completely change the feel of the game and just makes it feel much more substnial with these huge maps and vehicle gameplay. The maps are so spacious that you can sit back and feel like you are sniping from a mile away, yet when you are attacking objectives it feels like stuff is always blowing up around you. It also feels good to take out tanks with C4 or anti-tank mines.

Because BF isn't a yearly release every year.

All the versions of BF are different.

And the graphics compared to MW3 aren't even close

More Realistic

Not to mention 64 players :D

because it's not a yearly release if BF had a yearly release since it first started(which i dont think it did) then it would also receive hateeboyishere

Actually you guys are (technically) wrong.

See, BC2 came ou in 2010, even if it was early it was still 2010. 1943 came out in 2009, BC1 in 2008 Northern Strike in 2007 and 2142 in 2006.

I know you might be thinking "OMG 1943 is DLC and its not exactly 12 months later and Northern Strike is an expansion!!!", but generally Infinity Ward is given an entire two years to make each Call of Duty. In the span of 4 years, DICE has made (or helped) with the following:

Mirror's Edge

Battlefield: 2142: Northern Strike

Battlefield: Bad Company

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Battlefield 1943

Battlefield 3

Medal of Honor (multiplayer)

Battlefield Heroes

Battlefield Online

Battlefield Play4Free

and several other expansions and collaborations.

Infinity Ward on the other hand, has made (since 2007)

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Don't get me wrong, I prefer the BF series and all, but the yearly release angle is just a lie from what I see. If you want to bring up the lack of changes for MW then fine, but when it comes to constant releases the BF series is pretty bad.

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]because it's not a yearly release if BF had a yearly release since it first started(which i dont think it did) then it would also receive hateSPYDER0416

Actually you guys are (technically) wrong.

See, BC2 came ou in 2010, even if it was early it was still 2010. 1943 came out in 2009, BC1 in 2008 Northern Strike in 2007 and 2142 in 2006.

I know you might be thinking "OMG 1943 is DLC and its not exactly 12 months later and Northern Strike is an expansion!!!", but generally Infinity Ward is given an entire two years to make each Call of Duty. In the span of 4 years, DICE has made (or helped) with the following:

Mirror's Edge

Battlefield: 2142: Northern Strike

Battlefield: Bad Company

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Battlefield 1943

Battlefield 3

Medal of Honor (multiplayer)

Battlefield Heroes

Battlefield Online

Battlefield Play4Free

and several other expansions and collaborations.

Infinity Ward on the other hand, has made (since 2007)

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Don't get me wrong, I prefer the BF series and all, but the yearly release angle is just a lie from what I see. If you want to bring up the lack of changes for MW then fine, but when it comes to constant releases the BF series is pretty bad.

How can you count Mirror's Edge in this :? But your list is valid. Dice can produce quality shooters faster than Infinity Ward :P

I'll be playing it. Maybe someone here will be lucky enough to be in my squad. I will make everyone's experience unique and fresh one by one. This feature is absent from CoD.

BF2 and BFBC2 play nothing alike. 2142 is different enough to distinguish itself from the other games. If you do indeed own them go play them again and see for yourself.

unknown37

Run n gun won't get you far either TC, you need teamwork, capturing a flag or arming/disarming m-coms is impossible to do alone.

Lol at your avatar. Is that what youre doing right now after seeing all the COD hate? COD blows in my opnion.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Let's see here. 64 players. Destructible environments. 'Nuff said.lasseeb

Wait...what? Sounds like the people I get stuck with when playing conquest. :evil:

Battlefield actually gets new engines, rather than being the same game just with different guns and maps. Modern CoD games are basically CoD4 expansion packs.

The most similar Battlefield games are BC1 and BC2, and even between them there is a clear difference.

Cutting edge graphics and animation.

Large, BF2-style maps.

64 player support.

Improved sound quality and combat feel.

Jets are back.

More destruction than previous games.

A higher quality campaign than previous BF's...

People who expect something so wildly different that they don't even know what should look else where than a semi-realistic military game, there's not much else you could improve upon or add.

Nothing substantial. People just overpraise the BF series and join the Cod hate bandwagon but CoD is still the best online Fps this gen. NerubianWeaver