shahilsyed's forum posts
FFS, No. This is exactly what fanboys dont get, something being free doesnt make it better. Features and the overall service is what makes something better. Xbox live has much better features than PSN, also you havent answered my question.thats the reason psn is better than live..its free, i don't pay for live and i wouldn't pay for psn, i would switch to pc gaming.
Chris_Williams
It was confirmed by fourzerotwo that the destruction in MW3 wont be just glasses, dont fool yourself please.[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="ActionRemix"]
What? You mean that glass destruction? Don't cream yourself, buddy.
el3m2tigre
Weird, IW/Sledgehammer never mentioned any destructible environments, that could compare to BF3.
Well, they never mentioned MW3 will include destructible environments to compete with BF3, but they sure as hell said it will include it which is what I care about.
It's free, it doesnt make it better, its just an advantage.There is no other reason.
It is better because it is free. That is the only advantage it has.
mmmwksil
After reading all psn vs xbox live threads, seeing how psn fans think a service is better than other because its 'free' but I dygress. So let's all imagine you had to pay the same money for PSN as well as Xbox live, so you have to pay $60 for xbox live a year and also $60 for psn and all the features are same as now. Can someone tell me why PSN is better than xbox live if PSN was pay service too? There is no reasons in my opinion, the only reasons for psn fanboys to defend their service because it is free.
[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]If you seen, MW3 will have destruction. Battlefield's destruction mechanics are god awful, how can anyone hype it up? COD is slowly adding alot of things from Battlefield. COD is taking the destruction abillity, dogtags, mini choppers, drones and adding it. How on earth is is the same game? ActionRemix
What? You mean that glass destruction? Don't cream yourself, buddy.
It was confirmed by fourzerotwo that the destruction in MW3 wont be just glasses, dont fool yourself please.[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]
First of all, your friend must really suck. Battlefield 2 certainly is not a sniper haven. The hit registry is too off for that to even be remotely close to describing BF2. I highly doubt you even played Battlefield 2, because it sounds like you're faking it.
No one actually uses teamwork? you just described CoD. BC2 people play together in squads in damn near every server. It's only natural because it rewards teamwork and focuses on that, unlike CoD which focuses only on kill-count. Maybe you should stop playing on consoles because most seem to think BC2 is just like a CoD game.. You don't need communication to work together. I have fun from the moment the game starts up. I don't get that with CoD because I start out with horrible weapons. CoD is also not fast paced. Quake and UT are fast paced. CoD has the speed of a fat-kid in BDU.
People think MW3 is going to be bad because MW2 was really bad.
ChubbyGuy40
[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]I played Battlefield 2 around my friends in his PC, I own Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield Bad Company 2. My friend clearly says Battlefield 2 is a good game but too much sniping happens and it makes the game a sniping haven. While I do agree, teamwork is very required in Battlefield. SADLY, No one actually uses teamwork. I've played Battlefield 2 and all I find is camping sniping in that game. Also unless you got a team that you can talk to or know them, you seem to never to win because they dont communicate. MW3 is taking alot of things from Battlefield which is good. In Battlefield, if you want fun out of the game, you have to spend a bit of time on the game before you even have fun, its time-consuming. CoD however is very fast paced, no one wants to play BORING slow paced games. Also why are everyone saying Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 are different series games? Firstly wrong, they both are in the battlefield therefore they have the name of battlefield and they are developed by the exactly same company. And noticed that people who think that also post stuff like MW3 will be bad because Black Ops is bad too, But Hello, Black ops and Modern warfare are different series too. They are both developed by different developers unline Bad company and battlefield.ChubbyGuy40
First of all, your friend must really suck. Battlefield 2 certainly is not a sniper haven. The hit registry is too off for that to even be remotely close to describing BF2. I highly doubt you even played Battlefield 2, because it sounds like you're faking it.
No one actually uses teamwork? you just described CoD. BC2 people play together in squads in damn near every server. It's only natural because it rewards teamwork and focuses on that, unlike CoD which focuses only on kill-count. Maybe you should stop playing on consoles because most seem to think BC2 is just like a CoD game.. You don't need communication to work together. I have fun from the moment the game starts up. I don't get that with CoD because I start out with horrible weapons. CoD is also not fast paced. Quake and UT are fast paced. CoD has the speed of a fat-kid in BDU.
People think MW3 is going to be bad because MW2 was really bad.
No you're fooling yourself. My friend does not suck at all, he prefers game lik Red Orchestrea to Battlefield 2. Battlefield 2 is full of snipers who hide in a bush disguised just like Bad company 2. And I have totally played Battlefield 2. If you dont believe me, I'll just say you never played CoD. And No, I never described CoD. I just decribed battlefield bad company 2, everyone is in the bush, sniping, at least on consoles. Just look at MLG gameplay on Domination for COD, look how much teamwork, tactics are used. CoD is not fast paced? Haha. Kid, you dont know what you're talking about, although I agree Quake is fast paced, CoD is just as fast paced.[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] The fact that all maps are similar in Battlefield, for example Panama Canal in BFBC2 and White Pass and Laguna Alta al have the same big house. All maps have the same kind of building, they all look identical as hell. But this is my experience from other battlefield games, Battlefield 3 may be different though. 3D spotting may be patched but claymores will be a bigger problem honestly. Also Robert Bowling clearly said the MW3 will have more bigger, complex maps in MW3 in his twitter. But as people say same game gets boring but the same old game modes in Battlefield get really boring and its a fact. Wasdie
Ignoring every video of MW3 completely debunking that rumor that the maps were bigger and have more destructibility, let's talk about this statement. You've obviously only played BC2, which then you've completely ignored my post. Second, if a person just sits and snipes all day they will probably lose the map. Battlefield has NEVER been about your K/D ratio. The best Battlefield teams out there usually have 4-6 support guys with like 2-3 kill to 30 deaths yet have the most points on the team.
Now you're also saying that Battlefield gets boring and that's a fact. A fact that it's boring for you maybe, but it's not a fact that Battlefield gets boring. That's a matter of opinion.
The Battlefield formula works perfect on the PC. Claymores were kind of a hassle yes, but now you can get rid of them unlike before and you can crouch past them which should balance them out nicely. Even with 64 players on a team, you rarely found more than a handful of snipers in a BF2 map because they were kind of useless in winning the map. Seeing that Battlefield has always ranked you on total points you've accumulated through doing various tasks, the snipers were never ranked that high and it took them absolutely forever to level up their character and unlock new gear. Now they are saying it takes 100 hours per kit to unlock everything. If that's not an incentive to get off your ass and play the game instead of looking through a scope constantly, there really isn't much more that can be done.
Again, MW3 and BF3 are different games with a different focus. Just because one focuses on something different doesn't make it boring. MW3 will capture the same audience the past 3 CoD games have, like it's built to do. BF3 is trying to keep the BC2 audience and bring back the BF2 players. Obviously this takes different gameplay catering to a different group of people. That doesn't make one better than the other, that just makes them different. I'm sure MW3 will be fun as hell for a couple dozen hours. Heck the spec ops mode is a blast and the new additions to it look to provide tons of gameplay. The fundamental changes with the killstreak system also could radically change the focus of the game, to bad early reports from people on the floor at the CoD XP say that it feels way to similar to MW2.
I played Battlefield 2 around my friends in his PC, I own Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield Bad Company 2. My friend clearly says Battlefield 2 is a good game but too much sniping happens and it makes the game a sniping haven. While I do agree, teamwork is very required in Battlefield. SADLY, No one actually uses teamwork. I've played Battlefield 2 and all I find is camping sniping in that game. Also unless you got a team that you can talk to or know them, you seem to never to win because they dont communicate. MW3 is taking alot of things from Battlefield which is good. In Battlefield, if you want fun out of the game, you have to spend a bit of time on the game before you even have fun, its time-consuming. CoD however is very fast paced, no one wants to play BORING slow paced games. Also why are everyone saying Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 are different series games? Firstly wrong, they both are in the battlefield therefore they have the name of battlefield and they are developed by the exactly same company. And noticed that people who think that also post stuff like MW3 will be bad because Black Ops is bad too, But Hello, Black ops and Modern warfare are different series too. They are both developed by different developers unline Bad company and battlefield.
Log in to comment