Pachter: Battlefield 3 doesn’t stand a chance against next Call of Duty
Quote:
But it could sell “25 - 35% more copies than the last version” if it’s good
Pachter: Battlefield 3 doesn’t stand a chance against next Call of Duty
Quote:
But it could sell “25 - 35% more copies than the last version” if it’s good
I have not touched any new cod games.
Bad company 2 was so awesome. I am already sold on bf3:D
Not really the same type of game to be honest. Sure they're both FPS but they cater for different types of gameplay. For me COD caters more to the "Let's have a few quick 5 min rounds" people and BF more the "Let's go to war for 30 min at a time" type of people.
These days I'm falling more into the COD side since it has less issues at the beginning (with the obvious exception of BLOPS :rolleyes:), but I'll give BF3 a go when it comes out.
BC2 had no issues in the beginning except for lack of servers.
.... and hit reg. But they (Dice) have always had that in the beginning. Patches sort it out relatively quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by czc
You're kidding right?Quote:
Battlefield 3 vs. CoD 8 - whose side are you on?
COD has it's place. No wait. COD had it's place, but unless they actually do some fucking effort and build/use a new engine, then the next COD has no hope. And the truly shocking thing is you would think that having used the same engine and code so many times over, they could sort shit out already!
COD is fun for quick run and gunning, but it quickly wears off. There is no strategy involved. It becomes too repetitive. I mean simply look at the ranking. 15 prestige levels. And for what? A gold gun? Yeah, that is the epitomy of all that is cool! The 15 levels of the same thing over and over and over and over and over show just how shallow a game COD really is.
Now I know it's not fair to compare the BF games to COD, because they are not really the same type of game. But I still feel COD lacks depth in terms of achieving something. COD has 15 levels of achievements, but it's the same ones each time with a stupid camo or inconsequential reawrd after each level. BF on the other hand has 50 rank levels, but heaps of other rewards. Go look at the old BF2. TO get to the rank of Lieutenant General, you needed 1440 hours. HOURS!! That is 60 days of playing non-stop! And then there were the flight badges, chopper badges, armour and transport badges which needed 150 hours for the choppers and planes, 400 for armour and 75 for transport. Never mind the multitude of other awards you could aim for.
So for something that requires a little more brain power and maybe a dash of maturity, I am firmly in the Battlefield 3 camp!
Rank in the comments section put it the best i think...
My money Is on Battlefield 3. No doubt about it
Ok wtf. COD 8? Are you kidding? You are fscking kidding, right? MW2 should have been the last COD I had ever bought, but noooo. I actually thought that FLOPS wouldn't have been such a .... flop? Never buying another COD game again. Ever.
It's an unoriginal, crap game that is only fun for about 5 minutes and then you never want to play it again. Just to prove my disapproval, I will burn my copy of Black Ops outside the day BF3 comes out. Not that I still play anyway. I might as well burn it now, but I think it would be more dramatic if I wait for the BF3 release day.
I gotta agree with Mr. Rif there, I had no issues with BFBC2. If you want to play a game with absolutely f***all hitreg, go jam some CS Source online and then we can talk about hitreg :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Toxin
BFBC2 has been nothing but pleasurable from the get-go. Screw COD and it's buggy bs that took a month to fix.
Up yours Bobby, have a nice life and enjoy your next 5 COD games, because I surely won't be doing so.