Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 - Showdown

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

thats what you get when you try for a CoD release every year. everything just becomes a rehash with a few weapons, game types and maps thrown in.

CoD2 was released in October , 2005

CoD:Mw1 = November 2009

it takes time to make quality games. but Duke Nuke'm Forever is an exception.

You're British. You do not understand the genius behind Duke Nukem.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

You're British. You do not understand the genius behind Duke Nukem.

And I suppose this 'genius' got them reader/player ratings 6.5 on Gamespot and 6.8 on IGN.

last i checked. good games get higher ratings.

So what if i am british? it doesnt make me any less incapable of understanding what a game (or anything in that matter) is about. unless they only released the game in some ancient tribal language. but in that case - no one else would understand it either.

[random]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

last i checked. good games get higher ratings.

Don't forget "okay" or "good" games get a rating from 5.5 to 10, just because its a 6 or 7 doesn't mean it is not a good game. It may also take personal preference for a player to consider it a good game.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

So what if i am british? it doesnt make me any less incapable of understanding what a game (or anything in that matter) is about. unless they only released the game in some ancient tribal language. but in that case - no one else would understand it either.

I think he meant the whole Duke schtick is targeted at us low-browed Americans. But, no, that alone doesn't make a good game regardless of where you come from or how nostalgic you are, imo.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by random

Don't forget "okay" or "good" games get a rating from 5.5 to 10, just because its a 6 or 7 doesn't mean it is not a good game. It may also take personal preference for a player to be consider it a good game.

If it was one person rating the game -- id agree. but in this case its general consensus MANY players have given the game low enough score. for the ratings to reflect it.

you maybe one person that loves the game. however thousands or millions of people out there do not share the same view.


If the game was really that good. people wouldnt of scored it so badly badly enough for the ratings to drop blow 7/10

[random]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

you maybe one person that loves the game. however thousands or millions of people out there do not share the same view.

65 User votes from gamespot and 128 from ign doesnt make thousands or millions of people, where else you are getting these numbers I do not care or know. But based on these sites these user ratings were not all negative either.

Either way you leave out the fact that there are people who love the game despite how many haters there are on the internet bashing it. And no I don't love the game but I'm sure alot of other people do.

[AsRock]

So 17,6xx people liked it out of 1.2 million ?.. Which most looks like they found it meh.

[AsRock]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

You're British. You do not understand the genius behind Duke Nukem.

Duuuuude....

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

And I suppose this 'genius' got them reader/player ratings 6.5 on Gamespot and 6.8 on IGN.

last i checked. good games get higher ratings.

So what if i am british? it doesnt make me any less incapable of understanding what a game (or anything in that matter) is about. unless they only released the game in some ancient tribal language. but in that case - no one else would understand it either.

And because a game gets a good rating don't mean you will like it either. Best way to see if ya like it other than playing it is to read shit load of different reviews\points on the game as shit they don't like you might love to pieces.

[Easy Rhino]

please stay on topic: battlefield vs cod

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

thats what you get when you try for a CoD release every year. everything just becomes a rehash with a few weapons, game types and maps thrown in.

CoD2 was released in October , 2005

CoD:Mw1 = November 2009

it takes time to make quality games. but Duke Nuke'm Forever is an exception.

MW:1 was was released in November 2007 (CoD 4)

[crazyeyesreaper]

Call of Duty October 29th 2003
Call of Duty 2 October 25th 2005
Call of Duty 3 November 7th 2006
Call of Duty 4 MW1 November 7th 2007
Call of Duty 5 WaW June 9th 2008
Call of Duty 6 MW2 November 10th 2009
Call of Duty 7 Black Ops November 9th 2010
Call of Duty 8 MW3 release 2011

now off shoots and other Call of Duty games

Call of Duty Finest Hour
Call of Duty 2 Big Red One
Call of Duty Roads to Victory
Call of Duty World at War Final Fronts
Call of Duty Modern Warfare Mobilized
Call of Duty World at War Zombies

I think there are way to many Call of duty games.

in the span of 7 years we have seen 14 Call of Duty games,

with the average price of all call of duty games released after 2007 still $30 or greater in price, for 4+ year old games. with extra content still costing an arm and a leg, think about it thats some extremely good marketing and buisness mechanics since people keep buying this shit. I tip my hat to Activision they really know how to milk a franchise and make some serious money. as far as buisness goes and making a profit, there pretty much numero uno at this point. Still kinda shitty tho.

[HookeyStreet]

Both look amazing. We are being spoiled this year!

[Damn_Smooth]

Battlefield 3 is going to stomp MW3, and rightfully so. Dice actually took the time to develop a new, and amazing, engine for the game.

I wish Activision had done the same, but they are making way too much money milking their current engine to consider it right now.

Even if they had though, Battlefield would still win due to it's realism.

Originally Posted by HookeyStreet

Both look amazing. We are being spoiled this year!

Now for something completely off topic: Your manchild pic frightens the hell out of me. Seriously, if Activision hadn't hired him, he would probably be driving a 70's van with a big bag of candy as we speak.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by HookeyStreet

Both look amazing. We are being spoiled this year!

If I look into your avatars eyes longer I may start mummbling the samething and walk off like a zombie

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Damn_Smooth

Battlefield 3 is going to stomp MW3...

We should wait till we get the figures, yes?

COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.

I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

We should wait till we get the figures, yes?

COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.

I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.

I doubt BF3 will outsell MW3 on a full scale, but on PC, the previous 2 were close, and thats where I realistically expect BF3 to come out on top. And thats all I want to see, console FPS makes me sad, watching my friends play BC2 on PS3 just makes me shake my head, it's just so amazing on PC.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

We should wait till we get the figures, yes?

COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.

I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.

i dont care either way, but i think bf3 will sell A TON more than mw3.

bf3 is totally updated from bf2.

bf3 is much broader game with a lot more playing depth. bc2 is sorta like bf3 light.

the graphics in bf3 are x10000 better than anything that crappy dx9 engine used in MW series.

people have been waiting for a new bf game for a long time while the MW series is old and crappy.

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

We should wait till we get the figures, yes?

COD:BO sold more than 10 million copies, Battlefield Bad Company 2 didn't even touch 3million according to wiki.

I can't see how BF3 is going to outsell MW3.

I was talking ratings more than sales. Reviewers historically have given fresh games higher scores than rehashes so I see no reason that that won't apply here.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i dont care either way, but i think bf3 will sell A TON more than mw3.

bf3 is totally updated from bf2.

bf3 is much broader game with a lot more playing depth. bc2 is sorta like bf3 light.

the graphics in bf3 are x10000 better than anything that crappy dx9 engine used in MW series.

people have been waiting for a new bf game for a long time while the MW series is old and crappy.

People don't want variety, MW players are scared to even play a game with vehicles. MW players mostly play on consoles were graphics are limited by the hardware and mostly close on both series. MW is a console game, and that market is just flat out brainwashed sadly.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i dont care either way, but i think bf3 will sell A TON more than mw3.

bf3 is totally updated from bf2.

bf3 is much broader game with a lot more playing depth. bc2 is sorta like bf3 light.

the graphics in bf3 are x10000 better than anything that crappy dx9 engine used in MW series.

people have been waiting for a new bf game for a long time while the MW series is old and crappy.

You are entitled to what you think, so there is nothing I can do other than try to make you think otherwise, and that obviously didn't work. Good graphics will not sell as much, unless it becomes the next Crysis (can my computer run BF3?). People with nice rigs will appreciate BF3, but your average joe with crappy onboard will be limited to COD/MW.

Originally Posted by Damn_Smooth

I was talking ratings more than sales. Reviewers historically have given fresh games higher scores than rehashes so I see no reason that that won't apply here.

Ahh, that clears up a lot. But even with the higher scores, people will still buy COD/MW, and that is largely due to marketing done right.

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Ahh, that clears up a lot. But even with the higher scores, people will still buy COD/MW, and that is largely due to marketing done right.

True, but if EA throws it's marketing muscle fully behind it, we could have a close battle. Then it will come down to how brainwashed the consolites are.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by Damn_Smooth

True, but if EA throws it's marketing muscle fully behind it, we could have a close battle. Then it will come down to how brainwashed the consolites are.

Very brainwashed, I expect BF3 to do better than BC2 did, even on consoles. But people will still gobble up MW3.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Damn_Smooth

True, but if EA throws it's marketing muscle fully behind it, we could have a close battle. Then it will come down to how brainwashed the consolites are.

Not really, I think COD/MW is inherently more suited to console gaming because of its simplicity, and we appreciate BF because of its complexity. The sheer number of people owning consoles should tilt any fight to COD/MW's side.

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

Very brainwashed, I expect BF3 to do better than BC2 did, even on consoles. But people will still gobble up MW3.

I find it sad that I have to agree with you. I'm losing more faith in humanity every day.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Damn_Smooth

I find it sad that I have to agree with you. I'm losing more faith in humanity every day.

I am surprised you still have any. We need to cut of humanity's cancer which is stupidity, but sadly killing irl is illegal.