Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 - Showdown

[crazyeyesreaper]

i dont care what consoles have they dont have mouse and keyboard

this means

RPGs
FPS
RTS

are pretty much shit on console untill they offer me mouse and keyboard out of box any console system and its games of the above genres can blow me. lol Ill take unoptimized PC any day, at least im not locked into shitty controls with low sensitivity, with lackluster support and in recent memory worse bugs then PC ports lolz

Ill go BF3 soon as i can afford it... kinda sad i cant pre order it but oh well games still gonna be pretty fucking awesome,

and im sorry to say No Call of Duty isnt that well optimized

it runs at 1000x600 resolution on consoles, andon PC if you look at the graphical quality its 99% unchanged yet going from MW1 to Black Ops sees frame rate drop nearly 50-60fps on the same game engine at max settings at 1920x1080 why is that if its so well optimized why are they losing performance with no real graphical improvements.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

i dont care what consoles have they dont have mouse and keyboard

this means

rpgs
fps
rts

are pretty much shit on console untill they offer me mouse and keyboard out of box any console system and its games of the above genres can blow me. Lol ill take unoptimized pc any day, at least im not locked into shitty controls with low sensitivity, with lackluster support and in recent memory worse bugs then pc ports lolz

ill go bf3 soon as i can afford it... Kinda sad i cant pre order it but oh well games still gonna be pretty fucking awesome,

and im sorry to say no call of duty isnt that well optimized

it runs at 1000x600 resolution on consoles, andon pc if you look at the graphical quality its 99% unchanged yet going from mw1 to black ops sees frame rate drop nearly 50-60fps on the same game engine at max settings at 1920x1080 why is that if its so well optimized why are they losing performance with no real graphical improvements.

+1000

[Shihabyooo]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

and im sorry to say No Call of Duty isnt that well optimized

it runs at 1000x600 resolution on consoles, andon PC if you look at the graphical quality its 99% unchanged yet going from MW1 to Black Ops sees frame rate drop nearly 50-60fps on the same game engine at max settings at 1920x1080 why is that if its so well optimized why are they losing performance with no real graphical improvements.

Grab a new pair of eyes mate.
If compared by whatever view you have, it goes the same for Bad Company 2. Considering it was so PC optimized.

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

this means
RPGs
>
are pretty much shit on console

jRPGs suck on PCs. have you played The last Remnant ?

[crazyeyesreaper]

actually BC2 is optimized on PC moron run a fucking quadcore vs dual core and presto nearly double the frame rate GPU power helps but isnt the main focus, the game needs cpu grunt, not to mention BC2 in DX9 runs just as good as any Call of Duty title, but looks better oh my see what i did there.

ah last remnant sucked ass in general but it ran fine on PC, just as FF7 and FF8 today run just fine on my PC.

but then i didnt mention just JRPG did I? i said RPG

lets see that would mean...
Oblivion
Fallout 3 + NV
Dragon Age
Dragon Age 2
Sacred 2
Dungeon Siege 3

do i need to list more RPGs for you that everyone already knows look better and play / control better on PC

how about RTS games

Total War franchise
Civilization (yes i played the pos console Civ game its still shit)
Ruse far better on PC then console
Supreme Commander 2 it sucks compared to the original but overall still better on PC

as far as FPS games go
everyone and there mom knows keyboard and mouse + FPS = better lol and that goes for Call of Duty as well

but still

console games are shit anyway

1000x600 upscaled to 720p stretched across a 42inch 1080p tv looks like shit end of story

as for Optimization and performance Call of duty can suck a big one

at 1000x600 it gets 50-55avg fps on 360 which is good but PS3 gets a whopping 40fps avg and has lower image quality and in previous titles the difference was more evident,

where as oh joy BattleField Bad Company 2 while only running at 29fps on 360 and PS3 looks better runs smoother then Black Ops does on PS3
not to mention BC2 actually runs at 1280x720p last i checked on console so higher res better graphics better gameplay smoother gameplay overall with less frame dip, hmm yea Call Of Duty is SOOOO optimized compared to Battlefield lolz i wont argue that higher frame rate is better but a more stable frame rate and equal graphics and frame rate across all platforms shows better optimization then Call of Duty.

I also have to call bullshit on Call of duty because there changes are to textures only for the most part but performance as gotten worse and worse, and in many games today Modded textures look better and offer performance improvement sin many games. so While you may THINK i need my eyes check i can honestly tell you CoD isnt well optimized its engine is based on code written in 1998-1999 they added things to it over time but in general its ancient it feels ancient, and the whole argument of how good call of duty looks is moot because most ppl online run the game at the lowest possible settings on PC to up the frame rate so they can reload move and shoot faster because of how the game engine responds to framerate.

[Jonap_1st]

when activision said they will stick on console market first because they can sell better and make more money. i know COD franchise will be just like this until the current console technology died.

like what? 3 - 4 years?

damn it

[Animalpak]

sure I buy them both but I think this year I focus on modern warfare

[crazyeyesreaper]

well i hope that you at least say FU to the monthly subscription to there stupid service

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by Animalpak

sure I buy them both but I think this year I focus on modern warfare

Why? Your couch is more comfortable? That's the only good reason I could possibly come up with.

(Yeah you can play BF3 on a console but why would you if you also have a good PC?)

[crazyeyesreaper]

[Salsoolo]

since dice stopped publishing server files they killed the game in alot of places in the world
EU & US players may have complained but you still could play, but they killed the game in alot of other countries.
the only thing i enjoyed about bc2 is the campaign.
hope the bf3 campaign is little longer.

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Salsoolo

since dice stopped publishing server files they killed the game in alot of places in the world
EU & US may have complained but you still could play, but they killed the game in alot of countries.
the only thing i enjoyed about bc2 is the campaign.
hope the bf3 campaign is little longer.

DICE has stated that BF3's campaign will be up to 10 hours long, dont know if its for n00b or pro's..

[Wrigleyvillain]

Battlefield is NOT about single player.

[crazyeyesreaper]

true but if theres no real stable servers in his region then Battlefield is kind of fail, lol altho MW3 removing dedicated servers again is also fail, so thats just as bad lol depending on where you live.

[johnnyfiive]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

i dont care what consoles have they dont have mouse and keyboard

this means

RPGs
FPS
RTS

are pretty much shit on console untill they offer me mouse and keyboard out of box any console system and its games of the above genres can blow me. lol Ill take unoptimized PC any day, at least im not locked into shitty controls with low sensitivity, with lackluster support and in recent memory worse bugs then PC ports lolz

Ill go BF3 soon as i can afford it... kinda sad i cant pre order it but oh well games still gonna be pretty fucking awesome,

and im sorry to say No Call of Duty isnt that well optimized

it runs at 1000x600 resolution on consoles, andon PC if you look at the graphical quality its 99% unchanged yet going from MW1 to Black Ops sees frame rate drop nearly 50-60fps on the same game engine at max settings at 1920x1080 why is that optimized well optimized why are they losing performance with no real graphical improvements.

When I said optimized, I meant for consoles, not PC. That is my whole point. Devs make games for console first, PC last. That's why framerates PLUMMIT when your raise resolution or enable one feature. Perfect example is ambient occlusion in Brink

[Tatty_One]

I am surprised it's taken nearly 7 pages before the name calling starts, the war between BF and MW continues, periodically it turns into a PC versus Console debate (again) and ultimatley the value of the thread and discussion becomes a bit repetative and diluted because of it, if you cannot debate maturely without the language and name calling, then debate no more.

[crazyeyesreaper]

true but i dont call a 15-20fps difference along with shitter quality optimization,

fact is 15-20fps differen on 360-PS3 sure it happens but they needed to drop the resolution AND graphics settings for the PS3 just to get it to 40fps thats not optimization

since BC2 looks the same across 360 and PS3 frame rate ,resolution etc its all the same including graphical quality, thats optimization both platforms with different hardware achieved the same thing for Call Of Duty that never happens,

World at War had even WORSE performance as they didnt lower quality on the PS3 so there were points in game where from 360 to PS3 there were 25fps difference between the to again this isnt optimization if Call of Duty was properly optimized both consoles would be far more similar in there performance, graphic quality and resolution.


and aw come on Tatty i was just having a little fun its not like weve gone overboard yet altho when we do i expect a thread lock

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Battlefield is NOT about single player.

he said that he enjoyed the campaign,
not enjoying multiplayer, is it offensive?
no..

cmon, we already knew both SP and MP were great..
it just the matter of taste. everybody has their own point of views..

[Shihabyooo]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

...Lots of words...

as for the RPG matter, I only referred to the jRPG sub genre. Something I shouldn't have said it seems.

Back to the CoD vs BF subject:
although the base idea of this debate seems stupid imo. I think I'll play along for a little bit more.
CoD has never been about graphics. It's been about the gameplay, the cinematic feel, the story, the action. Something BF has never been able to give. Even with all the eye candies -which I personally fail to see as appealing as you do -it has.

**in my previous post I made a mistake. What I was trying to say is that BF would suck graphics wise not performance-wise.. sry

[crazyeyesreaper]

true and again if the guy has lackluster servers in his area you cant blame him for putting single player first,


@ Shihabyooo
Single Player ill give you Call of Duty is better

but since single player is play it once done and over with multiplayer takes over.

in this sense Battlefield walks all over call of duty and you cant really deny it

even now Modern Warfare 1 new is $30-40 + what $30 for map packs? so still $70 to get a the full experience on a title released in 4+ years ago. vs Battlefield Bad Company 2 at what? $20 which you dont have to pay for maps and has far more varied gameplay.

I also havent seen anyone get 500+ kills in badcompany through spawn camping in a single match something that a specific game mode in Call of Duty allows all to easily, which means gameplay wise it fails there and hard.

again im not comparing Single player im looking at multiplayer you know the thing thats kept me playing BC2 for 300hrs now, where as MW1 only held my attention for a whopping 10-12hrs before i was tired of it.

and its not that Eye Candy in itself is appealing alone, massive view distances, better overall graphical quality, more variation in gameplay, dedicated servers, better anti cheat protection. overall Battlefield might not be as popular but graphically and mechanically under the hood its far superior to Call Of Duty, I have no qualms saying that if they moved off that ancient ass game engine, they could deliever a much more stunning and interesting Game, but untill then i see call of duty as nothing more then what i see looking out my window, same old same old


tree, tree, tree, tree, tree, tree, tree

CoD, CoD 2, CoD 2 Big Red One,
Call Of Duty 3, Cod MW1, CoD WaW Cod MW2, CoD Black Ops, Cod MW3

every year a new game pops out with some texture changes and a few new weapons but at full retail price. I can tell you right now from apps that allow you to rip game models out of a game while its running by seeing its polygonal composition, Call of Duty hasnt really changed since MW1 litterally the Characters get a few extra polygons each time but essentially the base meshes are the same, theyve been reusing assets since CoD 3. Not to mention COD is still stuck in DX9 and for DX9 it looks good but games are upping that limit look at Witcher 2 in DX9 for example they could do alot more they choose not to because its easier to reuse and milk the franchise. I remember when Call of Duty really was the king of shooters and im sad to see it in my opinion so much lower then it once was in terms of quality and gameplay.

as for direct BC2 to CoD we get Tanks, Choppers, soon to be jets far larger maps and larger player counts and the average battlefield player dosent spend half the match hiding in a bathroom stall like a pussy either lol everytime i watch my friends play Call of Duty it seems at least 3 kills around for them are from killing a poor shmuck hiding in a bathroom stall
but overall we get greater graphic fidelity, bullet drop and deviation not these laser bullets, we get free map unlocks from using teamwork i know i know 1 map but still we got it by playing the game as a community, wheres the free map unlocks for community gameplay in Call of Duty, what about the fact that Bad Company 2 ppl get banned and removed for stat padding but most Call Of Duty players i know join a clan and then boost to get there perks etc, thats fail as well

[digibucc]

imo , battlefield series is epic, whereas MW is intense.

MW is about twitch reaction
BF is about strategy, tactics, vehicles, etc.

I can put a good 30 hours into a MW game, but i can easily double
that in the first month of a BF release. definitely look forward to
Battlefield releases, whereas MW is more like meh.... when i get bored.

it'll still be full price too, which is ridiculous on their part.
that just screams customer disloyalty, which turns me off from Activision.

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Shihabyooo

as for the RPG matter, I only referred to the jRPG sub genre. Something I shouldn't have said it seems.

Back to the CoD vs BF subject:
although the base idea of this debate seems stupid imo. I think I'll play along for a little bit more.
CoD has never been about graphics. It's been about the gameplay, the cinematic feel, the story, the action. Something BF has never been able to give. Even with all the eye candies -which I personally fail to see as appealing as you do -it has.

**in my previous post I made a mistake. What I was trying to say is that BF would suck graphics wise not performance-wise.. sry

is kind a waste if you play war-theme games, without getting feels like being on real *intense* battlefield..

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

true and again if the guy has lackluster servers in his area you cant blame him for putting single player first,

Single Player ill give you Call of Duty is better

but since single player is play it once done and over with multiplayer takes over.

in this sense Battlefield walks all over call of duty and you cant really deny it

even now Modern Warfare 1 new is $30-40 + what $30 for map packs? so still $70 to get a the full experience on a title released in 4+ years ago. vs Battlefield Bad Company 2 at what? $20 which you dont have to pay for maps and has far more varied gameplay.

I also havent seen anyone get 500+ kills in badcompany through spawn camping something that a specific game mode in Call of Duty allows all to easily, which means gameplay wise it fails there and hard

again im not comparing Single player im looking at multiplayer you know the thing thats kept me playing BC2 for 300hrs now, where as MW1 only held my attention for a whopping 10-12hrs before i was tired of it.

and its not that Eye Candy in itself is appealing alone

we get Tanks Choppers, far larger maps and the average battlefield player dosent spend half the match hiding in a bathroom stall like a pussy either lol everytime i watch my friends play Call of Duty it seems at least 3 kills around for them are from killing a poor shmuck hiding in a bathroom stall

no one cant hide anymore, tanks or rocket will blow that toilet..

[random]

Originally Posted by digibucc

imo , battlefield series is epic, whereas MW is intense.

MW is about twitch reaction
BF is about strategy, tactics, vehicles, etc.

I can put a good 30 hours into a MW game, but i can easily double
that in the first month of a BF release. definitely look forward to
Battlefield releases, whereas MW is more like meh.... when i get bored.

it'll still be full price too, which is ridiculous on their part.
that just screams customer disloyalty, which turns me off from Activision.

Hehe agreed, but still doesn't explain the gap between it's difference for me personally as there is no way I'd prefer twitch reaction over strategy, tactics, vehicles, etc. not even while drunk/redbull gaming

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

even now Modern Warfare 1 new is $30-40 + what $30 for map packs? so still $70 to get a the full experience

but you are missing something important that gave MW1 much longevity...

SDK tools which gave users the ability to make their own maps or port maps over from other games. Ive seen maps from Medal of honor: allied assault, Maps from earlier Quake games, the occasional map from the first CoD game.

there were so many custom maps and custom servers out there. it really didnt matter if you have the map pack or not. you could still have a lot of fun. so what their they are not official maps?? Custom maps are usually 100x more fun

[crazyeyesreaper]

uh yea but lets see Freedom
Call Of Duty dosent support custom maps anymore oops wait there goes that out the window lolz

BC2 has the base maps they released a few more maps for free then made the vietnam expansion

all said you could pay $20 for BC2 get Vietnam with that and get more gameplay value and nearly as many maps as Call Of Duty

10 maps by default
4 maps by default in Vietnam
4 more free maps from map pack 1
1 map unlocked from community interaction

19 maps total.

Call Of Duty MW2

26 maps
16 maps available at launch
10 maps added via map packs
10 maps by map pack is $30

$30 + 60 = $90 for 26 maps
I paid $20 and got 19 maps and a better game overall.

[DannibusX]

I'm on the fence about MW3. I've caved for every CoD since 4. I enjoyed W@W, MW2 was a travesty and Black Ops is best enjoyed on the Xbox, which is where I've been playing it. I actually made my friend buy me Black Ops for the Xbox since I didn't want to pay for it myself and he wanted me to play with him and the guys.

BF3 on the PC is a must buy for me, but I'll probably be on the hook to pick it up for the 360 as well. Most of my friends are actually talking about it now, and they agree that CoD is getting stale. I'll likely rent MW3 for the SP campaign, but if my friends want me to play it again, they'll have to spring for my copy, lol.

Console v PC is a stupid debate. BF3 should be awesome on the console, but it will be incredible on the PC. It's cheaper for my friends to buy me a copy for console than it is for them to build a PC from scratch to play with all the eye candy.