1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 - Showdown

Discussion in 'Games' started by RuskiSnajper, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    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.
     
  2. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,677 (2.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,776
    Location:
    Chicago
    +1000
     
  3. Shihabyooo

    Shihabyooo

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    568 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Location:
    A sad excuse of a country called Sudan.
    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.

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

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  5. Jonap_1st

    Jonap_1st New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    288 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    South Green Jakarta
    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 :slap:
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  6. Animalpak

    Animalpak

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,174 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    627
    Location:
    Switzerland
    sure I buy them both but I think this year I focus on modern warfare
     
  7. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    well i hope that you at least say FU to the monthly subscription to there stupid service
     
  8. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,677 (2.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,776
    Location:
    Chicago
    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?)
     
  9. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Salsoolo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Messages:
    222 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    since dice stopped publishing server files they killed the game in alot of places in the world :ohwell:
    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. :)
     
  11. Jonap_1st

    Jonap_1st New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    288 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    South Green Jakarta
    DICE has stated that BF3's campaign will be up to 10 hours long, dont know if its for n00b or pro's..
     
  12. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,677 (2.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,776
    Location:
    Chicago
    Battlefield is NOT about single player.
     
    TRIPTEX_CAN and 1Kurgan1 say thanks.
  13. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    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.
     
  14. johnnyfiive

    johnnyfiive

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,892 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    876
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    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
     
    crazyeyesreaper says thanks.
  15. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,910 (5.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,687
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    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 says thanks.
  16. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    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 :toast:
     
  17. Jonap_1st

    Jonap_1st New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    288 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    South Green Jakarta
    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..
     
    cheesy999 says thanks.
  18. Shihabyooo

    Shihabyooo

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    568 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Location:
    A sad excuse of a country called Sudan.
    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 says thanks.
  19. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    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
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  20. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,943 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,508
    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.
     
  21. Jonap_1st

    Jonap_1st New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    288 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    South Green Jakarta
    is kind a waste if you play war-theme games, without getting feels like being on real *intense* battlefield..

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

    random

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,043 (1.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    686
    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 :laugh:
     
  23. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    14,031 (5.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,423
    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 says thanks.
  24. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    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.
     
  25. DannibusX

    DannibusX

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,528 (1.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    979
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page