Activisions MW 3 vs EAs Battlefield 3

[Dazrix]

Right, so I felt this should be a topic, but wasn't sure where to put it - figured this'd be the best place since CoD and BF fans can get pretty heated in arguement...

As many people know, Activisions CoD MW 3 plans to have a global release on November 12/13. As a result of the Triarc > Infinity Ward scenario thats occurred within the CoD series of developement and the bickering between gaming development companies contracted by the publishers - EA has decided to make a move to potentially steal CoD loyalists from Activisions CoD series fan base. And permanently take them to the realm of BattleField, by rushing there newest production for a global release on the same day (November 12/13 2011)

The question is; how will this effect Activision's CoD fan base? Will it at all? And what game holds your preference?


For me personally, I've been a loyal Battlefield fan ever since Battlefield 1942. I've found its style of gameplay to be very unique. Whilst the game tends to have a very repetative style of game play - it's like playing a game of sport - the scenario may be the same, but the outcome can always be changed by the small things that people do within the matchup.

I love Battlefield, but I was devastated with the release of BF BC 2 (Battlefield Bad Company 2) which Battlefield's developement team have been riding the profits from all this time, Bad Company 2 provided alot of good potential, but unfortunately took away some basic neccessities for that style of game.

Eg.. The ability to prone and full map exploration. Half of the games map is not revealed until certain goals have been achieved by one of the teams.

The original Battlefield 2 (which I'm really hoping Battlefield 3 is going to be styled off) allowed for proning, and also had full map range movement. The gameplay itself was of a normal large scale shooter. However it was very strongly orientated toward coordinated movement, much like a battlefield scenario. A commander who looks over the tactical map, calling in UAV's over hotspot combat areas. Scanning the map to find scouts or snipers. Or just a roaming enemy. Vehicle drops to help move your special forces members from Point A to Point B (or tactically using to block chopper reinforcements) and the most offencive skill a commander possesses in his tactical map view - Artillery strikes. A commander gets to call in his artillery strikes to bombard an area, instant killing not only enemy soldiers, but also your own if they are caught in that blast area aswell.

A commander also had the ability to talk specifically to 'squad leaders' and give commands to them via the map. The squad leader would see said command, and would be able to follow nav helpers to lead his squad to an area. This was especially important during clan matches, but most of this was irrelevant during pub matches.

A squad leader was the only person who could communicate to the commander, using in game voice chat communications - and had the option of also talking to his own squad with in game features. The in game voice chat was actually scripted fairly decently, unlike many other games.

The objective in Battlefield 2 was to lower your opponents tickets to 0. At the start of a game, each team will spawn with the same amount of tickets (usually 250-300) these tickets are then deducted through two means - over time sapping, and kills/deaths. For each kill you score, your opponents tickets went down by 1. However, this could be influenced to have more of an effect depending on how many flags you had in possession for your own team. Flags were captured by having players sit within a range of the flag for a period of time. More people, the faster the flag was raised. Often around 4 capturable flags per match, and 1 uncapturable fixed flag for each team. However, in matches where all flags were capturable, when an opponent had run out of spawn points - and all players had died. The team had lost.

Battlefield 2 was a rather large success, with what was intended. And largely popular.


Call of Duty on the other hand.. Has remained the same basic game throughout all of its productions - that being.. the standard team deathmatch/ctf. The two things about call of duty - is that 1) It's consistant with its developements of new productions and games. And the second - is that it covers many eras of weaponry.

Call of Duty does not add additional content to there games - the production of a new game compensates for the lack of bonus content. A new CoD game is produced roughly, every year. A new Battlefield game is created once every 3-4 years. Call of Duty is faster, and far more responsive. However, the maps are smaller, and the gameplay encourages mass spawn camping - with no anti camp feature. Infact, it encourages spawn camping so much, that if someone knows the spawn locations, the games about as fun as watching paint dry.

Though - As you can tell - I'm a rather large Battlefield fan.. So my opinion is quite bias.

[Umegiri_Iroha]

To be honest I like both Call of Duty & Battlefield series. In fact the only game I dislike the most is the Flashpoint series except for the 1st one that came out for PC years ago. Other than that I must say that both series are great.

[Aggy]

Reposting my question here, as per Daz's request. Reposted from the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 thread.

----

I'm going to ask a question which is probably going to be met with a LOT of negative backlash. Before I do so, I must stress I do not mean this at all as a jab at FPSs. I'll admit I am not a fan of the genre, but I'm not going to mock or degrade you for playing them. Every man has his muse.

The question I wish to ask is; how is this game any different from all the other shooters out at the moment?

From my point of view, somebody who doesn't play FPSs, I just see this title as another of the 'Army first person shoot the bad guy mindless' games. After all, there's Call of Duty, Halo, Bad Company, Brink, etc. I don't see how this is different to the others. The controls will most likely be similar, I'm assuming. The story could even be similar.

As I said before, I don't play FPSs and never really had the explicit desire to do so. As such, I have no baseline on which to base my thoughts, so apologies if this all seems completely disjointed. I just hear a lot of negativity about these types of games and as such have become rather...I don't know, I guess you could say prejudicial of them? If I were to play it, I'd go in expecting dialogue from characters so clichéd it'd make my head hurt. I'd also most likely be terrible at it, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I must stress I don't mean this at all as a jab at anyone who enjoys these sorts of games. After all, I wouldn't take very well to somebody who just came and ranted about how RPGs are not his cup of tea, but I would be more considerate towards someone who is confused as to what the appeal is. So...in short, what is the appeal in this game and the genre as a whole, and how is this game different from the rest of the titles on offer today?

----

Also, most of the people I know who play FPSs more often that not were going on about Call of Duty, so I'd go with CoD still coming out on top. Mind you, this is only a small sample of people, I'm not familiar with either series nor their development backgrounds/current happenings. I'm probably adding nothing to the debate, but then as I've mentioned before, I've never really been a huge player of First Person Shooters, so I've not had much change to formulate a strong opinion either way. I only really have word of mouth (i.e. what I've overheard my college friends chatting about) to go on.

[DARK|PhoeniX 105]

Originally Posted by Aggy

Reposting my question here, as per Daz's request. Reposted from the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 thread.

----

I'm going to ask a question which is probably going to be met with a LOT of negative backlash. Before I do so, I must stress I do not mean this at all as a jab at FPSs. I'll admit I am not a fan of the genre, but I'm not going to mock or degrade you for playing them. Every man has his muse.

The question I wish to ask is; how is this game any different from all the other shooters out at the moment?

From my point of view, somebody who doesn't play FPSs, I just see this title as another of the 'Army first person shoot the bad guy mindless' games. After all, there's Call of Duty, Halo, Bad Company, Brink, etc. I don't see how this is different to the others. The controls will most likely be similar, I'm assuming. The story could even be similar.

As I said before, I don't play FPSs and never really had the explicit desire to do so. As such, I have no baseline on which to base my thoughts, so apologies if this all seems completely disjointed. I just hear a lot of negativity about these types of games and as such have become rather...I don't know, I guess you could say prejudicial of them? If I were to play it, I'd go in expecting dialogue from characters so clichéd it'd make my head hurt. I'd also most likely be terrible at it, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I must stress I don't mean this at all as a jab at anyone who enjoys these sorts of games. After all, I wouldn't take very well to somebody who just came and ranted about how RPGs are not his cup of tea, but I would be more considerate towards someone who is confused as to what the appeal is. So...in short, what is the appeal in this game and the genre as a whole, and how is this game different from the rest of the titles on offer today?

----

Also, most of the people I know who play FPSs more often that not were going on about Call of Duty, so I'd go with CoD still coming out on top. Mind you, this is only a small sample of people, I'm not familiar with either series nor their development backgrounds/current happenings. I'm probably adding nothing to the debate, but then as I've mentioned before, I've never really been a huge player of First Person Shooters, so I've not had much change to formulate a strong opinion either way. I only really have word of mouth (i.e. what I've overheard my college friends chatting about) to go on.

Look there are good ones and bad ones most of the WW2 based games feel generic where as the ones based of more modern conflicts are generally better but FPS authors have the bad habit of re-using old concepts over and over again so many feel very similar, as for story it generally involves some terrorist who got his hands on some nukes or simulations of wars so there really is none but as most players will agree you get little mileage out of the single player modes but multi player makes it all worth it in the end.They aren't bad or anything its just developers are getting a bit lazy and pull a series to far without changing much in game, its intended in a more Player vs Player setting
Hope that helps

I really have no preference as to Battle field Vs CoD but i do have favorite games from each. Loved BF2 and CoD 4 as for the whole teriach Infinity-ward Teriach's games kinda suck compared to infinity-ward's games

One thing that needs to be said
We are in 2011 now WW2 is over there are probably a hundred WW2 sims out there just drop it we need more arcade style play less focus on realism that is why i have mostly dropped most "Premium" FPS games in favor of open source quake style games like open arena and alien arena

This is just my view though

[Dazrix]

Phoenix, why not play TF 2? Thats a good arcade like shooter.

@Aggy: The dynamics in Battlefield and CoD are a bit different. Whilst CoD likes to emphasise on realism with bullet piercing through buildings and what not, it focuses solely on infantry tactics. As an added perk, the game allows you to customise your own classes, and purchase new things as a sense of achievement (and prestige mode, which gives you extra save slots if you wipe your previous saved data). However kill rewarding encourages things like spawn camping - which to me, is a fail on the CoD part. But they can't remove this feature because thats half of what CoD players play for.

Battlefield is more focused on an actual battlefield, having aerial and ground assault. And at times, naval aswell (if the map allows for it) this adds more strategical and tactical play in order to achieve the objective. Battlefield discourages spawn camping of fixed spawn points, by disallowing them as capture points. It also is often quite some distance away from your own spawn points, so to run there would probably take about a minute. To get a vehicle there, you were probably spotted and killed. Also in addition, commanders are a feature which no other FPS (except maybe HL Natural Selection, to my knowledge) has. This is a player who's solely designated to watch over the map, and strategically command his troops (should they listen).

Battlefield focused more on the strategical capture of locations (which allowed you to choose to spawn on them) in order to achieve your objective. It opened up alot of roles, such as medic (can heal/revive non fatally wounded soldiers), assault (basic infantry with a 2 shot grenade launcher attachment on assault rifle), Support (your machine gunners, also your ammo resupply droppers), Engineers (fix tanks, and also key utility buildings. Such as Artillery cannons or UAV hub), Special Forces (C4 and explosives users, they are usually used to target specific vehicles or strategic utility buildings), Snipers (pretty standard sniper. However more emphasis on head shots) and lastly; Anti - Tank gunners (people armed with RPG's, often have to work in small groups to remove large vehicles like tanks from the battlefield.)

You have other FPS games such as TF2 - TF 2 is completely different. TF 2 in design is meant to be that of an old style shooter based off the Quake and Half Life games. (Quake TF and Half Life TF, and Team Fortress Classic, or TFC) TF is more for your old school, don't want realism players (also just became free to play and download off steam)

Other variants for FPS that vary alot is Halo - Halo is more about being a super soldier.. Unfortunately, I personally believe Halo is the worste in design for multiplayer. But best in design for its single player. I feel Halo is more or less, only useful for its single player element, because other games just outmatch it in its multiplayer capability.

Another is Americas Army - this games fairly old now, but pretty sure it's still played quite alot. This game is PURELY about realism. It was designed by the American government as a form of recruiting campaign. This game is incredibly accurate with detail - because of this, it was once hugely popular. But I don't know if many people still play the game to the same extent anymore. However.. Still a good game.. This games maps are larger then that of the Battlefield series, (which is known to be quite large) and far less populated. Very tactical warfare.

Another is the Tom Clancy series such as Rainbow 7, but more well known for its multiplayer - Ghost Recon. A very good game for some of its realism. But unfortunately - I feel that this game appeals mostly to those who enjoy Snipering alot. As this game you can't afford to be hit by any form of weapon. So distance and accuracy overcomes spray.

In anycase, I hope this has given you a little more of an insight to the differences of FPS. At first I guess you would see FPS's much like how many view Beer... All beer tastes the same, but after you start drinking different Beers, you can really tell the difference between each one. FPS's are very similar. Both there in game mechanics and engines will feel very different.

EDIT: Oh and Brink is a fail of a game - it's purely coop multiplayer against Bots. But is meant to feel more like Quake style. Brink has no competative multiplayer.

[archaznable]

What I notice about the two titans of FPS is the multi-player itself.

Battlefield 3 is purely build as a multiiplayer game where you can choose what kind of server you wanted to play. What kind of map you wanted to play. And it has a ton of vehicles and a huge map to loiter around the battlefield. Plus it has a huge player based like um 64 players that's many and chaotic in the battlefield. Battlefield 3's single player or story mode is good not as good as COD story telling.

While in COD MW3 the multiplayer is good not much it's like a hybrid Counter Strike game where as you only fight as an infantry with no vehicles on the multiplayer. The number is less like the maximum number of player in COD MW3 or any other Modern Warfare franchise was it only has a maximum of 24 players. The maps are small just enough for a 24 player slugfest. What CODMW3 shines is the story itself it is better off as a single player game other than a multiplayer game. And also the good is the special ops like a co-op games.

This two games are great I played them all I know there are no perfect games to play it's a matter of in the hands of the gamers.

[Ryojin]

First, some background information of where I stood before playing either of the two games: I had played MW1 and MW2, and had not played any games in the BF series. I quite enjoyed MW1 and thought MW2 was decent. I'm going to go by single player only, as I don't play these kinds of games online most of the time. Now, here's my views on the whole thing...

I first played MW3. I thought it was not worth the time I spent playing it. The story was extremely bland and uninteresting. The gameplay was quite obviously geared for multiplayer and not single player. It seems to me as if someone just took MW1 and MW2 and just threw them together, then hired a 12 year old kid to write parts of it to smooth it all over.

I played BF3 right after it, and I felt quite the opposite. I had been expecting another disappointment for an extremely overhyped game like with MW3, but I actually rather enjoyed it. I honestly can't remember much of the story, but I know I didn't hate it or think it was exactly the same as every other FPS of it's style. The gameplay felt a lot better than MW3's.

I honestly felt that the single player mode in BF3 was superior to the single player mode in MW3 in every single way it could possibly be superior.