CoD MW3 - Redemption Trailer
- Thread starter LuxSmash
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,218
Beh. Same game, different year.
Imo, with that logic you could argue that battlefield 3 is the same game just in a different year.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 509
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,218
In a way it is. But the Frostbite 2 engine is incredibly better.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,262
LOL
Play mw3, then mw2, you'll see diferent maps
play bf3 then bf2 and you will see an entirely new game, graphics, gameplay, sound, everything
Call of Duty has ran on the EXACT SAME engine sense CoD 4. Thats a fact, no opinion about it.
The battlefield franchise however has gone through 2 engine changes sense Battlefield 2.
That being said, the Call of Duty franchise would be a decent game if it wasn't a full $60 for each installment, $15 for 3 maps the community could make themselves, and the community wasn't composed largely of 13 year olds. The first two reasons lower the quality and expectations of the Military Shooter sub-genre, the third lowers the expectations of a military shooter player.
Sure the multiplayer may be terrible, but they can sure spin a storyline.
I also lol'd at how they half copied the battlefield 3 wubs at 0:18 in the video.
The battlefield franchise however has gone through 2 engine changes sense Battlefield 2.
That being said, the Call of Duty franchise would be a decent game if it wasn't a full $60 for each installment, $15 for 3 maps the community could make themselves, and the community wasn't composed largely of 13 year olds. The first two reasons lower the quality and expectations of the Military Shooter sub-genre, the third lowers the expectations of a military shooter player.
Sure the multiplayer may be terrible, but they can sure spin a storyline.
I also lol'd at how they half copied the battlefield 3 wubs at 0:18 in the video.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 530
MW3 has the same animations as CoD4 just about, so did MW2 and BLOPS. They just add a few more. As far as engines, they're "improved" to just add a few tidbits really. Graphically CoD has always been weak. They just add more gloss and reduce poly's. CoD feels the same as far as movement as well.
What it also boils down to is the type of gameplay style that you like. CoD has always been, rush everywhere, CQC, always on your toes. Usually your heart is beating crazy if you're doing very well because usually every 3 seconds at minimum you're shooting at someone else or getting shot at. CoD is like Quake but with modern guns (and I feel bad for Quake saying that). Only thing in CoD that will get you anywhere is the ability to aim and move. It's pretty linear as far as that is concerned. Yes you can implement tactics, but like I said it's far more linear compared to BF3. CoD would be much greater if they dropped the engine and started from scratch.
Battlefield is a lot more tactical, realistic, BIG maps. If you are a police officer, swat, ex-military BF3 is a platform that you can throw the tactics you know out there and dominate. You can't do that with CoD. You can get that same heart pumping action with BF, it's just different. You're not running around going pew pew pew, you'll have tanks/jets etc. But BF3 now is also CQC, with the beta, there were A LOT of CQC moments. Especially with the flashlight. BF3 covered a lot of bases.
To be fair Bad Company 1/2 were basically test games for BF3. Testing out new technology and different aspects for a greater goal. That goal being Frostbite 2 for BF3.
As far as story lines, CoD has always had a pretty good story. I'd imagine MW3 will be praised for it's story line too. BF3 story will be incredible, if you recall seeing a lot of the first videos put out. BC 1/2 had pretty good stories too (funny, not serious).
What it also boils down to is the type of gameplay style that you like. CoD has always been, rush everywhere, CQC, always on your toes. Usually your heart is beating crazy if you're doing very well because usually every 3 seconds at minimum you're shooting at someone else or getting shot at. CoD is like Quake but with modern guns (and I feel bad for Quake saying that). Only thing in CoD that will get you anywhere is the ability to aim and move. It's pretty linear as far as that is concerned. Yes you can implement tactics, but like I said it's far more linear compared to BF3. CoD would be much greater if they dropped the engine and started from scratch.
Battlefield is a lot more tactical, realistic, BIG maps. If you are a police officer, swat, ex-military BF3 is a platform that you can throw the tactics you know out there and dominate. You can't do that with CoD. You can get that same heart pumping action with BF, it's just different. You're not running around going pew pew pew, you'll have tanks/jets etc. But BF3 now is also CQC, with the beta, there were A LOT of CQC moments. Especially with the flashlight. BF3 covered a lot of bases.
To be fair Bad Company 1/2 were basically test games for BF3. Testing out new technology and different aspects for a greater goal. That goal being Frostbite 2 for BF3.
As far as story lines, CoD has always had a pretty good story. I'd imagine MW3 will be praised for it's story line too. BF3 story will be incredible, if you recall seeing a lot of the first videos put out. BC 1/2 had pretty good stories too (funny, not serious).
Mission Accomplished
Last edited:
If you want to look at it that way, wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare MW3 with CoD2, seeing as Battlefield 3 is being released just about 6 years after Battlefield 2?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,787
Good point. Definitely has changed a bit
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
The FPS genre hasn't made any real movement forward in years. It's a stagnant genre and you guys are arguing over which franchise has improved the most? Seriously?
It's like comparing these two elephants:
It's like comparing these two elephants:
I've always wondered if people would buy these FPS's every year if the multiplayer aspect wasn't there? That is, if you were only paying for the single player experience, and not the I-need-to-buy-this-becasue-all-my-FPS-bros-are-buying-it-too was removed, would anywhere near as many people pay full price for a game that is basically a map pack? Same for Sports franchises - instead of giving either free yearly roster updates, or (!!!) charging a nominal fee for roster DLC, publishers force 'new' full-price games on us each year. Madden, I am disappoint.
BF3 actually looks like they are bringing a new game to the table though. At least, enough newness to justify asking full admission to play. 64 player maps, vehicular mayhem, and the new Frostbite engine looks good so far. I'm still holding out hope that EA and Steam kiss and make up so BF3 can be on steam; however, even if BF3 is released via Steam, that doesn't mean EA won't force an Orgin install on us as well. Microsoft forces their horrid GFWL client on us even if we buy through Steam, so I imagine EA would do likewise with their own proprietary platform.
BF3 actually looks like they are bringing a new game to the table though. At least, enough newness to justify asking full admission to play. 64 player maps, vehicular mayhem, and the new Frostbite engine looks good so far. I'm still holding out hope that EA and Steam kiss and make up so BF3 can be on steam; however, even if BF3 is released via Steam, that doesn't mean EA won't force an Orgin install on us as well. Microsoft forces their horrid GFWL client on us even if we buy through Steam, so I imagine EA would do likewise with their own proprietary platform.
Mission Accomplished
I love seeing someone make a bad post and then try to pass it off as trolling. Warms my heart.
mad?
