This post by Sign really got me thinking,
 
 @Sign: What confuses me more than anything (and I see it more on reddit /r/gaming than here) is the people praying for this game to kill CoD while at the same time bashing CoD players. What I don't think these people realize is if BF3 does in fact dethrone CoD than all those people that play CoD are going to come over to BF3. Is that what they really want to happen? Do you really want the people you so actively mock and detest to move over to the game you are playing?
 
The fact of the matter is is that CoD caters to the LCD, I am not saying that if you play CoD you're an idiot, I'm just stating the fact that CoD is a game for the mass market and is designed to cater to the mass market. Battlefield ,while also catering to the mass market, does have more of a hardcore focus than games like Call of  Duty, due to it's more complex gameplay systems and because of this the multiplayer require more thought and coordination than CoD. Again I am not saying that people who enjoy just shooting dudes aren't gamers or are five years old, I'm just saying that the gameplay focus of Battlefield is more complex than that of CoD.  This complexity has driven people away from the Battlefield series.
 
Now if you've ever played CoD 4+, especially on consoles, then you know that these games are filled with the worst people and whiny kids and all kinds of other horrible things; now do the Battlefield games have these people? Yes absolutely they do, but just by the virtue of CoD being more popular and simpler there are more of those people playing CoD. 
 
There are two scenarios that I can see happening, on consoles not PC:
 
1. "The MAG Problem": For a very long time in MAG you could pretty much only play Sabo. If you looked at the player numbers there would be around 2000 people playing Sabo and around a hundred in the other modes. MAG was supposed to be about large scale battles and team work but because people preferred to just shoot dudes, Sabo became the most played game mode because it was simple and straightforward, there were other issues at play in MAG's case but the fact remains that Domination mode was supposed to be the focus of MAG. 
Battlefield 3 is the first Battlefield game to have a two team TDM mode out of the box. This is undeniably an effort to appeal to a wider audience. Battlefield has always been about Conquest mode, and in BC series Rush, and that is what people played and that is what people love. Now if your average CoD player comes to BF3 for it's shiny graphics or because they saw it on TV, what mode are they gonna play? They're gonna play TDM because it's simple, fast, and uncomplicated, they're not going to play complex conquest or rush, they are going to play the mode that they can play with the smallest learning curve. I'm not saying they are wrong for doing so, I'm saying that TDM is not what Battlefield is about. So what you could see happen is, on consoles, Battlefield becoming a TDM game and that the vast majority of people playing will play TDM exclusively and the playerbase for Conquest and Rush, dwindle. DICE, and EA, being the businesses they are will in subsequent games cater to their audience and make Battlefield more and more TDM focused ( I wouldn't blame them for doing so, they aren't charities they're businesses.)
 
2. "Spillover": If BF3 is wildly popular and these people, who aren't interested in playing as a team or for objectives, simply playing to shoot dudes or for K/D, jump into the objective modes they will ruin the play for people and make playing the game for the objectives to be no fun at all. This is already a huge problem in Battlefield games, and it will only get worse the more popular it is. Am I saying that I don't want BF to be popular? No, I'm simply stating an unavoidable fact.
 
I don't say this because I'm a PC Elitist, I'm not I haven't played PC games since BF2. I don't say this because I hate CoD, I like CoD. I say this because Battlefield, as we know it, is not a CoD killer and that it is now being positioned as one. This means that in order for Battlefield to compete with CoD on the level EA wants it to, they will have to change the game in some significant ways. All the other Battlefield games have been very good games, and critic darlings, but they haven't sold anywhere near the number of copies CoD has. They will not outsell CoD duty by making a better Battlefield game. Will Battlefield 3 be a CoD clone that loses touch with what the Battlefield games are supposed to be about? No it will most likely not, but if EA doesn't see the sales it wants, will BF4, BF5, BF6? Very likely. EA has stated that they want to dethrone CoD and all Battlefield to them is a brand name that already has lots of recognition and if you don't believe me that a company, and developer, would slap a brand name onto a game that goes completely against every thing the series stands for and is directly positioned as a game for the mass market, then just look at BIA: Furious 4.
 
I don't think that companies "owe" anything to their old fanbase, because Video Games are a business and are trying to make money and games have always been aimed to appeal to the people who buy them, it's just that the market is changing and unfortunately this is a consequence of business.

The fact of the matter is is that CoD caters to the LCD, I am not saying that if you play CoD you're an idiot, I'm just stating the fact that CoD is a game for the mass market and is designed to cater to the mass market.

Oh wow...battlefield hipster...

The CoD players who spill over will find out that the play style they are used to won't translate well and they will just adapt and learn how Battlefield is played. (Hopefully)

So console BF3 might become the new TDM FPS game to go to... but true Battlefield fans know PC version is where its at. Ain't gonna be a shortage of Conquest Mode here. 

People will learn to play the game and enjoy it.

The CoD players who spill over will find out that the play style they are used to won't translate well and they will just adapt and learn how Battlefield is played. (Hopefully)

I actually consider myself a middle grounder on the FPS debate. I loath the arcadiness of the CoDs (although I thoroughly enjoyed CoD 2, which is still among the best FPS's I've played), but having said that, I cannot stand the movement mechanics in BF:BC2 or the multiplayer of MoH, they're simply too clanky. I can see where they want to go with them, but we don't yet have the technology to accurately simulate realistic running, especially up inclines. What my dream FPS is the smooth movement of CoD, but the weapons mechanics, level design and destruction of BF.

@ElBarto: Tell that to BC2 on consoles. I imagine that the majority will find the path of least resistance and that path is sniping or TDM

It won't beat Call of Duty, thank god for that. 
 Somehow DICE have fooled EA into thinking that Battlefield 3 is, shall we say the words, "noob friendly" where in fact it has a lot of the franchise's legacy in it and a lot of depth. Call of Duty players can't handle depth, they will buy MW 1.3 this year and keep playing it. 
 Believe me, man, we can't get the Call of Duty imbeciles to switch sides even if we pay them. Be glad that they're so depth-resistant. They want a flashy XP counter taking up the upper half of their screen once every 20 seconds, and nothing less.
  
Now what saddens me is the fact that BF3 failing to beat MW3 will really damage DICE's place in the company and damage EA's faith in the franchise for future releases :( 
 
 
@VictoryBlixt said:

So what you could see happen is, on consoles, Battlefield becoming a TDM game and that the vast majority of people playing will play TDM exclusively and the playerbase for Conquest and Rush, dwindle. DICE, and EA, being the businesses they are will in subsequent games cater to their audience and make Battlefield more and more TDM focused ( I wouldn't blame them for doing so, they aren't charities they're businesses.) 

2. "Spillover": If BF3 is wildly popular and these people, who aren't interested in playing as a team or for objectives, simply playing to shoot dudes or for K/D, jump into the objective modes they will ruin the play for people and make playing the game for the objectives to be no fun at all. This is already a huge problem in Battlefield games, and it will only get worse the more popular it is. 

I don't get the debate between the two games, they're more similar than people give them credit for. I am considering switching to Battlefield 3 this fall as my go-to multiplayer shooter just because of bigger maps, that's all. The differences between the games are superficial and negligible.

I don't get the debate between the two games, they're more similar than people give them credit for. I am considering switching to Battlefield 3 this fall as my go-to multiplayer shooter just because of bigger maps, that's all. The differences between the games are superficial and negligible.

@VictoryBlixt: Pure ignorance? Man, and here I thought I had played both franchises to tell the difference on my own. So then, enlighten me, what is so different about them that's so huge?

@VictoryBlixt: But to me, most of those are all superficial differences. The two major differences I would point to would be Weapon physics/hit scan and character speed because those make the game handle slightly differently. But conquest vs tdm, vehicles vs no vehicles, classes vs ..classes. It's all superficial preferences. So to me, and I say to me so you do not confuse my post as "fact" because I am stating pure opinion and that's all this is at the end of the day, they are similar enough to where the differences are, as noted, negligible. And thus, I find the debate puzzling. But, perhaps it's just as simple as people taking those differences a lot more seriously than I do.

Dont worry everything will be fine ... for pc

There is no way in hell that BF3 will sell more than MW3. Sorry it just won't happen. That's not to say BF3 will not be successful, I'm sure it will be but CoD has way more brand recognition and more casual gamers are aware of it.

A potentially interesting discussion, but I really can't see that happening. "Call of Duty" is a brand everyone knows at this point. Even if more and more "core gamers" are tiring of it, the franchise has taken on a life of it's own in the mainstream. And if they get bored of it, they don't move to a competitor, they stop playing games.

@Pezen said:

@VictoryBlixt: But to me, most of those are all superficial differences. The two major differences I would point to would be Weapon physics/hit scan and character speed because those make the game handle slightly differently. But conquest vs tdm, vehicles vs no vehicles, classes vs ..classes. It's all superficial preferences. So to me, and I say to me so you do not confuse my post as "fact" because I am stating pure opinion and that's all this is at the end of the day, they are similar enough to where the differences are, as noted, negligible. And thus, I find the debate puzzling. But, perhaps it's just as simple as people taking those differences a lot more seriously than I do.

You may have a valid point hidden away somewhere, but I think your word choice is obscuring it. Superficial and negligible have very specific meanings that don't apply here. I wrote two paragraphs explaining how that is the case, but I cut them. I realized I'm probably alone in caring about accurate word choice.

honestly the mag thing may have been true at first but now it's different. Most people play domination and play as a team which is awesome! although there is still a legion of snipers who can't play the objective to save their life.

I think all that will happen is like what happens with all mutiplayer shooters: they jump ship for a little while, find out they can't play and succeed in the COD style and leave. I have so many friends who gave up on games like mag or BF because "I killed lotsa guyz but i'm not at da top of da leederbordz. DERP! Y no work?"

There's no battle going on between the two if they are released in two seperate months.
 
EA chickened out.

And BTW I also think you guys are mistaken Reward Conditioning for "Teamwork" in the battlefield series, My dog would also sit in the flag to death if I give him +150 food

@DonPixel said:

And BTW I also think you guys are mistaken Reward Conditioning for "Teamwork" in the battlefield series, My dog would also sit in the flag to death if I give him +150 food

So true.

@DonPixel said:

And BTW I also think you guys are mistaken Reward Conditioning for "Teamwork" in the battlefield series, My dog would also sit in the flag to death if I give him +150 food

So true.

Sick and tired of people measuring these games against each other. Will MW3 sell more than BF3, yes at least if  you ask me. Will BF3 review higher than MW3 also yes. And even if so, doesn't mean jack shit, people will play and enjoy them respectably.

And BTW I also think you guys are mistaken Reward Conditioning for "Teamwork" in the battlefield series, My dog would also sit in the flag to death if I give him +150 food

@Ahmad_Metallic I don't get your rabid hate and agressions for all CoD. it's very childish and makes you look like prone to black and white facist thinking.. if you go check a bit of psycology that's also a characteristic of insecure weak minded people

Sick and tired of people measuring these games against each other. Will MW3 sell more than BF3, yes at least if  you ask me. Will BF3 review higher than MW3 also yes. And even if so, doesn't mean jack shit, people will play and enjoy them respectably.

The superiority complex some BF fans have is endlessly entertaining. It's as if their beloved game is a work of art to be treasured, and only they can appreciate and understand the seemingly endless depth and complexity that the lowly cod and console peasants can only dream to understand. In reality, BF is just another shooter, just like every other shooter. But with some classes and vehicles. I love BF, but sometimes the fans are just pathetic with their false sense of superiority, and are arguably more annoying than your average XBL 12 year old.

The superiority complex some BF fans have is endlessly entertaining. It's as if their beloved game is a work of art to be treasured, and only they can appreciate and understand the seemingly endless depth and complexity that the lowly cod and console peasants can only dream to understand. In reality, BF is just another shooter, just like every other shooter. But with some classes and vehicles. I love BF, but sometimes the fans are just pathetic with their false sense of superiority, and are arguably more annoying than your average XBL 12 year old.

@Potter9156 said:

The superiority complex some BF fans have is endlessly entertaining. It's as if their beloved game is a work of art to be treasured, and only they can appreciate and understand the seemingly endless depth and complexity that the lowly cod and console peasants can only dream to understand. In reality, BF is just another shooter, just like every other shooter. But with some classes and vehicles. I love BF, but sometimes the fans are just pathetic with their false sense of superiority, and are arguably more annoying than your average XBL 12 year old.

You can say the same thing about Street Fighter. It's just another Fighting game. Yet if you care to peel-off the layers and master new depths, they are there. Not all games have these layers. The skill gap between master and newb can be gargantuan. Battlefield certainly does have a sheer endless amount of layers to it. Just because you have a shallow relationship with Battlefield doesn't mean it's a shallow game.  But yeah - the PC crowd can be aggrivating indeed, that's where most of the perceived 'BF superiority complex' comes from. BF3 is the current messiah of PC gaming. Deal with it.

Reminds me of KZ2. I always wanted to play the tactical objective modes but everyone only had TDM servers.

Deal with it.

In order for Battlefield 3 to "beat" the Call of Duty franchise it would have to become the best selling game ever. This will not Happen, Call of Duty out sells Halo on its own platform people!

"if Battlefield beats call of duty..."

it wont, simple as that. while battlefield is by far my favourite shooter on the market, it doesnt stand a chance of "beating" Call Of Duty, both games will sell extremely well, but there is no way in hell battlefield will sell more copies than call of duty,

even if it does, you wont even notice the "immature" COD crowd coming across to battlefield because of the way the squad systems work, and fuck it, play with friends its better that way anyway