Posted by MrMatey72 (85 posts) -

I posted this originally as an one of my Examiner articles, but I wanted to share this with the Giantbomb community. This is a thing I've been wanting to write this for a while. Remember, despite what you may think I wrote this as someone who likes, not loves both Call of Duty and Battlefield. Here's a link to my original article if you want to check it out. But you're welcome to read and comment on it on my blog.

______________

Modern Warfare 3 versus Battlefield 3, if you go to any forum on the internet that has anything to do with video games you'll likely see this topic floating around. Last year it was Modern Warfare 2 versus Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and then at the end of the year Black Ops versus Bad Company 2. EA has taken notice, and the marketing for Battlefield 3 is that it's designed to "Take Call of Duty down".

This seems like the laziest way they could market the game. It not only feels lazy, but also makes it sound like they don't have enough confidence in the quality of the game itself. A baseball team doesn't need to talk trash about the other team to win; they just need to play better than the other team. EA shouldn't have to call out Modern Warfare 3 for people to pay attention to Battlefield 3. EA should just let DICE make a great game, then show the game and let it speak for itself.

The whole idea that Battlefield 3 is going to lead to the death of Call of Duty is a bit ridiculous. Call of Duty continues to break sales records every year it's released. Last year Black Ops sold around 5.6 million copies in a single day, while Bad Company 2 sold 2.3 million copies in its first month. While Bad Company 2 was no doubt a success, it still doesn't have the kind of name recognition that Call of Duty has.

To "Take down Call of Duty" something would have to come out that becomes more popular than Call of Duty. No existing game franchise will be able to do that in its current state. That's not saying Call of Duty is the best franchise ever, but it's easily the one of the most accessible multiplayer games that's actually fun in today's market, if not the most accessible multiplayer game franchise to date.

For something to take the spotlight from Call of Duty, they would have to innovate. Call of Duty 4's success was no doubt a surprise. Call of Duty 4 was not only a fantastic game, but it was extremely innovative. There was nothing quite like Call of Duty 4's multiplayer at the time, and it quickly captured the attention of not only gamers, but people who didn't even play games.

What we've seen of Battlefield 3's multiplayer doesn't really seem to be very innovative. From what EA and DICE have shown Battlefield 3 looks like Bad Company 2's multiplayer, except on a much bigger scale. While Bad Company 2's multiplayer was great and easily the best part of the game, it didn't steal a huge number of Modern Warfare 2 players away. While Battlefield 3's multiplayer will probably be great and possibly better than Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer, it won't steal that big of Call of Duty's fan base away.

In the end a lot of the back lash towards Modern Warfare 3 is probably due to the old way of thinking that if something's popular than it's no longer cool to like. Call of Duty has proved again and again that despite being released year after year, it remains a high quality franchise. Despite what some people may say, whether you enjoy Call of Duty or Battlefield better still boils down to your opinion and your personal taste. There's nothing wrong with you if you like Call of Duty over Battlefield, and vice versa

Battlefield 3 probably isn't going to "Take Call of Duty down". If you pick up ether game or both and enjoy one over the other that's your right. Saying your game is going to be the fall of another isn't a great way to market your game, and is never an approach EA should have took. There's nothing wrong with marketing, but a great game is something that should speak for itself.

#1 Posted by MrMatey72 (85 posts) -

I posted this originally as an one of my Examiner articles, but I wanted to share this with the Giantbomb community. This is a thing I've been wanting to write this for a while. Remember, despite what you may think I wrote this as someone who likes, not loves both Call of Duty and Battlefield. Here's a link to my original article if you want to check it out. But you're welcome to read and comment on it on my blog.

______________

Modern Warfare 3 versus Battlefield 3, if you go to any forum on the internet that has anything to do with video games you'll likely see this topic floating around. Last year it was Modern Warfare 2 versus Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and then at the end of the year Black Ops versus Bad Company 2. EA has taken notice, and the marketing for Battlefield 3 is that it's designed to "Take Call of Duty down".

This seems like the laziest way they could market the game. It not only feels lazy, but also makes it sound like they don't have enough confidence in the quality of the game itself. A baseball team doesn't need to talk trash about the other team to win; they just need to play better than the other team. EA shouldn't have to call out Modern Warfare 3 for people to pay attention to Battlefield 3. EA should just let DICE make a great game, then show the game and let it speak for itself.

The whole idea that Battlefield 3 is going to lead to the death of Call of Duty is a bit ridiculous. Call of Duty continues to break sales records every year it's released. Last year Black Ops sold around 5.6 million copies in a single day, while Bad Company 2 sold 2.3 million copies in its first month. While Bad Company 2 was no doubt a success, it still doesn't have the kind of name recognition that Call of Duty has.

To "Take down Call of Duty" something would have to come out that becomes more popular than Call of Duty. No existing game franchise will be able to do that in its current state. That's not saying Call of Duty is the best franchise ever, but it's easily the one of the most accessible multiplayer games that's actually fun in today's market, if not the most accessible multiplayer game franchise to date.

For something to take the spotlight from Call of Duty, they would have to innovate. Call of Duty 4's success was no doubt a surprise. Call of Duty 4 was not only a fantastic game, but it was extremely innovative. There was nothing quite like Call of Duty 4's multiplayer at the time, and it quickly captured the attention of not only gamers, but people who didn't even play games.

What we've seen of Battlefield 3's multiplayer doesn't really seem to be very innovative. From what EA and DICE have shown Battlefield 3 looks like Bad Company 2's multiplayer, except on a much bigger scale. While Bad Company 2's multiplayer was great and easily the best part of the game, it didn't steal a huge number of Modern Warfare 2 players away. While Battlefield 3's multiplayer will probably be great and possibly better than Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer, it won't steal that big of Call of Duty's fan base away.

In the end a lot of the back lash towards Modern Warfare 3 is probably due to the old way of thinking that if something's popular than it's no longer cool to like. Call of Duty has proved again and again that despite being released year after year, it remains a high quality franchise. Despite what some people may say, whether you enjoy Call of Duty or Battlefield better still boils down to your opinion and your personal taste. There's nothing wrong with you if you like Call of Duty over Battlefield, and vice versa

Battlefield 3 probably isn't going to "Take Call of Duty down". If you pick up ether game or both and enjoy one over the other that's your right. Saying your game is going to be the fall of another isn't a great way to market your game, and is never an approach EA should have took. There's nothing wrong with marketing, but a great game is something that should speak for itself.

#2 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@MrMatey72: I think EA is shooting itself in the foot. It is to soon to tell but I highly doubt BF3 it´s going to run better than BC2 does on consoles, BF3 PC version is clearly loops ahead of console one. Seems weird to me that EA strategy to take on CoD is to put a huge sume of develop money into a next gen optimized game for PC.

The average Joe is not going to be happy when they get their hands in a poorly man version of BF3 runing at 30fps or less on consoles (after months of PC trailers in Xbxlive and PsN), BF3 will remain as"that other" shooter in the mind of the mainstream consumer.

If they were to take on the CoD market they have should put their efforts in a console optimized engine like CoD does.

#3 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

Take down CoD? LOL

#4 Posted by chstupid (806 posts) -

There are to many great games coming out for me to care about anymore brown and grey FPS.

#5 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@MrMatey72 said:

This seems like the laziest way they could market the game. It not only feels lazy, but also makes it sound like they don't have enough confidence in the quality of the game itself. A baseball team doesn't need to talk trash about the other team to win; they just need to play better than the other team. EA shouldn't have to call out Modern Warfare 3 for people to pay attention to Battlefield 3. EA should just let DICE make a great game, then show the game and let it speak for itself.


What? are you saying that the quality titles are the titles that "win" and sell the most? You live on Earth, right?

 

 Now that i continue reading your post, you clearly are unable to make up your mind between quality and popularity.

#6 Posted by N7 (3587 posts) -

They are games and people will play them.

#7 Posted by MrMatey72 (85 posts) -
@AhmadMetallic: That's not at all what I'm saying.  That comparison meant the better game is better because of what it is, not because they talk the most shit.
#8 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -
@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well. 
#9 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@DonPixel said:

@MrMatey72: If they were to take on the CoD market they have should put their efforts in a console optimized engine like CoD does.

I hate to break it to you but the console version of Frostbite 2 will be, y'know, optimised for the consoles it's running on. It's quite obvious they've spent time optimising it for console.
 
Call of Duty uses a PC engine (customised ID Tech 3 base) which was adapted to console, so I'm not sure why you're saying they should have focused their efforts on a console specific engine when the competition pulled it off.
#10 Posted by Vegetable_Side_Dish (1726 posts) -

That all seems very obvious to me. 

#11 Posted by iAmJohn (6117 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@MrMatey72 said:

This seems like the laziest way they could market the game. It not only feels lazy, but also makes it sound like they don't have enough confidence in the quality of the game itself. A baseball team doesn't need to talk trash about the other team to win; they just need to play better than the other team. EA shouldn't have to call out Modern Warfare 3 for people to pay attention to Battlefield 3. EA should just let DICE make a great game, then show the game and let it speak for itself.

What? are you saying that the quality titles are the titles that "win" and sell the most? You live on Earth, right?


Now that i continue reading your post, you clearly are unable to make up your mind between quality and popularity.

Yup. No offense, OP, but your piece really reads like you should've had an editor read over it beforehand.

#12 Posted by RE_Player1 (7558 posts) -

This is good for the industry in my opinion. We need more battles like this to lead to some innovation. Battlefield 3 looks to show us why PCs are still on top with Frostbite 2 leading people to think about new consoles. Call of Duty has stuck to the same beats for too long. Do I think Battlefield 3 is going to sell more than Modern Warfare 3? Hell no. It will probably outsell it 4 to 1. Also what do people expect EA do say they know they are going to get less sales than Modern Warfare? They have to appear confident to share holders and show them that this, along with Old Republic, makes them the best publisher, at least in appearance. People who say fuck Call of Duty or Battlefield are annoying. People who say they are true gamers and will enjoy both are also annoying. Just see which one appeals to you more, if any of them do, and sit back to enjoy the smack talk.

#13 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@MrMatey72 said:

@AhmadMetallic: That's not at all what I'm saying.  That comparison meant the better game is better because of what it is, not because they talk the most shit.

But EA doesn't want a better game, that's what you need to understand. They're not talking shit to prove their game is better, it's not their goal. 
Their goal is to get hype and buzz and popularity, that's what sells game, not quality content.  
 
So no, they shouldn't let the game speak for itself, because quality doesn't speak and doesn't grab any ears. It's the other thing that makes money, the popular cool hype, that's what EA is trying to achieve.
 

To "Take down Call of Duty" something would have to come out that becomes more popular than Call of Duty. No existing game franchise will be able to do that in its current state. That's not saying Call of Duty is the best franchise ever, but it's easily the one of the most accessible multiplayer games that's actually fun in today's market, if not the most accessible multiplayer game franchise to date.


Again, you're jumping between "best" and "most popular"/"most accessible" as if they are synonyms, and they're not.
#14 Posted by Mikemcn (6982 posts) -

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

#15 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3203 posts) -

The kiddish squabble between these two military game's communities makes me laugh. I'm just going to walk away and play a superior game called TF2.

#16 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@Ygg said:

@DonPixel said:

@MrMatey72: If they were to take on the CoD market they have should put their efforts in a console optimized engine like CoD does.

I hate to break it to you but the console version of Frostbite 2 will be, y'know, optimised for the consoles it's running on. Call of Duty uses a PC engine (customised ID Tech 3 base) which was adapted to console, so I'm not sure why you're saying they should have focused their efforts on a console specific engine when the competition pulled it off.

The IW engine is a highly optimized version of the ID tech 3 I know. Iinfinity Ward, Trey arch and Raven have been working on that tech for years now and it works flawlesslly at 60fps on consoles.

Anyway the Frostbite 2 is an update from the original frostbite as the Reach engine is an Optimized BAM engine from Halo 3 that surprise surprise it is an update of the original BAM for Halo 2 on PC, World or Warcraft is runing in a heavy modified version of the Warcraft 3 engine. And I thank god Valve is not even fooling arround with the name game and keeps updating the Source engine on the go, Love Valve.

The kind of optimization IW engine have specially on the 360 is not achieved in a couple of years, they have put lot of work on that one. I'm not saying Frostbite 2 is going to be bad, no one knows at this point, but Bc2 is the previous precedent on consoles, It is clunky as hell and with poor framerate, that puts off a lot of people.

#17 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@DonPixel said:

@Ygg said:

@DonPixel said:

@MrMatey72: If they were to take on the CoD market they have should put their efforts in a console optimized engine like CoD does.

I hate to break it to you but the console version of Frostbite 2 will be, y'know, optimised for the consoles it's running on. Call of Duty uses a PC engine (customised ID Tech 3 base) which was adapted to console, so I'm not sure why you're saying they should have focused their efforts on a console specific engine when the competition pulled it off.

The IW engine is a highly optimized version of the ID tech 3 I know. Iinfinity Ward, Trey arch and Raven have been working on that tech for years now and it works flawlesslly at 60fps on consoles.

Anyway the Frostbite 2 is an update from the original frostbite as the Reach engine is an Optimized BAM engine from Halo 3 that surprise surprise it is an update of the original BAM for Halo 2 on PC, World or Warcraft is runing in a heavy modified version of the Warcraft 3 engine. And I thank god Valve is not even fooling arround with the name game and keeps updating the Source engine on the go, Love Valve.

The kind of optimization IW engine have specially on the 360 is not achieved in a couple of years, they have put lot of work on that one. I'm not saying Frostbite 2 is going to be bad, no one knows at this point, but Bc2 is the previous precedent on consoles, It is clunky as hell and with poor framerate, that puts off a lot of people.

No no, the consoles get rehashed technology. Frostbite 2 is not an updated Frostbite 1.0, it's a new cutting edge engine created from scratch, from the ground up. 
 
Don't compare PC technology to rehashed optimized console engines
#18 Posted by iAmJohn (6117 posts) -

@DonPixel said:

I'm not saying Frostbite 2 is going to be bad, no one knows at this point, but Bc2 is the previous precedent on consoles, It is clunky as hell and with poor framerate, that puts off a lot of people.

A relatively constant 30fps even with a ton of shit exploding and destructability is bad now?

#19 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

And then there will be cake.

#20 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@DonPixel said:

@Ygg said:

@DonPixel said:

@MrMatey72: If they were to take on the CoD market they have should put their efforts in a console optimized engine like CoD does.

I hate to break it to you but the console version of Frostbite 2 will be, y'know, optimised for the consoles it's running on. Call of Duty uses a PC engine (customised ID Tech 3 base) which was adapted to console, so I'm not sure why you're saying they should have focused their efforts on a console specific engine when the competition pulled it off.
The kind of optimization IW engine have specially on the 360 is not achieved in a couple of years, they have put lot of work on that one. I'm not saying Frostbite 2 is going to be bad, no one knows at this point, but Bc2 is the previous precedent on consoles, It is clunky as hell and with poor framerate, that puts off a lot of people.
The 360 version of Call of Duty 2 came out quite quickly after the PC version and it looked fantastic (at the time) while running at 60 FPS so it probably didn't take them that long to optimise it for console, it hasn't moved on too much since then.
 
BC2 is clunky on PC too, not quite as bad as it is on console (controls help) but the overall feel of the game is not as smooth as the BF3 alpha was. Of course the framerate is far superior, though.
#21 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@DonPixel said:

I'm not saying Frostbite 2 is going to be bad, no one knows at this point, but Bc2 is the previous precedent on consoles, It is clunky as hell and with poor framerate, that puts off a lot of people.

A relatively constant 30fps even with a ton of shit exploding and destructability is bad now?

Not for me as I played a bunch of hours of BC2 on the ps3, but for a lot of people is.

#22 Posted by Asrahn (552 posts) -

It's a way to market their game. Simple.
 
Fact remains that Call of Duty already is widely popular, to say the least. Cause controversy with statement, get free publicity. It's simple.
 
That being said, it all goes down to taste. Twitchy, brainless shooting that by its core is extremely simple and accessible - or team based, focused, tactics-driven shooting that by its core is fairly simple but not quite as accessible, albeit offers more debt.
 
Personally I grew tired of Call of Duty for about the same reasons I grew tired of Counter Strike. The community (or lack thereof), attitude, and the average age of players (maturity)... and of course, the horribly broken multiplayer, which CS admittedly didn't have.
 
Taste, taste, and taste again. The reason people are hating on CoD is because, let's face it - it's easy.
 
Battlefield 3 will be an excellent game, and in many people's eyes, outshine and be so much better than all the Call of Duty games combined, but will still sell less because advertisement and popularity has very little to do with actual quality. Duke Nukem Forever sold pretty well, after all...

#23 Posted by GreggD (4489 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

Dare I say, airstrikes are 99.9% likely to happen in them.

#24 Posted by MrMatey72 (85 posts) -
@Asrahn said:
It's a way to market their game. Simple.  Fact remains that Call of Duty already is widely popular, to say the least. Cause controversy with statement, get free publicity. It's simple.  That being said, it all goes down to taste. Twitchy, brainless shooting that by its core is extremely simple and accessible - or team based, focused, tactics-driven shooting that by its core is fairly simple but not quite as accessible, albeit offers more debt.  Personally I grew tired of Call of Duty for about the same reasons I grew tired of Counter Strike. The community (or lack thereof), attitude, and the average age of players (maturity)... and of course, the horribly broken multiplayer, which CS admittedly didn't have.  Taste, taste, and taste again. The reason people are hating on CoD is because, let's face it - it's easy.  Battlefield 3 will be an excellent game, and in many people's eyes, outshine and be so much better than all the Call of Duty games combined, but will still sell less because advertisement and popularity has very little to do with actual quality. Duke Nukem Forever sold pretty well, after all...
I pretty much agree, I just wish they would take the time to find a better way to market the game than just let's just insult what's popular.
#25 Posted by mano521 (1223 posts) -

maybe by "take down cod" they meant getting better reviews than the next cod

#26 Posted by MrMatey72 (85 posts) -
@mano521 said:
maybe by "take down cod" they meant getting better reviews than the next cod
Which will probably be way more likely.
#27 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

Make thread calling battle between two gaming series pointless.
Praise one game and deride the other in the thread.

#28 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

No no, the consoles get rehashed technology. Frostbite 2 is not an updated Frostbite 1.0, it's a new cutting edge engine created from scratch, from the ground up. Don't compare PC technology to rehashed optimized console engines

With all due respect buddy STFU you don't know a shit about development tools, at this point I believe you only expertice in life is forum posting and believe me there are better sources of knowledge out there than random Battlefield Fan forums.

-Saying that consoles used rehashed technology is pain idiotic the final post rendering process is limited by the hardware, same as in the PC - PC can escalate that rendering depending on the hardware they are runing.

-Eventhou the visual quality of the image might be in average limited by the console harware, the development tools are evolving year after year.

-I feel I'm waisting breath here I highly doubt you know whats the diference betewn a render and modeling tool, Pre "cooking" process for rendering engines and scrip compilers. Would be nice to you to at least name one of the shared tools most studios use to shape up assets as you can even torrent that software if you up to.

If you honestly believe the Frostibe 2 engine was shapped from the ground and it is not and updated version of the original, then... well

#29 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@GreggD said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

Dare I say, airstrikes are 99.9% likely to happen in them.

Campers will camp in both

#30 Edited by Mr_Skeleton (5144 posts) -

Actually it's one of the best things that happened to the gamers for quite some time, when a king goes unchallenged for too long he forgets that he needs to serve his people. In this case the COD franchise has barely been changed for the past 5 years because there was no one to challenge it to push any of it's aspects even further so when a real contester for the throne come the people who will profit from it the most are the gamers (I hate that word so much).

#31 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@DonPixel said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

No no, the consoles get rehashed technology. Frostbite 2 is not an updated Frostbite 1.0, it's a new cutting edge engine created from scratch, from the ground up. Don't compare PC technology to rehashed optimized console engines

With all due respect buddy STFU you don't know a shit about development tools, at this point I believe you only expertice in life is forum posting and believe me there are better sources of knowledge out there than random Battlefield Fan forums.

-Saying that consoles used rehashed technology is plain idiotic the final post rendering process is limited by the hardware, same as in the PC - PC can escalate that rendering depending on the hardware they are runing.

Huh? are the engines powering consoles games updated old ones or are they not? The call of duty engine is 12 years old, the Halo engine is at least 7 years old, it's old rehashed updated technology 
 

If you honestly believe the Frostibe 2 engine was shapped from the ground and it is not and updated version of the original, then... well

So, what, you're saying that there is no such thing as a new engine? every game engine in the world is an old one being updated? right... o_O 
Is that why, while Halo 3 and Halo 2, Cod 4 and Cod 8 look and feel the same, Bad Company 1 and BF3 are vastly different?  
DICE have been lying for months by showing us amazing footage and explaining the pillars of their new engine? haha.
 
Don't try sounding smart, using development terms that you read on wikipedia, if you won't admit that COD is running on ancient technology then you're talking out of your bad-spelling ass and you are to be ignored.
#32 Posted by TheFreeMan (2712 posts) -

I dunno about pointless, but the rivalry/dumb aggression between the Battlefield and Call of Duty fans is definitely the most annoying that I've experienced in gaming.

#33 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic: You just don't get it right.. forget it man I said nothing, waste more time I won't.

#34 Posted by MrMatey72 (85 posts) -
@TheFreeMan said:
I dunno about pointless, but the rivalry/dumb aggression between the Battlefield and Call of Duty fans is definitely the most annoying that I've experienced in gaming.
Yes, yes it is.
#35 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -
@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

And then there will be cake.

But that is a lie.
#36 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

stuff happens. it's video games people are going to get what they want to get.

#37 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@Sooty said:

oked fantastic (at the time) while running at 60 FPS so it probably didn't take them that long to optimise it for console, it hasn't moved on too much since then. BC2 is clunky on PC too, not quite as bad as it is on console (controls help) but the overall feel of the game is not as smooth as the BF3 alpha was. Of course the framerate is far superior, though.

Yeah no way to know at this point, I hope the frostbite 2 works well on the consoles. Im getting BF3 on the PC and in the 360.

I'm just saying a lot of dudebros are not going to be happy if they get another Crysis 2 charade move by EA.

#38 Posted by liquidfox00 (30 posts) -

I'm not really worried about either winning some sort of crown i'm just genuinely looking forward to both titles. I think there's room for both games this holiday season and beyond. Both titles while having a similar premise offer something much different when you play them.

#39 Posted by masterpaperlink (1837 posts) -

Not pointless, rivalry is good for the gamer. If cod is put in an underdog situation then it leads to innovation

#40 Posted by Luck3ySe7en (240 posts) -
@masterpaperlink
Not pointless, rivalry is good for the gamer. If cod is put in an underdog situation then it leads to innovation
This. In the end, for the sake of both games, competition will get us better games. Just look at Madden. Ea basically has a monopoly on NFL games and each year they make improvements but nothing the actual fans of the game need.
#41 Posted by Cirdain (3078 posts) -

@DonPixel said:

@GreggD said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

Dare I say, airstrikes are 99.9% likely to happen in them.

Campers will flood both

And I shall only player the single-player... cos' I'm that guy.

#42 Posted by Mikemcn (6982 posts) -
@Cirdain

@DonPixel said:

@GreggD said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

Dare I say, airstrikes are 99.9% likely to happen in them.

Campers will flood both

And I shall only player the single-player... cos' I'm that guy.

Duder, please don't buy BF3 just for the singleplayer, if your not going to get into the multiplayer, a battlefield game really isn't for you. At least wait until it goes down in price.
#43 Posted by TooWalrus (13175 posts) -

Your avatar reminds me how much I miss being excited for a new Portal game.

#44 Posted by Cirdain (3078 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

@Cirdain

@DonPixel said:

@GreggD said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

Dare I say, airstrikes are 99.9% likely to happen in them.

Campers will flood both

And I shall only player the single-player... cos' I'm that guy.

Duder, please don't buy BF3 just for the singleplayer, if your not going to get into the multiplayer, a battlefield game really isn't for you. At least wait until it goes down in price.

Yeah you know what, If it's tactical and requires skill. Then yeah, sure, I'll get into the multi-player.

It's just I'll always remember the most fun I've ever had playing a game online, Halo: Combat Evolved might be Custom Edition, map Prisoner modded to hold 16 players, 16 players, Rockets only. So much fun, so much fun.

#45 Posted by Vexxan (4619 posts) -

@chstupid said:

There are to many great games coming out for me to care about anymore brown and grey FPS.

Exactly.

#46 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@Cirdain said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Cirdain

@DonPixel said:

@GreggD said:

@Mikemcn said:

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

Dare I say, airstrikes are 99.9% likely to happen in them.

Campers will flood both

And I shall only player the single-player... cos' I'm that guy.

Duder, please don't buy BF3 just for the singleplayer, if your not going to get into the multiplayer, a battlefield game really isn't for you. At least wait until it goes down in price.

Yeah you know what, If it's tactical and requires skill. Then yeah, sure, I'll get into the multi-player.

It's just I'll always remember the most fun I've ever had playing a game online, Halo: Combat Evolved might be Custom Edition, map Prisoner modded to hold 16 players, 16 players, Rockets only. So much fun, so much fun.

Early Halo maps: best maps EVAR

#47 Posted by sopranosfan (1935 posts) -

Competition is good and will always be there as long as two similar things battle for market share.  Whether it be Sega's " Sega does what Nintendon't: campaign or the battle between car makers, fast food, shoes or a dozen other things.  The battles will be there whether the people making them admit it or capitalize on it and I actually enjoy it when companies admit it and do a little friendly jabbing at each other.