I played MW2, Black Ops and MW3, I then went to Battlefield 3 and found it rather slow. Theres a lot of spawning, rooming around a far to big area for up to 5 minutes then getting shot and then repeated. The COD games are more fast paced and thats just how I like them.
COD has a lot less going on. When I first started playing BF3 I also found the vehicle controls a bit confusing, especially compared to something like Halo that has fairly simplistic controls. COD is just shoot/blow up/ stab dudes, all f which you can do in BF3 but with a hell of a lot more layered upon it.
...rooming around a far to big area for up to 5 minutes then getting shot and then repeated.
I see you played the console version. BF3 was really designed for the PC's 32vs32 player count. Try BC2. That's game has better designed maps for the 12vs12 matches.
Hmmm, I agree with what you all are saying, I personally think it is easier to transition from CoD to Bf3 to an extent. The reason I say this is CoD is a lot more fast paced, gun on gun action, with the exception of the kill streaks. Now if you are able to handle cods arcade-ish fast paced style, I think you would be able to handle Bf3 much easier than if you were to transition the other way. Now Bf3 does have vehicles, which some are a challenge to get used to, but when it comes down to it, Bf3 is a Fps, just like CoD.
So basically what I am saying is that if I was a battlefield veteran, and then someone asked me to play CoD, without having previously played any CoD, I would be having a lot of trouble.
Log in to comment