Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3: A Pointless Battle

@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.

Take down CoD? LOL

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

@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.

They are games and people will play them.

They are games and people will play them.

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

That all seems very obvious to me. 

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@Axxol said:

@N7 said:

They are games and people will play them.

And both will sell well.

And dudes will be shot in them.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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.

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...

@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.

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...

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

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

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

@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

@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

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).

@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.

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

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.

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

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.

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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

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

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

@chstupid said:

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

Exactly.

@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

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.