Its not just because of the system really for me its trully the controls that make pc beat consoles. A mouse and keyboard gives you so much more control and you can move better. While you have to take your thumb off your look joystick to bash me with circle or b, ps3 and xbox respectivly, all i have to do is right click and look at that i can still sprint and look around while bashing you. i click my ctrl key my guy stays crouched no need to hold down on a joystick. You will never have the smooth and crisp control of a mouse and keyboard on console controllers. Now when it comes to gameplay features and graphics pc will always win. the only downfall to a pc is keeping up with new parts but even that is getting easier and easier.
In conclusion Consoles suck.
Agreed, I wonder why any of the console companies havent adapted the trackball technology in their game pads, I've used such a mouse a few times and it's quite alright, not as great as traditional mouse, certainly would be a lot better than the "right stick" in pads though, giving that mouselike-seamless cursor/crosshair controlling. Wouldnt be good in non first person titles but it would be nice to have a dedicated FPS pad for those who would like one.
Funny for me, I like the BF franchise a lot more than COD, but I play them both. The difference for me, I play CoD on the console and BF on the PC. That trend will continue for me this time too.
Although I liked the CoD games, they lost my interest when Activision just turned it into a video game version of a McDonalds's franchise. They are just churning out the same game over and over. With Infinity Ward going with P2P servers, eliminating user created content so they can charge you 15 bucks for their shit and now a new subscription based service coming with MW3. Honestly, they can kiss my ass.
BF has always been a bigger, deeper game anyway. 1942 was the best shit ever when it came out. BF2 was amazing and I can't believe how great the 3rd one looks from what I've seen.
Funny for me, I like the BF franchise a lot more than COD, but I play them both. The difference for me, I play CoD on the console and BF on the PC. That trend will continue for me this time too.
The main thing that restricts is the consoles' power. There's no way in hell that the PS3 and 360 can run the full gameplay and scope of BF3: 64 players, large maps, vehicles and infantry. They'd choke and die. Even with graphics tuned down.
I completely doubt the consoles can even run BF2 or BF2142, and BF2 came out in something like '05.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Funny for me, I like the BF franchise a lot more than COD, but I play them both. The difference for me, I play CoD on the console and BF on the PC. That trend will continue for me this time too.
The main thing that restricts is the consoles' power. There's no way in hell that the PS3 and 360 can run the full gameplay and scope of BF3: 64 players, large maps, vehicles and infantry. They'd choke and die. Even with graphics tuned down.
I completely doubt the consoles can even run BF2 or BF2142, and BF2 came out in something like '05.
I agree completely. My son plays BRBC2 on the 360, and I really, REALLY prefer to play it on my PC for all the reasons you mentioned. Plus, I just flat out like mouse and keyboard control more, probably because I am 40 and never got into the consoles, you know, since Nitendo 64
BF3 by far wins this one for me. I do like both games. It just depends what I want to do really. If I feel like some quick twitch play I jump into COD or TF2. If I have more time and want more from my FPS, I jump into BF2 or Arma2.
I prefer the scope and scale of BF and ARMA2. I like sitting on a mountain 2000 meters out looking for a good way to enter a town so my team can take out the tower. I like being able to use the lay of the land to plan an approach. I love getting pinned down by enemy AI Infantry and Tanks and calling in my friend to lay waste to them in his attack helicopter.
My favorite by far is ARMA 2 with the Evolution setup and ACE MOD. Get on a good server, play with a good, well organized group of people, get past the learning curve, and it's quite an experience. I'm hopeful BF3 will offer something similar to that just on a smaller scale with a larger community.
So, for me, they are both fun. Though I have honestly hated every COD made by Treyarch.
CoD is way better for pure PVP action in my opinion, especially if you want to show off your individual skills. CoD is fast and furious and BF is slow as molassas by comparison. And I'm really not into the gimicks like jet dogfighting in BF:
CoD is just a much more balanced eSport.
But hey all the power in the world to BF, I hope they both do well. I own both ATVI and EA stock so I've got no real dog in the race.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Think I have played the same amount of games from each series so just going to go by the ones I have played between the both.
Now the thing I see with CoD is the games after the original Modern Warfare they have all felt the same just set in a different era and with different guns. The games are fun but only for so long then they just become boring and upon taking a week or two off from playing it lasts a few hours before it gets boring again. Now I have no idea what causes the boredom could be the small maps but I honestly just don't know.
Now with the BF series each one has a different feel to it yes each is a differnt era with different guns but the gameplay feels different each time. Now I didn't like all of the BF games I had played and so I stopped playing it but the others the only way for me to stop playing was if a shiny new game was released.
BF3 wins because MW3 I feel wont hold my attention long enough.
With MW3 looking like its predecessor only with new maps and slightly enhanced graphics.. I think I'll just rent the 360 version to go through the campaing to see where the story is going.. Which is pretty so far, I must admit..
But I think BF3 will be the true winner here.. The game feels like a nice step forward in its own series, and in the FPS genre as a whole..
Of course, bad bugs, framerate issues and the likes could screw any of the two at launch.. Which could have a great impact with the two release less than a month apart..
I used to be a CoD fan until the original Infinity Ward team got the shaft from Activision and Kotick. Now I'm firmly a Battlefield fan and won't even give CoDx a look. I am looking forward, though, to what the original Infinity Ward, now called Respawn Games, is going to put out as it's inaugural effort.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I vote... Battlefield 3. Always liked the larger scale maps & vehicular combat. Not to mention the much more interesting sniping mechanics. Nothings more awesome than sniping some guy all the way across the map taking bullet drop / velocity into consideration and actually have to lead your target.
Originally posted by dogtownmark I don't know why people try to compare or try to see which game will be better, Imo they are two totally different types of games. CoD: Classic style multiplayer shooter (Fast paced combat, much like the Doom and quake games, designed to give players an energy rush)BF: Modern/Realistic take on multiplayer shooters (Slower paced, more strategy based, use of military vehicles, designed to work as a team)
Because they are shooters. "Skill" comes to mind, used by people doing the same commands again and again. If skill = brain, then turn your mouse 90° in any direction and try to play. See how the brain hurts? This is skill: able to think.
CoD is way better for pure PVP action in my opinion, especially if you want to show off your individual skills. CoD is fast and furious and BF is slow as molassas by comparison. And I'm really not into the gimicks like jet dogfighting in BF:
CoD is just a much more balanced eSport.
But hey all the power in the world to BF, I hope they both do well. I own both ATVI and EA stock so I've got no real dog in the race.
your statement about COD being more for individual skills doesnt make sense as the game requires no skill to play.
CoD is way better for pure PVP action in my opinion, especially if you want to show off your individual skills. CoD is fast and furious and BF is slow as molassas by comparison. And I'm really not into the gimicks like jet dogfighting in BF:
CoD is just a much more balanced eSport.
But hey all the power in the world to BF, I hope they both do well. I own both ATVI and EA stock so I've got no real dog in the race.
your statement about COD being more for individual skills doesnt make sense as the game requires no skill to play.
Smaller maps, lots of long and tight corridors, low recoil, smaller player counts (MW1 on PC had 64 players)... yeah
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Comments
Agreed, I wonder why any of the console companies havent adapted the trackball technology in their game pads, I've used such a mouse a few times and it's quite alright, not as great as traditional mouse, certainly would be a lot better than the "right stick" in pads though, giving that mouselike-seamless cursor/crosshair controlling. Wouldnt be good in non first person titles but it would be nice to have a dedicated FPS pad for those who would like one.
Funny for me, I like the BF franchise a lot more than COD, but I play them both. The difference for me, I play CoD on the console and BF on the PC. That trend will continue for me this time too.
Will get both. Don't see a reason why I should limit my gaming hobby to 'one' franchise.
COD does some stuff well and BF3 also does some stuff well. Both will be good games so excited for them.
I can never understand the 'loyalty' a person has for a video game.
Something personal like religion/faith/belief I can understand, but to a VIDEO GAME? o_O
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Although I liked the CoD games, they lost my interest when Activision just turned it into a video game version of a McDonalds's franchise. They are just churning out the same game over and over. With Infinity Ward going with P2P servers, eliminating user created content so they can charge you 15 bucks for their shit and now a new subscription based service coming with MW3. Honestly, they can kiss my ass.
BF has always been a bigger, deeper game anyway. 1942 was the best shit ever when it came out. BF2 was amazing and I can't believe how great the 3rd one looks from what I've seen.
The main thing that restricts is the consoles' power. There's no way in hell that the PS3 and 360 can run the full gameplay and scope of BF3: 64 players, large maps, vehicles and infantry. They'd choke and die. Even with graphics tuned down.
I completely doubt the consoles can even run BF2 or BF2142, and BF2 came out in something like '05.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
BF3 Deffo for me. The CoD series died on the PC after Call of duty 4.
I agree completely. My son plays BRBC2 on the 360, and I really, REALLY prefer to play it on my PC for all the reasons you mentioned. Plus, I just flat out like mouse and keyboard control more, probably because I am 40 and never got into the consoles, you know, since Nitendo 64
BF3 by far wins this one for me. I do like both games. It just depends what I want to do really. If I feel like some quick twitch play I jump into COD or TF2. If I have more time and want more from my FPS, I jump into BF2 or Arma2.
I prefer the scope and scale of BF and ARMA2. I like sitting on a mountain 2000 meters out looking for a good way to enter a town so my team can take out the tower. I like being able to use the lay of the land to plan an approach. I love getting pinned down by enemy AI Infantry and Tanks and calling in my friend to lay waste to them in his attack helicopter.
My favorite by far is ARMA 2 with the Evolution setup and ACE MOD. Get on a good server, play with a good, well organized group of people, get past the learning curve, and it's quite an experience. I'm hopeful BF3 will offer something similar to that just on a smaller scale with a larger community.
So, for me, they are both fun. Though I have honestly hated every COD made by Treyarch.
Not easy.
Both games were made with the Sameol´S-MetaEngine
BF3
CoD is way better for pure PVP action in my opinion, especially if you want to show off your individual skills. CoD is fast and furious and BF is slow as molassas by comparison. And I'm really not into the gimicks like jet dogfighting in BF:
CoD is just a much more balanced eSport.
But hey all the power in the world to BF, I hope they both do well. I own both ATVI and EA stock so I've got no real dog in the race.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Thanks for the laughs made my day.
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Think I have played the same amount of games from each series so just going to go by the ones I have played between the both.
Now the thing I see with CoD is the games after the original Modern Warfare they have all felt the same just set in a different era and with different guns. The games are fun but only for so long then they just become boring and upon taking a week or two off from playing it lasts a few hours before it gets boring again. Now I have no idea what causes the boredom could be the small maps but I honestly just don't know.
Now with the BF series each one has a different feel to it yes each is a differnt era with different guns but the gameplay feels different each time. Now I didn't like all of the BF games I had played and so I stopped playing it but the others the only way for me to stop playing was if a shiny new game was released.
BF3 wins because MW3 I feel wont hold my attention long enough.
With MW3 looking like its predecessor only with new maps and slightly enhanced graphics.. I think I'll just rent the 360 version to go through the campaing to see where the story is going.. Which is pretty so far, I must admit..
But I think BF3 will be the true winner here.. The game feels like a nice step forward in its own series, and in the FPS genre as a whole..
Of course, bad bugs, framerate issues and the likes could screw any of the two at launch.. Which could have a great impact with the two release less than a month apart..
I'm going to do what I usually do. Get both, play both, enjoy both for different reasons.
Skyrim coming out right around the same time as BF3 and MW3 only makes me not want to get both until an after christmas sale :P
COD makes the BF series look like a straight up war simulation, I really don't think there is a contest here.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't know why people try to compare or try to see which game will be better, Imo they are two totally different types of games.
CoD: Classic style multiplayer shooter (Fast paced combat, much like the Doom and quake games, designed to give players an energy rush)
BF: Modern/Realistic take on multiplayer shooters (Slower paced, more strategy based, use of military vehicles, designed to work as a team)
I used to be a CoD fan until the original Infinity Ward team got the shaft from Activision and Kotick. Now I'm firmly a Battlefield fan and won't even give CoDx a look. I am looking forward, though, to what the original Infinity Ward, now called Respawn Games, is going to put out as it's inaugural effort.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I vote... Battlefield 3. Always liked the larger scale maps & vehicular combat. Not to mention the much more interesting sniping mechanics. Nothings more awesome than sniping some guy all the way across the map taking bullet drop / velocity into consideration and actually have to lead your target.
If skill = brain, then turn your mouse 90° in any direction and try to play. See how the brain hurts? This is skill: able to think.
your statement about COD being more for individual skills doesnt make sense as the game requires no skill to play.
Smaller maps, lots of long and tight corridors, low recoil, smaller player counts (MW1 on PC had 64 players)... yeah
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Who cares? both are honestly generic shitty fps games full of prepubescent teens that scream into their mics when they get owned.
thread over move along!
Ahem anyway seriously, I don't see the point to a vs between these 2 games they bascally the exact same thing, just in a diff wrapper.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
I don't think you could have said something farther from the truth.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson