Home    General Stuff    General Gaming
#1

Battlefield 3 vs. Modern Warfare 3 Sales Predictions

Archive: 26 posts

As originally posted by IGN

In just a matter of weeks, the epic confrontation between good and evil will be waged across modern battlefields and war torn cities.

With over $100 million in marketing behind each title, Electronic Arts' Battlefield 3 and Activision's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 are going to take the fight to retail shelves. While both games are expected to be blockbusters, only one war game can rule them all.

IGN asked some of the industry's top analysts to weigh in on this clash of the titans.

The NPD Group said that life-to-date new physical sales of the Call of Duty franchise tops 60 million units in the U.S., while the Battlefield franchise has sold 10 million units. Anita Frazier, industry analyst for the NPD Group, said that Battlefield is a more heavily PC-driven franchise with roughly half of life-to-date sales being on the PC, whereas Call of Duty is very heavily console-driven.

"While Call of Duty is clearly larger, I do believe we could see bigger Battlefield sales if we included digitally acquired content," said Frazier.

Looking to sales of the new games, analysts have big projections for both titles. According to Billy Pidgeon, analyst at M2 Research, Battlefield 3 could sell over 10 million copies this year and would likely add another 5 to 8 million in 2012.

"Battlefield 3 plays particularly well on PC, and this will boost sales in other regions outside the U.S. where console penetration is relatively low," said Pidgeon.

Pidgeon forecasts gamers will pick up as many as 15 million copies of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 this year with latecomers adding another 5 to 10 million purchases in 2012.

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will likely perform more strongly than Battlefield 3 on consoles, and although it will sell on PC, I expect Battlefield 3 to do better on PC," said Pidgeon.

Michael Pachter, videogame analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities, forecasts Modern Warfare 3 will sell 16 million copies this year and 9 million next year, which is similar to last year's Black Ops sales. For Battlefield 3, he believes EA will sell 8 million copies this year and 2 million next, but he believes a solid Metacritic rating could boost those figures.

"I believe that Call of Duty will outsell Battlefield 3 by 2 to 1, which I have no doubt is a number that both companies will be happy with," said Jesse Divnich, analyst for EEDAR. "We know that Call of Duty has the potential to hit as high as 25 million units this holiday season, if Battlefield 3 obtains half of that, I am sure Electronic Arts will be satisfied."

Even though EA's game hits store shelves earlier than Activision's title, analysts don't believe the two "3s" will hurt each other's sales. Pidgeon believes there will be a fair amount of overlap with over half of gamers buying both titles.

"Both should sell strongly and I don't expect much cannibalization of initial sales," said Pidgeon. "The competition for online, however, will be very strong, and although there will be players who prefer one to the other and will be less likely to switch, many online players will migrate between the two games. This will be important for sales of game add-ons."

"My best guess is that 80% of Call of Duty players are in it for the multiplayer, so I don't see many of them defecting," said Pachter. "It's only the 20% who are up for grabs, and I think that for every Call of Duty player who defects to BF, there will be another new Call of Duty player born."

"Battlefield 3 is more focused on vehicle integration," said Ted Pollak, videogame analyst at Jon Peddie Research. "Hardcore multiplayer PC gamers, who are actually a growing market, are very bullish on Battlefield 3 and are becoming disenchanted with the Call of Duty franchise as it seems to cater more to the console crowd. However, the Call of Duty franchise has always had excellent single player content, which will give it an edge."

While EA and Activision will benefit from these two huge titles, the game industry, as a whole, may suffer. John Taylor, videogame analyst at Arcadia Research, believes these two games will cannibalize sales of other game releases this Christmas.

"They will take all the air out of the room, except for Batman, Skyrim and maybe Assassin's Creed Revelations," said Taylore. "One retailer offered about 160 properties last year from October to December, but this year they are cutting that back to about 90. Retailers are showing real caution on all but the five 'sure bets'. Even Gears of War 3 sales disappointed at least one major retailer."

Michael Pachter believes that Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 will combine for 24 million units sold this year, generating over $1.4 billion in sales. That would account for 15% of all packaged game software sold in the fourth quarter.

Pollak believes the game industry will benefit from these two games driving console and PC sales during the Christmas shopping season.

"Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 will help sales of Xbox 360s and PS3s," said Pollak. "More importantly, and rarely covered by the press, Battlefield 3 is driving upwards of a billion dollars in PC builds and upgrades this year alone. No other title since Crytek's Crysis had such an anticipatory impact on PC hardware sales."

When you wade through all of these numbers, one thing seems for sure. EA will come out of this second head-to-head battle with Activision much better with DICE's sequel than with last year's Medal of Honor game. At the end of the day, though, gamers will get a pair of blockbuster games that will offer deep and customizable online gameplay experiences that should keep players engaged through the holidays and beyond.


Just something for all you people out there who are into the whole BF vs CoD debate... 		2011-10-15 07:23:00

Author:
Speedynutty68
Posts: 1614

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gdtV-GU_b1M/TpSsF3G6s_I/AAAAAAAAGe8/H4JBKCoxWOA/s1600/Call+X+BF+copy.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gdtV-GU_b1M/TpSsF3G6s_I/AAAAAAAAGe8/H4JBKCoxWOA/s1600/Call+X+BF+copy.jpg)
I'm getting both games. BF3 because I want it (and the multiplayer made my brother want it too), and MW3 because my brother wants to see how the campaign will end. God help me if the story doesn't finish in this game... 		2011-10-15 12:03:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

I'm definitely getting Battlefield when it comes out but wont bother with Call of Duty until it drops in price hopefully in the January sales.2011-10-15 12:10:00

Author:
Lordwarblade
Posts: 761

tl;dr

Call of Duty will sell much more, but BF3 sales will increase from BC2 (and still be regarded as good).

FO' REAL		2011-10-15 18:53:00

Author:
ryryryan
Posts: 3767

Played the beta, dull gameplay, actually die slower in CoD. the expanse environments promote too much camping and the leveling up takes just way too freaking long, im putting my money on MW3. No matter how hard you try you just cant play as competitively with out a common goal such as a Tactical Nuke. I dont care how much you can destroy the environment, games should stray away from realism and get back to the fun part.2011-10-18 07:13:00

Author:
Charlemagne
Posts: 513

Played the beta, dull gameplay, actually die slower in CoD. the expanse environments promote too much camping and the leveling up takes just way too freaking long, im putting my money on MW3. No matter how hard you try you just cant play as competitively with out a common goal such as a Tactical Nuke. I dont care how much you can destroy the environment, games should stray away from realism and get back to the fun part.

Did he seriously just say that the ability to have a game ending killstreak reward, a system which is in itself stupid enough already, was what inspires competitive gameplay?

You're the same guy who came into the BF3 thread and said it sucks because it doesn't have any proper multiplayer modes, aren't you? If I want to play CoD, I'll grab CoD2, which was far better than any modern CoD. When I want to play something like MW3, I'll play CoD4, which is the same except the killstreaks are slightly less intrusive, and the maps are probably better.

You don't die slower in CoD, lol. The beta was a poor example as you didn't really recognise when you were getting shot on some occasions, but you die a lot slower on BF. As for the maps, I'll take the massive open spaces of BF over the tight, ****ty corridors on CoD every time, they look better, they play better, and they cater to the modes that BF uses online far better - modes that require teamwork and tactics, and are far more fun than aimlessly running around the map spraying an SMG. Levelling up takes too long? That's a good thing. If you can unlock everything in a couple of hours, it takes away some of the longevitiy. Either give us everything from the start, or make it take time. Prestige mode in CoD is stupid, all you get is the same things you've already had, and a stupid little icon, but I guess if it makes you feel 1337 and stuff then fine, you pretend that being level 10 prestige (or whatever the hell the highest one is now) makes you better than someone who isn't.

And, once again - BF IS NOT REALISTIC.

And yes, before you call me a 'fanboy', I have played every CoD that has been made, from the original PC game onwards. And they have gotten worse every single time, and since CoD4 it has been the same game every time, just in a different setting. Even when they went back to WW2 they got it wrong, because the bolt action rifles didn't kill in 1 shot.

And again, are you serious about the nuke, a game ending killstreak, being a good idea? That's hilarious... Oh, and by the way - that inspires camping far more than the map size in BF does.		2011-10-18 12:31:00

Author:
Unknown User

Call of Duty > Battlefield.

Every. Freaking. Time.		2011-10-18 22:03:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250

Call of Duty > Battlefield.

Every. Freaking. Time.

That's questionable.

For me:

Call of Duty =/= Battlefield.

PERIOD.		2011-10-18 22:35:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

And again, are you serious about the nuke, a game ending killstreak, being a good idea? That's hilarious... Oh, and by the way - that inspires camping far more than the map size in BF does.

I've heard a lot of people "converting" from MW3 to BF3. I'd like to say the beta had something to do with it, but that in itself is sad; the beta was the buggiest piece of work I have ever seen.		2011-10-18 23:37:00

Author:
xero
Posts: 2419

Where's Alex when we need him? :/2011-10-18 23:42:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

I've always preferred the battlefield games over CoD... I've been playing since Battlefield 1942... it was probably the first game I played that seemlessly connected the FPS with a vehicle based game play.
I've always marked the CoD multi player down because of it's lack of vehicles and the cramped levels. I've always preferred a slower paced shooter than a frantic run&gun. Also, I like taking support roles - focussing on keeping my team mates sweet rather than focusing on the enemy.

Battlefield is just more my kind of military shooter... plus, the community of players seems friendlier than all the trash-talkers in CoD.

I've already pre ordered BF3... MW3 will have to wait for a price drop.		2011-10-19 00:11:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

MW3 will have to wait for a price drop.

STOP BIENG SOO CHEAP!!! (Nah jk) But I don't hate BF3 but it's just not as good MW3 		2011-10-19 00:17:00

Author:
zzmorg82
Posts: 948

STOP BIENG SOO CHEAP!!!
I'm Scottish... it's who I am 		2011-10-19 00:18:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Black Ops is the best selling game of all time in the US... So MW3 will definitely sell better.

I just don't get the Call of Duty franchise. The developers don't even try any more because they know it'll sell amazingly. Did I mention MW3 will use the exact same engine they used to make Black Ops? But still... all the fanboys who love mindless shooters will rejoice. I just don't get it.[/my opinion]		2011-10-19 00:38:00

Author:
anoken
Posts: 1654

I agree with Macnme. MW3 will need to wait for a price drop. I'm not going to spend money on a game I already have. (AKA- MW2) I understand that everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I strongly disagree with all the people who are like 'Down with BF!' It's just annoying. If you're going to flame something. Go do it to something that matters. Like politics. Don't go saying 'Oh-emm-gee our water is going to look realisticer!' (As you can read here (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=64470-Sledgehammer-Modern-Warfare-3-Not-a-Cut-and-Paste))

I care about the gameplay. And CoD's gameplay has been copy and paste ever since CoD4 (Aka- The last good CoD). Average game modes, Small Maps, Killstreaks, Team Deathmatch. It's all been seen before. Now look at how Battlefields gameplay is. Vehicles, Rush, Huge Maps, Squad Deathmatch. Large numbers of players. BF stripped the game down to it's basics. Then rebuilt on a new foundation.

In CoD, have you ever felt the joy of rushing into an enemy base with a tank? Have you ever had a dogfight with a jet? Have you ever roadkilled your rival with a helicopter? Most likely the answer is no. Unless you've played Battlefield.

So until somebody comes up with a valid argument as to why CoD is going to be super totally completely awesome insane, I'm waiting for a price drop.


Did I mention MW3 will use the exact same engine they used to make Black Ops
No they're not actually. It's a new graphics engine. As you can read here (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=64470-Sledgehammer-Modern-Warfare-3-Not-a-Cut-and-Paste).		2011-10-19 00:40:00

Author:
Speedynutty68
Posts: 1614

CoD will sell more but Battlefield will be the better game.
I honestly cant stand CoD though...The community is terrible, its full of angry people cursing through the mic. The game play has been pretty much the same with some slight changes every game and the graphics are years behind (They had to drop the native resolution for Black Ops to like 540p and it looked like crap to begin with) With the amount of sales they make you think they'd put it into updating their engine or creating a better experience but they just pocket it. =/
I haven't bought a CoD game since CoD5 and I don't think I ever will again.
Ill stick to Resistance and Battlefield =)		2011-10-19 01:06:00

Author:
Unknown User

Also, when Activision claimed that there were "absolutely no plans for a yearly subscription" - they were telling big fat porkies.
Charging you the price of a new game to access content that most games give you for free (see Halo stat tracking for example).
MW3 is a rip-off... especially once you include the tri-monthly map pack releases.		2011-10-19 01:26:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Even though I don’t own a ps3, I think I’m gonna stick with battlefield, my friend owns both black ops, mw2, and bf2 and I have to say I muck prefer bf over cod. For one I can’t stand 12 year olds that were never taught not to scream cuss words into the mic for no good reason and I just love the fact that I can drive stuff around nice huge colorful maps, I can’t say I make a big deal about graphics but when they’re as good as the ones bf it really nice.
When I do get a ps3 I can’t say I’ll be getting either of the games for a good reason, I have three little brothers (the youngest one being 8 years old) so I can't exactly get a game that says “light that son of a ***** up!” or “**** I’m hit!” every five seconds. So when I do get a ps3 I think I’m gonna stick to SSX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5scm_58USc)		2011-10-19 01:45:00

Author:
aceofthorns
Posts: 288

Ahem... cracks knuckles


As for the maps, I'll take the massive open spaces of BF over the tight, ****ty corridors on CoD every time, they look better, they play better, and they cater to the modes that BF uses online far better - modes that require teamwork and tactics, and are far more fun than aimlessly running around the map spraying an SMG.

BF requires teamwork and tactics? Since when? Are you kidding me? The game is just as easy to play/win by yourself as is CoD. I have never in my life owned a BF game and have only 2 hours maximum on it. Yet I went 50-12 my first game on the BF3 beta. And went 63-15 my second. You can run and gun in that game just as much as you can run and gun in CoD. Actually, I take that back. It's easier to run and gun in BF3 than in CoD because everyone sits in one spot and never expects someone to run around the map.


Levelling up takes too long? That's a good thing. If you can unlock everything in a couple of hours, it takes away some of the longevitiy.

And how exactly does it add to longevity? All the good guns in BF3 are unlocked within the first 30 levels and those will be the only guns anyone uses in BF3. Mark my words.


Even when they went back to WW2 they got it wrong, because the bolt action rifles didn't kill in 1 shot. I find it quite ironic that you argue that BF isn't realistic yet you assume that CoD "got it wrong" because they also don't want to make the game realistic. You're jumping on your BF wagon without being reasonable.


And again, are you serious about the nuke, a game ending killstreak, being a good idea? That's hilarious... Oh, and by the way - that inspires camping far more than the map size in BF does.

I agree with this statement, the game ending killstreak was a horrible idea which is why it's not in MW3.


But still... all the fanboys who love mindless shooters will rejoice. I just don't get it.[/my opinion]

Yet every year the sales of CoD games increase more and more. They're doing something right, wouldn't you agree?


I care about the gameplay. And CoD's gameplay has been copy and paste ever since CoD4 (Aka- The last good CoD). Average game modes, Small Maps, Killstreaks, Team Deathmatch. It's all been seen before. Now look at how Battlefields gameplay is. Vehicles, Rush, Huge Maps, Squad Deathmatch. Large numbers of players. BF stripped the game down to it's basics. Then rebuilt on a new foundation.

I care about the gameplay. And Battlefield's gameplay has been a copy and paste ever since Battlefield (Aka- The last good Battlefield). Average game modes, Large Maps, Vehicles, Rush/Conquest. It's all been seen before. Now look at how Call of Dutys gameplay is. Killstreaks, Search & Destroy, Variety of Maps, Team Tactical (Squad Deathmatch).

See? I can do it too.


In CoD, have you ever felt the joy of rushing into an enemy base with a tank? Have you ever had a dogfight with a jet? Have you ever roadkilled your rival with a helicopter? Most likely the answer is no. Unless you've played Battlefield.

In Battlefield, have you ever felt the joy of bringing down the rain on the entire team with an AC-130? Have you ever had a 1 versus 6 clutch in S&D? Most likely the answer is no. Unless you've played CoD.

Oh look, I did it again! Man I'm good.


So until somebody comes up with a valid argument as to why CoD is going to be super totally completely awesome insane, I'm waiting for a price drop.

*looks at watch*
...
...
...
I'm waiting for your valid arguement as to why Battlefield 3 is going to be super totally completely awesomely insane.

Once again,


Call of Duty > Battlefield.

Every. Freaking. Time.

Which btw, was directed to the OP. Meaning CoD will beat BF in sales...
Every. Freaking. Time.		2011-10-19 06:55:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250

First things first:

This thread will stay on topic or be closed. The topic, need I remind you, is regarding sales figures of the two upcoming and highly anticipated shooters: Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. To stay on topic, you may discuss the pros and cons of either shooter, but this is not a fanboy thread. Relate your replies back to the OP.

Rudeness and intentional trolling, as with any thread on this site, will not be tolerated.

Now, back to the topic at hand...


BF requires teamwork and tactics? Since when? Are you kidding me? The game is just as easy to play/win by yourself as is CoD. I have never in my life owned a BF game and have only 2 hours maximum on it. Yet I went 50-12 my first game on the BF3 beta. And went 63-15 my second. You can run and gun in that game just as much as you can run and gun in CoD. Actually, I take that back. It's easier to run and gun in BF3 than in CoD because everyone sits in one spot and never expects someone to run around the map.

You're doing it wrong.

If you're running and gunning, you're not playing the objective. What is more important than K/D in Battlefield is how you helped your team win the objectives. How many savior ribbons did you get in these games? MCOM defender ribbons? Resuppply? Medical effeciency?

While R&G may be a valid tactic, it is much more effective in deathmatch than a game mode like Rush or Conquest. And BF3's central game mode is not Team Deathmatch. Indeed, any smart squad that plays tactically can defeat this tactic with minimal losses while still attacking or defending the objective. Go ahead and run out of cover with your guns blazing. A good squad will lay down suppressive fire and take you down from behind cover all day long.

See also: http://mp1st.com/2011/10/12/top-5-myths-about-multiplayer-skill/

The thing is, in the beta you weren't playing with people that understood the objectives. And I'm sure that helped your K/D significantly, as well. I can't tell you how often I said to myself "Is anyone else going to try and plant the explosive at B? I think that's kinda the point, guys." Instead, half the players seemed more concerned about shooting the other guy than trying to advance to the next set of MCOMs. I think that will change significantly once the retail game is released and you don't have a bunch of "free beta" players in the mix.


And how exactly does it add to longevity? All the good guns in BF3 are unlocked within the first 30 levels and those will be the only guns anyone uses in BF3. Mark my words.The code was a month old. The unlock and ranking system is much more drawn-out in the retail version. They will also be balancing weapons like the UMP to make them less overpowered.

http://mp1st.com/2011/10/12/bf3-more-weapons-in-retail-version-biggest-maps-yet-and-changes-to-unlocks/

And just like in COD, the player should use different guns and attachments for different tactics. Theoretically, you should be able to be effective with any weapon in the game, given the right scenario and tactics. There will also be many more of them in retail.


Yet every year the sales of CoD games increase more and more. They're doing something right, wouldn't you agree?Well, they definitely have their market cornered... my personal experience with COD reveals that the majority of players are under the age of 15. And for a multi-player game with voice chat, that's a huge turnoff. I've heard different things about BF players, that the base is a bit more mature. That's not to say that there will no longer be smack-talking prepubescent angst-riddled teens trying to scream the most uncreative insults at me, but rather, the odds of running into one of them is less guaranteed. Conversely, it doesn't mean that there are no mature, respectable people that play COD.


...CoD will beat BF in sales...
Every. Freaking. Time.For me, it simply comes down to gameplay and community preferences. Will COD beat BF3 in sales? Most certainly. But it doesn't mean it's the best game out there... it means it's the most popular. You may argue the merits of why that may be, but I don't think you can honestly correlate popularity with what is deemed "the best".

Need an example? This guy won 60.7% popular vote, which is by all historical accounts a landslide victory:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01129/arts-graphics-2008_1129854a.jpg

'Nuff said.		2011-10-19 14:45:00

Author:
schm0
Posts: 1239

If you're running and gunning, you're not playing the objective. What is more important than K/D in Battlefield is how you helped your team win the objectives.

I forgot killing people isn't helping the team win the objective. Especially on the defending sides. Right? I've been a competitive player for pretty much all my gaming life and have watched countless of pro teams play games like Battlefield and Call of Duty and EVERY (good) team assigns roles to each member. There is always 1-2 players of each team that have the role of "Slayer" meaning just kill. Don't go for the flag, don't defend the flag, JUST kill. Push the enemy back into their base and block off every choke point.

Now tell me, how Running and Gunning is automatically assumed as a role used just to boost up your K/D when every professional team that is trying to get the win have 1-2 people that are specifically assigned to run and gun and just rack up kills.


While R&G may be a valid tactic, it is much more effective in deathmatch than a game mode like Rush or Conquest. And BF3's central game mode is not Team Deathmatch. Indeed, any smart squad that plays tactically can defeat this tactic with minimal losses while still attacking or defending the objective. Go ahead and run out of cover with your guns blazing. A good squad will lay down suppressive fire and take you down from behind cover all day long.

I agree that it's a much more effective tactic in Team Deathmatch but it can be just as effective in Rush or Conquest. Why are you so quick to assume that Running and Gunning means you go out in the middle of the map with your trigger button taped down? How about the fact that you can run and gun on the outskirts of the map, end up on the opposing team's spawn and lay down some heavy gun fire on anyone that is trying to reinforce.

Sounds like a much needed, valid tactic.


And just like in COD, the player should use different guns and attachments for different tactics. Theoretically, you should be able to be effective with any weapon in the game, given the right scenario and tactics. There will also be many more of them in retail.

Not true. There will always be one gun that is better than every other gun, and if you were to put two very skilled players against each other the one with that "better gun" will always come out on top. Whether it be less recoil, more damage, better iron sights, whatever it may be. There will never be a true "balance" to any FPS. That's why you ALWAYS see countless and countless of patches to the game. Do you really think DICE developed this game and forgot to balance every gun? Much like Treyarch did with Black Ops, it's the community that decides which gun is strong and the developers want to make their costumers happy so they will get on their hands and feet to make us happy. Once that UMP is nerfed, another gun will be the "overpowered" gun. The community will moan and complain and DICE will once again nerf that gun, the cycle will rinse and repeat until either the community gives up or every gun in the entire game plays out the exact same (class specific).


Well, they definitely have their market cornered... my personal experience with COD reveals that the majority of players are under the age of 15. And for a multi-player game with voice chat, that's a huge turnoff. I've heard different things about BF players, that the base is a bit more mature. That's not to say that there will no longer be smack-talking prepubescent angst-riddled teens trying to scream the most uncreative insults at me, but rather, the odds of running into one of them is less guaranteed. Conversely, it doesn't mean that there are no mature, respectable people that play COD.

This has been said a countless number of times but it's always the BF fanboys that say it. I ran into just as much "prepubescent angst-riddled teens" in BF than I did in CoD. Mind you I only have a few hours in BF3 so it seems like there are more in CoD but that's only because i play that game a lot more. Not to mention that a large number of CoD players will be transferring over to BF3 this year. So you're probably going to hear a lot more 15 year old brats than before.

EDIT: I'm probably coming off as a HUGE CoD Fanboy. Rest assured that I am buying BF3 and had loads of fun in the beta. I'm just stating the facts, meaning CoD will beat BF3 in sales and I'll eat a straw hat if otherwise.		2011-10-20 00:26:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250

Funnily enough... the only"trash talk" I've ever come across in Battlefield was this guy moaning at the rest of his own squad for not having a mic.
It's the polar opposite if CoD.
In CoD, if someone has a mic on, I mute them immediately, unless I know them. I've never heard anyone say anything of importance or relevance whilst playing CoD, and there is no team spirit... everyone just Rambo's it... so for all intents and purposes, CoD's voice chat is a waste of time.

Compared to Battlefield - where everyone is encouraged to get on the mic... not to insult each other, but to swap info and tactics on enemy movement - the way it should be used... and the squad spawn system encourages that feeling of team spirit (as well as the squad bonuses).

I love how battle lines develop in Battlefield as the game progresses... as squads hold/retake chokepoints... I make most of my xp in BF by staying 'just behind the front line - and keeping the squad supplied/alive.

In CoD it feels more like a random battle... the lvls are so small that enemies seem to come from all directions. There's no rhyme or reason - it's just an endless cycle of killing and dying.

All that "sells the most" means is just that...CoD will "sell the most" copies of the game.... this makes them the best at marketing, nothing else.... it doesn't mean it's a better game. All evidence is to the contrary.		2011-10-20 01:12:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Well... Once again, had a huge reply typed up for Whaaaaale... But Norton decides that now is a good time for LBPCentral.com to be categorized as an Un-categorized website. So once again, I'm too lazy to retype it.

Don't worry, it wasn't a fanboy thing. It was neutral and just counters to what he replied to me with...

And just to show my neutral stand, here's a song.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErChxQihYGw&feature=related

Keep in mind that this song came out in June. So there is no real gameplay.		2011-10-20 01:22:00

Author:
Speedynutty68
Posts: 1614

I seem to be one of the few who doesn't care about these two. To me it seems futile trying to determine which one is better when there are other games coming out that make both MW3 and BF3 crap their pants.

Someone please remind me why these samey old war FPS's still make more money than infinitely better games like Uncharted, LBP, Batman: Arkham, Deus Ex, etc. 		2011-10-20 01:35:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

@Whaaaaale: The killstreak mechanic in COD games encourages the R&G gameplay style, and racking as many kills as possible is a good thing and allows your killstreaks to become available. The game mechanics in most game modes in BF3 are fundamentally different (i.e. teamwork-based) and do not offer any similar incentive. That's all I was trying to say. Thus, BF3 game mechanics do not specifically reward a high K/D or the R&G style.

In game modes such as Rush or Conquest, if your goal is to run and gun and get as many kills as possible, you are ignoring the mechanics in place that are meant to reward you for helping your squad and your team achieve the objective. Yes, killing the attacking team reduces their tickets, but the primary goal is not to kill but rather to capture/defend territory. Kills are just another means to an end. Indeed, in Conquest game mode, the opposing team's tickets reduce faster if you are holding bases than if you are running around shooting everyone in sight. Thus, R&G is a much less valid tactic in that game mode.

And as far as definitive gameplay styles go:
Rush/Conquest::BF as Team Deathmatch::COD

The sales figures, in my opinion, are irrelevant. MW3 will beat out BF3 in sales, hands down. (I also think that BF3 will take a significant amount of sales away from the juggernaut that is COD, but I digress.) It all comes down to which game you prefer to play.		2011-10-20 16:57:00

Author:
schm0
Posts: 1239

Yup, I can regularly finish in the top 3 across both teams by focusing entirely on healing/reviving/resupplying my squad mates. It's not all about the killing in BF.
Also, the Beta showed nothing of the vehicle combat or the destructable environments... which is also one of the main things that seperates it from CoD.

Nothing is more satisfying than taking out a camping sniper by demolishing the building he's hiding in 		2011-10-21 01:59:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.