BF3 still in the top 10 on NPD - proof that gamers demand quality FPS

  • 172 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by MBirdy88 (8330 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Sprinting isn't fast enough.

How can I use vehicles when they gone? And I can't spawn in them because they are always full.

I have played Walking Field, look at my gamertag in my sig I used to own Walking Company 2. Sold it for a PSN card and bought COD map packs instead, far better value and fun.

ShadowMoses900

You have no attention span or skill, we get it, now move along.

I have plenty of attention span, in COD I often stay bunkered in one area and just kill people that come by, if I had no attention span I wouldn't be able to win.

In terms of skill I bet I could own your ass in COD online, if we both played Walking Field we would have to on seperate teams because there is no free for all (Walking Field has hardly any features) and we would probably never find each other because the maps are too big.

Well now see, I play the PC version with 64 players, that and it looks amazing, and people are just generally better. so you can see, I don't have that problem.
#102 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
its bf3. i love the game and everything, but there's a whole lot of milkage, unnecessary streamlining, and inability to fix problems going on. definitely not 'quality'. quality is synonym for valve. /thread
#103 Posted by nunovlopes (2607 posts) -

I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. The campaings in Walking Field games are jokes, I couldn't even finish Walking Company 2 campaign.

The mulitplayer is not that great either, the maps are too large which makes it very hard to find people to kill, the highest kill rate I got in a match was 6, that's right I only came across 6 peole the entire time. What did I do with the rest of the time? Why just walk around of course.

It takes too long to get to the objectives, by the time you do the match is basically over or you get killed and have to walk ALL the way back. Don't bother with vehicles because people hog them and won't share, and it takes FOREVER for a new vehcile to spawn.

The game is just an overrated waste of money, there is no way in hell Walking Field is better than COD.

ShadowMoses900

Try playing BF3 PC, those issues don't apply.

#104 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]COD in top 10, casual trash. BF in top 10, gamers demanding quality. LOL!LegatoSkyheart

COD is more casual than Battlefield.

In Battlefield you can revive people, give people ammo and work together as a team to defeat the other Team.

Call of Duty really is just a run and gun game, no tatics involved.

Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

#105 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (8207 posts) -

There a lot of games that come to mind when the word qualtiy is mentioned.

Battlefield 3 ain't one of them.

#106 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. ShadowMoses900
stopped right there. proof that person is clueless
#107 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (8207 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Sprinting isn't fast enough.

How can I use vehicles when they gone? And I can't spawn in them because they are always full.

I have played Walking Field, look at my gamertag in my sig I used to own Walking Company 2. Sold it for a PSN card and bought COD map packs instead, far better value and fun.

ShadowMoses900

You have no attention span or skill, we get it, now move along.

I have plenty of attention span, in COD I often stay bunkered in one area and just kill people that come by, if I had no attention span I wouldn't be able to win.

In terms of skill I bet I could own your ass in COD online, if we both played Walking Field we would have to on seperate teams because there is no free for all (Walking Field has hardly any features) and we would probably never find each other because the maps are too big.

:lol: Classic

#108 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. The campaings in Walking Field games are jokes, I couldn't even finish Walking Company 2 campaign.

The mulitplayer is not that great either, the maps are too large which makes it very hard to find people to kill, the highest kill rate I got in a match was 6, that's right I only came across 6 peole the entire time. What did I do with the rest of the time? Why just walk around of course.

It takes too long to get to the objectives, by the time you do the match is basically over or you get killed and have to walk ALL the way back. Don't bother with vehicles because people hog them and won't share, and it takes FOREVER for a new vehcile to spawn.

The game is just an overrated waste of money, there is no way in hell Walking Field is better than COD.

ShadowMoses900

And everytime you say this I will bring up the facts that you suck at the game and don't even own it

#109 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25612 posts) -

I have plenty of attention span, in COD I often stay bunkered in one area and just kill people that come by, if I had no attention span I wouldn't be able to win.

In terms of skill I bet I could own your ass in COD online, if we both played Walking Field we would have to on seperate teams because there is no free for all (Walking Field has hardly any features) and we would probably never find each other because the maps are too big.

ShadowMoses900

Battlefield has modes that is centered on that.

I believe that mode is Rush.

If you have the attention span to Camp in a Run and Gun game, you can Camp by a Base and actually help your team win.

Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.

COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

Overlord93

my Point is that COD tatics and teamwork isn't needed, one person can carry the entire team and win. Battlefield? You can't do that. You HAVE to HAVE team work. The ENTIRE TEAM has to work to win, not just one person.

#110 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. The campaings in Walking Field games are jokes, I couldn't even finish Walking Company 2 campaign.

The mulitplayer is not that great either, the maps are too large which makes it very hard to find people to kill, the highest kill rate I got in a match was 6, that's right I only came across 6 peole the entire time. What did I do with the rest of the time? Why just walk around of course.

It takes too long to get to the objectives, by the time you do the match is basically over or you get killed and have to walk ALL the way back. Don't bother with vehicles because people hog them and won't share, and it takes FOREVER for a new vehcile to spawn.

The game is just an overrated waste of money, there is no way in hell Walking Field is better than COD.

seanmcloughlin

And everytime you say this I will bring up the facts that you suck at the game and don't even own it

I used to own Walking Company 2, check my gamertag in my sig, I have trophies for it. Lol SeanMcmuffins got owned again. Like I told Rocker, he is the Joker and you are Harley Quin and I am Batman. I always win bro.

#111 Posted by mems_1224 (47284 posts) -
battlefield 3 is easily the best multiplayer game until halo 4 comes out
#112 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25612 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. The campaings in Walking Field games are jokes, I couldn't even finish Walking Company 2 campaign.

The mulitplayer is not that great either, the maps are too large which makes it very hard to find people to kill, the highest kill rate I got in a match was 6, that's right I only came across 6 peole the entire time. What did I do with the rest of the time? Why just walk around of course.

It takes too long to get to the objectives, by the time you do the match is basically over or you get killed and have to walk ALL the way back. Don't bother with vehicles because people hog them and won't share, and it takes FOREVER for a new vehcile to spawn.

The game is just an overrated waste of money, there is no way in hell Walking Field is better than COD.

ShadowMoses900

And everytime you say this I will bring up the facts that you suck at the game and don't even own it

I used to own Walking Company 2, check my gamertag in my sig, I have trophies for it. Lol SeanMcmuffins got owned again. Like I told Rocker, he is the Joker and you are Harley Quin and I am Batman. I always win bro.

You used to own it.

doesn't mean you were good at it.

#113 Posted by RR360DD (11993 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. The campaings in Walking Field games are jokes, I couldn't even finish Walking Company 2 campaign.

The mulitplayer is not that great either, the maps are too large which makes it very hard to find people to kill, the highest kill rate I got in a match was 6, that's right I only came across 6 peole the entire time. What did I do with the rest of the time? Why just walk around of course.

It takes too long to get to the objectives, by the time you do the match is basically over or you get killed and have to walk ALL the way back. Don't bother with vehicles because people hog them and won't share, and it takes FOREVER for a new vehcile to spawn.

The game is just an overrated waste of money, there is no way in hell Walking Field is better than COD.

ShadowMoses900

And everytime you say this I will bring up the facts that you suck at the game and don't even own it

I used to own Walking Company 2, check my gamertag in my sig, I have trophies for it. Lol SeanMcmuffins got owned again. Like I told Rocker, he is the Joker and you are Harley Quin and I am Batman. I always win bro.

Until you sold it in a strop because you were getting owned :lol:

#114 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

And everytime you say this I will bring up the facts that you suck at the game and don't even own it

LegatoSkyheart

I used to own Walking Company 2, check my gamertag in my sig, I have trophies for it. Lol SeanMcmuffins got owned again. Like I told Rocker, he is the Joker and you are Harley Quin and I am Batman. I always win bro.

You used to own it.

doesn't mean you were good at it.

Doesn't matter if I was good at it or not. The fact is that I found the game to be a boring, overrated waste of money. I'm only good at a smalle few online games anyway: COD, Uncharted, Killzone, and RDR.

The last game I mentioned I have not played online for a long time so I probably suck at that now to. I am good at co-op online games though like Resident Evil.

#115 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25612 posts) -

Doesn't matter if I was good at it or not. The fact is that I found the game to be a boring, overrated waste of money. I'm only good at a smalle few online games anyway: COD, Uncharted, Killzone, and RDR.

The last game I mentioned I have not played online for a long time so I probably suck at that now to. I am good at co-op online games though like Resident Evil.

ShadowMoses900

You thought Battlefield was boring, but not Killzone?

Excuse me, my brain needs reassembling.

#116 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't see the quality in Walking Field 3. The campaings in Walking Field games are jokes, I couldn't even finish Walking Company 2 campaign.

The mulitplayer is not that great either, the maps are too large which makes it very hard to find people to kill, the highest kill rate I got in a match was 6, that's right I only came across 6 peole the entire time. What did I do with the rest of the time? Why just walk around of course.

It takes too long to get to the objectives, by the time you do the match is basically over or you get killed and have to walk ALL the way back. Don't bother with vehicles because people hog them and won't share, and it takes FOREVER for a new vehcile to spawn.

The game is just an overrated waste of money, there is no way in hell Walking Field is better than COD.

ShadowMoses900

And everytime you say this I will bring up the facts that you suck at the game and don't even own it

I used to own Walking Company 2, check my gamertag in my sig, I have trophies for it. Lol SeanMcmuffins got owned again. Like I told Rocker, he is the Joker and you are Harley Quin and I am Batman. I always win bro.

Complains about how bad BF3 is yet doesn't own it and "used to own" BC2 :roll: yeah you totally win "bro"

#117 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -
You say it's quality and that that's the reason why it's still in the top 10, but you give no reasons for why it's quality, you just say it is. Great thread.
#118 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I don't care about the technical differences, COD and Battlefield are the same type of shooter.

Halo incorporates a free-roam aspect (as in jumping on top of structures instead of being forced to use ramps and ladders), which is different enough for me.

arto1223

What a tool.

On point, good for DICE. BF3 is a fantastic shooter and only second to BF2142 this gen.

Little do you suspect, I'm not actually hating on Battlefield 3.

#119 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Doesn't matter if I was good at it or not. The fact is that I found the game to be a boring, overrated waste of money. I'm only good at a smalle few online games anyway: COD, Uncharted, Killzone, and RDR.

The last game I mentioned I have not played online for a long time so I probably suck at that now to. I am good at co-op online games though like Resident Evil.

LegatoSkyheart

You thought Battlefield was boring, but not Killzone?

Excuse me, my brain needs reassembling.

It's called an opinion.

And KZ has better graphics than BF so it's more engaging.

#120 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]COD in top 10, casual trash. BF in top 10, gamers demanding quality. LOL!Overlord93

COD is more casual than Battlefield.

In Battlefield you can revive people, give people ammo and work together as a team to defeat the other Team.

Call of Duty really is just a run and gun game, no tatics involved.

Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

#121 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

I believe BF3 is the greatest FPS MP game ever, the pinnacle of FPS MP competitive gaming.

nunovlopes

a1n6dj.gif

#122 Posted by mems_1224 (47284 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Doesn't matter if I was good at it or not. The fact is that I found the game to be a boring, overrated waste of money. I'm only good at a smalle few online games anyway: COD, Uncharted, Killzone, and RDR.

The last game I mentioned I have not played online for a long time so I probably suck at that now to. I am good at co-op online games though like Resident Evil.

ShadowMoses900

You thought Battlefield was boring, but not Killzone?

Excuse me, my brain needs reassembling.

It's called an opinion.

And KZ has better graphics than BF so it's more engaging.

:lol: WHAT?!?!?! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
#123 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

COD is more casual than Battlefield.

In Battlefield you can revive people, give people ammo and work together as a team to defeat the other Team.

Call of Duty really is just a run and gun game, no tatics involved.

Master_ShakeXXX

Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.
#124 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

Overlord93

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

I will, when I actually run into a coordinated team. Fat chance of that happening in a CoD game where people only care about going for that next big killstreak and their KDR.

#125 Posted by musicalmac (23036 posts) -
Always refreshing to see real life directly contradicting SW.
#126 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -

[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

Master_ShakeXXX

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

I will, when I actually run into a coordinated team. Fat chance of that happening in a CoD game where people only care about going for that next big killstreak and their KDR.

As opposed to battlefield, where half the team sits in the spawn menu, teleports into the havoc , straps c4 to it and flies it into enemy tanks. So much teamplay.
#127 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

Overlord93

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

Any "competitive" game where that can happen is not a competitive game.
#128 Posted by mariokart64fan (19522 posts) -

cod and bf3 are both lame war fps games, 007 legends goldeneye bloodstone quantum of solace are better

#129 Posted by MBirdy88 (8330 posts) -
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

Overlord93

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

Spawn locked is a design flaw.
#130 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -
[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

MBirdy88
Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

Spawn locked is a design flaw.

*cough* metro *cough*
#131 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8652 posts) -

[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

DarkLink77

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

Any "competitive" game where that can happen is not a competitive game.

Yah, I was going to say this.

It's just amazing how when someone's only real experience with multiplayer FPS games is CoD, and CoD-clones, they treat such glaring design flaws as great gameplay elements.

#132 Posted by October_Tide (5396 posts) -

I wouldn't really call BF3 quality, I can see the rest of the series going down hill very quickly. It's still of a higer calibre than COD though.

#133 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]The maps are huge.nunovlopes

Compared to other BF games in the past only the Armored Kill maps are huge. The pace of the game is way too fast for the Karkand maps. I can only play them with 32 players. All the what you call "big" vanilla maps have large playable area's but all the flags are clustered in the middle.

Having the bases far away from the flags is a good thing, it makes cornering the losing team into their base much more difficult. BC2 was a plague in this regard. It was insanely easy for the winning team to completely corner the losing team in their base, to the point where you simply couldn't leave your base. This is extremely annoying.

For example, Armored Shield suffers from this problem. It is a prime example of a big map, badly designed. The bases are too close to the flags, and it's easy for a team to corner the other team in their base.

And bigger maps are not automatically better. I personally prefer B2K to AK.

hurrr durrr I'm just don't even...
#134 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Having the bases far away from the flags is a good thing, it makes cornering the losing team into their base much more difficult. BC2 was a plague in this regard. It was insanely easy for the winning team to completely corner the losing team in their base, to the point where you simply couldn't leave your base. This is extremely annoying.

For example, Armored Shield suffers from this problem. It is a prime example of a big map, badly designed. The bases are too close to the flags, and it's easy for a team to corner the other team in their base.

And bigger maps are not automatically better. I personally prefer B2K to AK.

nunovlopes

It's still bad in BF3. Teams can totally dominate another and keep them at their base. Look at Caspian

Nope, not possible. The base is too far away. You can easily take a jeep and get out of the base unnoticed. Obviously a very good team against a very bad team will dominate and capture all the flags. But that's not the point. The point is you can leave your base and reach a flag. You'll die there because the other team is better but you had your chance. In BC2, many times you simply could not leave the base, AT ALL. Laguna Alta and Operation Hastings were notoriously bad in this department.

The bases aren't far away in any of the vanilla maps....The game is just even more a merry-go-round of flag capping then any other BF game.
#135 Posted by MBirdy88 (8330 posts) -
[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.Overlord93
Spawn locked is a design flaw.

*cough* metro *cough*

I know, I'm not using it as competitive ownage though am I?
#136 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -
[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="MBirdy88"] Spawn locked is a design flaw.

*cough* metro *cough*

I know, I'm not using it as competitive ownage though am I?

So spawn locking is a deisign flaw. Then surely, battlefield, the king of all spawn locking shooters, is not a quality game, no?
#137 Posted by mems_1224 (47284 posts) -
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Just because a game doesn't spell teamplay out to you doesn't mean it's not involved.
COD has this tactics mechanic known as shooting. And that's generally enough.
Your teammates help you by shooting people. There is just as many tactics in that, if not more, than simply pressing a button when your teammate knifes you repeatedly.
Not to say that BF doesn't have the shooting, but to say that CoD doesn't have tactics or skill because it doesn't have clear class roles is just stupid. It's a multiplayer game, of course it has tactics, if it didn't then you'd be making a mint slapping kids on the pro circuit. But you're not.

Overlord93

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

spawn camping isnt good teamwork, its a broken multiplayer
#138 Posted by MBirdy88 (8330 posts) -
[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]*cough* metro *cough*Overlord93
I know, I'm not using it as competitive ownage though am I?

So spawn locking is a deisign flaw. Then surely, battlefield, the king of all spawn locking shooters, is not a quality game, no?

i dont care about bf3 im just pointing out your flaw.
#139 Posted by OB-47 (10909 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]COD in top 10, casual trash. BF in top 10, gamers demanding quality. LOL!LegatoSkyheart

COD is more casual than Battlefield.

In Battlefield you can revive people, give people ammo and work together as a team to defeat the other Team.

Call of Duty really is just a run and gun game, no tatics involved.

You can't revive people in Quake 3, can't give ammo either.

Still ten times more skillful than Battlefield 3

#140 Posted by ermacness (7099 posts) -

Massive LOL @ the people claiming and hating BF3 for being too CODish, but in the same breath, claim to love BC2. If any of the BF games somewhat mocked COD, it was BC2.

#141 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

There is zero teamwork involved in CoD. They're built entirely around the idea of mindlessly running and gunning.

mems_1224

Try saying that when a competetive team has you spawn locked and systematically farms you for gunships.

spawn camping isnt good teamwork, its a broken multiplayer

Quoted for truth, spawn camping is garbage. One of the reasons I don't play COD online that much.

#142 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -

Massive LOL @ the people claiming and hating BF3 for being too CODish, but in the same breath, claim to love BC2. If any of the BF games somewhat mocked COD, it was BC2.

ermacness
Yeah cuz I totally said that myself. hurrr durrr
#143 Posted by ermacness (7099 posts) -

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

Massive LOL @ the people claiming and hating BF3 for being too CODish, but in the same breath, claim to love BC2. If any of the BF games somewhat mocked COD, it was BC2.

Jebus213

Yeah cuz I totally said that myself. hurrr durrr

I didn't read EVERY page bro. Do know that I wouldn't have posted this if I already saw you post it.

#144 Posted by Pug-Nasty (8508 posts) -

BF3 = CoD MW2, BO, MW3, BO2, etc...

Turdastic piles of underdeveloped garbage with too much money spent on advertising rather than ironing out the many issues with the game content.

#145 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Massive LOL @ the people claiming and hating BF3 for being too CODish, but in the same breath, claim to love BC2. If any of the BF games somewhat mocked COD, it was BC2.

ermacness

But Battlefield 3 is more like COD, than BC2.

#146 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25612 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Doesn't matter if I was good at it or not. The fact is that I found the game to be a boring, overrated waste of money. I'm only good at a smalle few online games anyway: COD, Uncharted, Killzone, and RDR.

The last game I mentioned I have not played online for a long time so I probably suck at that now to. I am good at co-op online games though like Resident Evil.

ShadowMoses900

You thought Battlefield was boring, but not Killzone?

Excuse me, my brain needs reassembling.

It's called an opinion.

And KZ has better graphics than BF so it's more engaging.

Killzone's game mechanics are a bit similar to Battlefield's though! Complete with being able to revive a fallen ally. That's why my mind blew up cause you don't like Battlefield but love a game that pretty much does the same minus the vehicles.
#147 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25612 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]COD in top 10, casual trash. BF in top 10, gamers demanding quality. LOL!OB-47

COD is more casual than Battlefield.

In Battlefield you can revive people, give people ammo and work together as a team to defeat the other Team.

Call of Duty really is just a run and gun game, no tatics involved.

You can't revive people in Quake 3, can't give ammo either.

Still ten times more skillful than Battlefield 3

Quake's Skills are in a different league. There's a LOT of platforming involved and power ups. Quake would be more comparable to Halo 3 or Some the source games than COD or Battlefield.
#148 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -
[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

COD is more casual than Battlefield.

In Battlefield you can revive people, give people ammo and work together as a team to defeat the other Team.

Call of Duty really is just a run and gun game, no tatics involved.

LegatoSkyheart

You can't revive people in Quake 3, can't give ammo either.

Still ten times more skillful than Battlefield 3

Quake's Skills are in a different league. There's a LOT of platforming involved and power ups. Quake would be more comparable to Halo 3 or Some the source games than COD or Battlefield.

Like Half Life 2: Deathmatch.
#149 Posted by GuNsbl4ziN (285 posts) -

Mhm