Warmaker01 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 -_- He meant they don't look that much different graphically....? Again, what's going on between the two games? One game's engine is quite capable of doing and showing a whole lot more than the other. And that's if you just want to ignore the gameplay that's being shown between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 The graphics might look slightly different, but to me they both just look like generic military FPSes. The one just happens to have jets and tanks. I'm not planning on getting either. There's too much other awesome stuff coming out for me to bother with military shooters right now. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshh Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Do you like your bread with butter or jelly? You'll always get biased opinions. I see no point in this discussion. And to be honest, this BF vs COD battle people continue to make starts to become annoying. Make previews/reviews, not comparations! :D Edited August 21, 2011 by Yoshh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Well well, just when we thought everyone had stopped flinging poop and had sorted their differences, EA has once again thrown the gauntlet at Activision’s feet. Forget friendly Twitter banter, EA’s fighting with prison rules, and clearly isn’t afraid to throw some low-blows. As the defending champ, Modern Warfare 3 seems to appear to be trying to take the high road - Activision Publishing boss Eric Hirschberg recently responded to EA CEO’s comments that they want Call of Duty to “rot from the core” by saying that these kinds of fighting words are “bad for the industry”. EA has now responded by calling Eric Hirschberg a pansy. Well, I may be paraphrasing a little there, but that’s the gist of it. Speaking to IndustryGamers, EA corporate communications guy Jeff Brown delivered this 1-2 punch, "Welcome to the big leagues Eric -- I know you're new in the job but someone should have told you this is an competitive industry. You've got every reason to be nervous.” Following with a heavy right hook, “Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, you’ll be out of the category in 2-3 years.” And finishing it off like a real gentleman with a knee to the groin, “If you don't believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk." Wow. EA clearly isn’t pulling punches, but the question is will Activision be angry, or just disappointed? Nail in the coffin for me. Sure, competition is good, but EA are just being total dicks about it now. They're actually managing to make Activision look good now. As someone on another forum said on the matter: If this were over any other game but Battlefield, everyone would be getting on EA's case. If this were towards any other company besides Activision, the instigator would be called out. EA is doing this because they know that they:A: Are attacking one of the most hated companies in the industry (despite being the other most hated)B: Have the backing of one of the most obnoxious vocal fanbases out there, who are willing to overlook all the complaining they've done about EA. They're doing this **** because they know they'll get no bad press for it. Still, at the end of the day, the games will do the talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracinfields Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 EA is responding to Activions Crying Foul when they have held the about 90% of the FPS market for the last couple years. Is having 90% of the FPS market proper competition? Not really at all. Also COD has been a MOH clone sence Activision saw EA doing so well with MOH; Allied Assult the only reason activision went to Modern Warfare was because EA went to modern combat with Battlefield 2 and Battlefield: Modern Combat on the Consoles. MOH was then shut down as it was not going to be able keep up at the time. Between the Battlefield series and the new Modern Warfare it just wasn't going to happen. So what is pretty much going down is a grudge match between the two top weighted contenders in the FPS market and their trash talking each other before the big fight. With the Design Decisions that Activion has made like the Paid stat tracking and exclusive map access you will not only splitting the community up but also taking something that has normally been avaible to most players for free for all this time. This is why EA/DICE has stated that their Stat Tracking will remain free and that there will be Dedicated Servers something I do believe hurt the MW2 to some extent. Continueing on about Activision they have taken if it isn't broken don't fix it mentality, and instead of always trying to push their game further their just trying to copy and paste the same game over again with a new coat of paint and maybe a new story with a few bug fixes. This is how gaming communities stagnate and die. DICE is at least trying to push their games even further with new idea and new tech. Frostbite 2.0 improves the lighting, delieve great sound and even beter Enviromental sound effects then the battlefield games before it, not to mention the ablity to blow certain building completely appart and others blowing the fascade off of to open up a new avenue of assault. Heck even the abilty to kill players by bringing down what they thing is protecting them. If this was even tried in a COD map with kill streaks there would be nothing left but a flat map that is no bigger then a football field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) No, EA is talking trash at Activision. Activision wasn't crying foul because they have competition, Activision is crying foul because EA are behaving like a bunch of children in order to make their competition look bad. It really makes you wonder just how worried EA really is for them to have to resort to such childish nonsense. :/ EA is slinging mud, and it's unnecessary as well as childish. If they're so sure they're going to knock Activision down a notch, then they should do it. There's about as much drama llama going on in the EA offices about the issue as there is at a WWE wrestling match. Nobody wants to listen to their soap opera drama, especially not if Activision are actually being mature about the entire competition. Edited August 21, 2011 by Halororor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 My observations: EA are dicks. BF3 looks superior. It is harder to find a more obnoxious vocal fanbase that the one surrounding COD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderCrazy Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 My observations: EA are dicks. BF3 looks superior. It is harder to find a more obnoxious vocal fanbase that the one surrounding COD. This, precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfDeadguy Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Is it too late to vote for Tribes 2 or BF:1942 because they were both genuinely great games with awesome communities, excellent developer support, a high level of polish, and lots of amazing mods? Honestly, CA shooters have taken a nosedive since those days... Really, you're comparing apples to oranges setting Battlefield against CoD. CoD is a straight-up shooter... with a dose of instakill realism, yes, but generic. Battlefield is a combined arms game- Land, Air, and Sea where applicable... though since BF2 it's been pretty much Land, Air, Douchebaggery. You may use the same controls to aim and fire in both games, but they aren't in the same category- you could buy both and have completely different experiences with each. Unfortunately, there isn't any combined-arms competition worthy of note for BF3 (with Tribes: Ascend going to a micro-transaction model that'll kill it dead at release). It'd be nice if there was, because EA has done a really crappy job of it, but there isn't. That poor genre seems to have come and gone with the early to mid '00s- more's the pity. However, if you're considering the latest incarnation of CoD you might as well start looking at Counter-Strike: Global Offensive... they're much more comparable. Since Valve has a better reputation for consistent quality, their offering will likely be superior even if you'll wait longer for it. Perhaps a year or so, even. Heh. Yup, the golden age of shooters has come and gone. Here's to the resurgence of another genre as the King of the Heap. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracinfields Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 LOL Wrath you missed Planetside in that list of Combined Arms and also Planetside 2 is going to be coming soon as well. Also for Tribes that falls more into the same Category as Unreal Tornament as its a fast pace arcady shooter but with a little mix of vehicle combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now