Anyway thought this place wasn't for fanboys....
And offering tactics and using them are 2 seperate scenarios entirely. But that's alright you guys enjoy 1 or the other, I'll enjoy both. I'm an FPS fan, only playing one or the other isn't an option for me...From my standpoint they are the same exact thing, an unbiased opinion. Might as well call this thread "BF FANBOYS UNITE" ****ing hypocrits.
Oh hey are the PSN servers experiencing "technical difficulties"? I guess being down for 3 months is the price for playing for free.
And offering tactics and using them are 2 seperate scenarios entirely. But that's alright you guys enjoy 1 or the other, I'll enjoy both. I'm an FPS fan, only playing one or the other isn't an option for me...From my standpoint they are the same exact thing, an unbiased opinion. Might as well call this thread "BF FANBOYS UNITE" ****ing hypocrits.
Oh hey are the PSN servers experiencing "technical difficulties"? I guess being down for 3 months is the price for playing for free.
Yeah I hate to break it to you Jeffy but Activision are still completely in control of the Modern Warfare franchise, and I've no doubt they'll continue milking it dry for as long as they possibly can. Then again, EA aren't exactly angels.
IMO Battlefield is the superior franchise because I enjoy the more tactical feel, vehicles and the building destruction. CoD is good too though when I feel like playing something much more fast paced and based on reactions.
I used to prefer PS3 to Xbox, but since my PS3 broke for the second time (meaning I can't play either game anymore QQ) I'm not too sure anymore. Still wouldn't pay for Xbox Live though, I just don't agree with paying so much money a month to play online.
IMO Battlefield is the superior franchise because I enjoy the more tactical feel, vehicles and the building destruction. CoD is good too though when I feel like playing something much more fast paced and based on reactions.
I used to prefer PS3 to Xbox, but since my PS3 broke for the second time (meaning I can't play either game anymore QQ) I'm not too sure anymore. Still wouldn't pay for Xbox Live though, I just don't agree with paying so much money a month to play online.
It's 50 dollars a year...Roughly a dollar a week, that's too much money? Or last I checked I was only playing 50 bucks a year, and I haven't had Xbox live crash on me ever...Nor has it been hacked and shut down for extended periods of time.
The point I was trying to make (sans activision comment because of my lack of caring about "who runs MW" as long as it's still a solid game) both of them interest me. I like both franchises.
There aren't any "real" tactics. Things can feel tactical in Battlefield I agree but at the end of the day you're still shooting people. Play a game of Battlefield (whichever version Bad Company or "Vanilla") and accomplish your objectives without having to fire your weapon or knife someone(obviously not referring to FFA or TDM). Then tell me the game is a tactics based shooter.
If it's tactics based then tactics should win over pure fire-power anyday. Or at least that's my definition. Tactics based shooter IMO was something like Brothers In Arms. Multiplayer didn't require you to fire a shot to secure an objective when on the offense side of things. You just had to get there, get cover fire, get out, move on.
The point I was trying to make (sans activision comment because of my lack of caring about "who runs MW" as long as it's still a solid game) both of them interest me. I like both franchises.
There aren't any "real" tactics. Things can feel tactical in Battlefield I agree but at the end of the day you're still shooting people. Play a game of Battlefield (whichever version Bad Company or "Vanilla") and accomplish your objectives without having to fire your weapon or knife someone(obviously not referring to FFA or TDM). Then tell me the game is a tactics based shooter.
If it's tactics based then tactics should win over pure fire-power anyday. Or at least that's my definition. Tactics based shooter IMO was something like Brothers In Arms. Multiplayer didn't require you to fire a shot to secure an objective when on the offense side of things. You just had to get there, get cover fire, get out, move on.
In my country Xbox Live is £48 a year, which is more than the price of a newly released game. For me, that is far too much.
Technically you could win a game of Battlefield without your team getting any kills. Chances of that happening are pretty slim I'll admit. There's no way you can argue it's not more tactical than CoD though, it's a lot slower paced and involves much more teamwork to take objectives and help out your team. In CoD you can essentially just solo the entire enemy team if you're good or lucky. Things like taking cover (and destroying enemy cover) and using stealth to reach objectives are important in Battlefield; in CoD you basically spend the whole time sprinting around shooting guys.
I still like both games in different ways, just saying Battlefield is definetely the more tactical of the two whereas CoD is more action-packed reflexes.
Technically you could win a game of Battlefield without your team getting any kills. Chances of that happening are pretty slim I'll admit. There's no way you can argue it's not more tactical than CoD though, it's a lot slower paced and involves much more teamwork to take objectives and help out your team. In CoD you can essentially just solo the entire enemy team if you're good or lucky. Things like taking cover (and destroying enemy cover) and using stealth to reach objectives are important in Battlefield; in CoD you basically spend the whole time sprinting around shooting guys.
I still like both games in different ways, just saying Battlefield is definetely the more tactical of the two whereas CoD is more action-packed reflexes.
I can see your point, but at the end of the day FOR ME. There isn't a difference, you have guns, you see enemies, you shoot, take objectives, both games have that. How someone intends to accomplish their objective can bring tactics into the fight.
And for Bad Company 2 in Rush mode. All you need to win without shooting a gun or knifing is a spec ops class and a friend as ***ualt class. UAV+All your C4+ driving it into an objective= 1 shot an objective. That's using tactics to accomplish your goal, that isn't written into the game that's just thinking outside the box....As well if a BF was "tactical" shooter then more people would be using tactics rather than doing exactly what people do in CoD. Camping with a sniper rifle or a shotgun waiting for someone to come by so you can shoot them. I guess what I mean is the game is tactical if tactics are used or need to be used by the players. But when 5 dudes just sit out in the middle of no where sniping all game and their team wins I'm leaning towards there being less tactics and people just playing to have fun regardless of what objectives they are supposed to complete. If that makes sense.
And for Bad Company 2 in Rush mode. All you need to win without shooting a gun or knifing is a spec ops class and a friend as ***ualt class. UAV+All your C4+ driving it into an objective= 1 shot an objective. That's using tactics to accomplish your goal, that isn't written into the game that's just thinking outside the box....As well if a BF was "tactical" shooter then more people would be using tactics rather than doing exactly what people do in CoD. Camping with a sniper rifle or a shotgun waiting for someone to come by so you can shoot them. I guess what I mean is the game is tactical if tactics are used or need to be used by the players. But when 5 dudes just sit out in the middle of no where sniping all game and their team wins I'm leaning towards there being less tactics and people just playing to have fun regardless of what objectives they are supposed to complete. If that makes sense.
Luther3000 wrote:
Yeah I hate to break it to you Jeffy but Activision are still completely in control of the Modern Warfare franchise, and I've no doubt they'll continue milking it dry for as long as they possibly can. Then again, EA aren't exactly angels.
IMO Battlefield is the superior franchise because I enjoy the more tactical feel, vehicles and the building destruction. CoD is good too though when I feel like playing something much more fast paced and based on reactions.
I used to prefer PS3 to Xbox, but since my PS3 broke for the second time (meaning I can't play either game anymore QQ) I'm not too sure anymore. Still wouldn't pay for Xbox Live though, I just don't agree with paying so much money a month to play online.
A. You , my friend have the spirit!
B. ps3´s break but Xbox has the famous red ring of death(own experience)
Thanks to Plickz and Alexanpt for the awesome Sigs!
Check out my guide on Skarner, The Crystal Vanguard
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
I can see your point, but at the end of the day FOR ME. There isn't a difference, you have guns, you see enemies, you shoot, take objectives, both games have that. How someone intends to accomplish their objective can bring tactics into the fight.
And for Bad Company 2 in Rush mode. All you need to win without shooting a gun or knifing is a spec ops class and a friend as ***ualt class. UAV+All your C4+ driving it into an objective= 1 shot an objective. That's using tactics to accomplish your goal, that isn't written into the game that's just thinking outside the box....As well if a BF was "tactical" shooter then more people would be using tactics rather than doing exactly what people do in CoD. Camping with a sniper rifle or a shotgun waiting for someone to come by so you can shoot them. I guess what I mean is the game is tactical if tactics are used or need to be used by the players. But when 5 dudes just sit out in the middle of no where sniping all game and their team wins I'm leaning towards there being less tactics and people just playing to have fun regardless of what objectives they are supposed to complete. If that makes sense.
You , my friend have a clear vision on games:P
You need to log in before commenting.
Getting both and Gears of War 3....Why the **** should anyone have to choose? They're both FPSs BOTH have raging little ****tards who haven't had their balls drop. One has destructible cover; which is nice but when you've been knocking down buildings since Bad Company it gets repetative. They'll have to pull something amazing out of their *** to make it feel better than it did before, otherwise it isn't worth the mechanic they've centered their last 2 Battle Fields around.
MW3 No activision? FINALLY A HORDE MODE? Same great multiplayer experience I've been experiencing since Call of Duty came to the 360? SOLD!!!!!
Both franchises offer the EXACT same thing, an FPS to play with friends. Both go about their death n' destructiin in distinctive (although quite similar ways). People who choose one over the other for whatever reason are just biased.
Both franchises offer solid FPS experiences
Awesome community support and enough DLC to sink a submarine
Interesting experiences unlike that of pre-360/PS3 fps games.
Both will have screaming children pissed off because I killed them in a ridiculous manner and proceeded to Tbag them from head to toe...Rinse repeat.
A. Battlefield and CoD are two different games , cod is fast paced and BF is tactics and strategy
B.You're obiviously advertising for COD and mw3 is still released under Activision , activision has publish rights.
C.They dont offer the EXACT same , Battlefield offers the real experience , at least they try so, CoD is just shooting and shooting without any thinking.
D.its true they both offer solid experience but BF has more free Map PAcks ,speaking out of own experience:D!
E.Ofc both will have children but CoD just has more children which attracts other children , im a 13 years old and i had enough of those ragers who were going to rage after i achieved 25 kill streaks on MW2 = nuke