alright so I was go around in era, and I spot this noob saying which is better, CoD or Battelfield. So as a BF fan immediately said Battelifeld. So then we have an argument over which is better, he was clearly a kid cause of how he typed, and what he believed. He said that CoD has better graphics and is more realistic, which is clearly untrue. So he said later on that more people put votes on CoD rather then BF, so all I want to know is; if anyone else like that?
CoD is losing a lot of popularity lately, They don't really add new content, rather regurgitate old content and maybe polish it off. The BF series to me is a lot more entertaining, it requires a lot more team play, which is instantly a lot more fun, as opposed to running around solo with the UMP45 on MW2 (last one i played/bought aha) gunning everyone down in less than a second. There's vehicles on BF, it just has a world more content in my opinion. Though, the downside is that Battlefield is owned by EA, i hate EA.
I'm waiting for COD Ghosts.
-Johnaudi
I'm an avid call of duty fan, for some reason I can't get to grips with battlefield. I just don't like the feel of the game. As John said I too will be waiting for Call Of Duty: Ghosts
King of KingsFeel free to message me ingame for any help!
I'm a player of both. I prefer battlefield, but I play CoD for for Zombies, and because I'm good at it. I really do like being able to not spray a guy, and then get one knife to the chest and die. The games got bad after MW1. They honestly should have stuck with WW2 games if they wanted quality. Now, they're kinda shooting theirselves in the foot, and there's no turn around in the near future that I can see. I've played each game after CoD: WaW, and it seems like Black Ops and Modern Warfare both haven't really had any big engine updates, other than better shadows, and other small things. Now the dogs look good, fish react to you, and arm hairs are more noticeable. On the other hand, Battlefield will have non-planned building collapses, more vehicles, commander mode, and levels that completely change based on what's happened during a match. Meanwhile glass breaks in CoD and the big time CoD fans have nerdgasms.
FPSs in general suck nowadays, but I've heard lately they're getting better (The Last of Us/Bioshock Infinite).
Swag Swag like Caillou
Bioshock is amazing and always has been, hehe. I didn't watch a whole The Last of Us walkthrough, but as far as I know, it's not an FPS. It's a Third Person Shooter. People say FPSs suck now, because all the original ones were so immortalized, that all the older gaming generation doesn't even give the new stuff a chance. I can't really think of what you mean in FPSs sucking nowadays, because they haven't been around for that long, and there's always been several excellent FPSs to keep it going. Games like Bioshock, keep it going. I also don't see the big problem with Battlefield. It's a good game. It doesn't make the game suck as a whole because some people prefer a story over multiplayer.Originally Posted by Jacob
I'll honestly take either of the two. A good story will immerse you in moods, feelings, lives, and still keeping good gameplay. A good multiplayer will immerse you in action, keep you aware, and make you competitive. No FPS has both features and nails them.
Personally, I don't really like Cod or BF3, I play CounterStrike on my PC. And one of the only things good about FPSs is how easy it is to grief. Also I just realized that TLOU was third person, I didn't play the game so sorry about that.
CS is a good game ^_^
Fish reacting! woah..........
its just like Mario!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote