Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I prefer Gak ops to Modern Whorefare, but they are both essentialy the same exact game.

I love both of the games but I love

a) MW3 for its single player
b) BF3 for its multiplayer

I've been away for a while, so I'll try to catch myself and you up:

Laser designators shown in thunder run- but a different type.

F-bombs aplenty in the BF3 campaign... which looks nearly as promising as MW's! And the multiplayer still looks great for both...

If you pre-order, get BF3 and the map pack that comes with.

will anyone else get the psychical warfare pack as well? i might just cause i like the type 88...no one makes it like the chinese make em

Can you put that in simpler terms for me?

LordofHats wrote:The FPS is meaningless. The Human eye can't notice FPS higher than 40. 30 is unlikely to negatively impact gameplay. Most people probably won't notice there's a difference at all.

The Graphics dragoon has now evolved into the FPS dragon. Intriguing.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html


The thing is that most humas cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps while gaming unless fps isn't stable.

I could care less about FPS, I just want my game to run smoothly and have good mechanics. If either can do that, I'm sold. That said, I will still, with the new info, pre-order BF3.

I only came to Battlefield 2 recently, I played CoD before. At the moment I have to say that I prefer CoD over Battlefield when it comes to playing the main game, HOWEVER, I definitely prefer Battlefield Online. I feel it plays better, no just a group of players running around shooting each other. I don't if it's just me, but the scenery in CoD seems to of been designed to not give proper cover. You hide behind something and be protected from one angle, but any other angle and you're wide open.

Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:I could care less about FPS, I just want my game to run smoothly and have good mechanics. If either can do that, I'm sold. That said, I will still, with the new info, pre-order BF3.

And no sense was made that day. You don't care about FPS but you want the game to run smoothly?

iproxtaco wrote:

Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:I could care less about FPS, I just want my game to run smoothly and have good mechanics. If either can do that, I'm sold. That said, I will still, with the new info, pre-order BF3.

And no sense was made that day. You don't care about FPS but you want the game to run smoothly?

As in he doesnt care whether it runs at 60 or 30fps, just aslong as it doesnt jump around, and tbh I agree with him.

That's not quite what he said. He wants the game to run smoothly, but doesn't care about FPS. I think he would care once it started to "jump around" due to low FPS.

Wolfstan wrote: I don't if it's just me, but the scenery in CoD seems to of been designed to not give proper cover. You hide behind something and be protected from one angle, but any other angle and you're wide open.

Correct. The designers in their diaries specifically made MW2 more vertical so that you have to watch multiple angles even when behind cover. There are relatively few "safe" spots without placing claymores. Incidentally, they're changing that back in MW3. They said they want more gun on gun action as opposed to getting killed from a hidden camping spot halfway across the map or with a killstreak.

warboss wrote:

Wolfstan wrote: I don't if it's just me, but the scenery in CoD seems to of been designed to not give proper cover. You hide behind something and be protected from one angle, but any other angle and you're wide open.

Correct. The designers in their diaries specifically made MW2 more vertical so that you have to watch multiple angles even when behind cover. There are relatively few "safe" spots without placing claymores. Incidentally, they're changing that back in MW3. They said they want more gun on gun action as opposed to getting killed from a hidden camping spot halfway across the map or with a killstreak.

Now hold a second, in the favela map in MW2 there is a leaf that will grant you cover against bullets.

I still play BF2 with my friend. I skipped Bad Company. And MW3 wont have zombies. You know my pick.

I'm not interested in either game

Call of duty really makes me rage quit the game most of the time, I spend more time getting mad at the players and how much I suck that I rarely have fun in CoD's multiplayer. I may pick it up to finish the campaign, but if the multiplayer makes me rage quit again like usual, I'm selling it
Battlefield 3 looks very promising. but I've never liked the feel of Battlefield, I don't play a lot of shooters on the computer so that should explain that.


I'm going to buy space marine ASAP, I want the collector's edition too

DickBandit wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Thats what happens when the script writers use wikipedia as a source of jargon.

Civilians act like the military uses this complex language littered by incomprehensible hand gestures, every word being spoken in acronyms like a slowed internet monkey, and speaking in math equations to describe where the enemy is located.

I'll let y'all in on a little something.

First off with the movie movie Battle LA:
"WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE *EFF-OH-BEE!!!"
...No, just no. I'd punch you if you said that. FOB is simply pronounced as it looks. Say "bob" but with an F

Modern Whorefare
"We're OSCAR MIKE!!"
Oscar who?
"OSCAR MIKE"
You did what to Mike?
"OSCAR MIKE"
You stole my bike?

...Just say "We're moving" or "We're leaving"

Y'all want to know the most commonly used word in the US Military?
The F word. I'm serious. It describes everything. Start dropping F Bombs and I will instantly know what you're talking about.

You don't spend enough time around civvies then, it really is a different language if you're talking bout military related things. Trying to carry out a conversation with my friends in the military while around civs is next to impossible, having to pause next to every third or fourth word to explain some sort of acronym or term.

And lets not forget the weird look you get when you say hooah/oorah.

Really the only difference between hollywood and real life is that hollywood overuses everything. Whereas you might here someone use one of the numerous slang terms, etc. every once in a blue moon in real life, its every third word in a movie or game... the only exception to this is hooah, which can be and is used in almost every sentence by some.

Boring Bland Generic Modern-Military First Person Shooter or Boring Bland Generic Modern-Military First Person Shooter?

Take a third option: SPACE MARINE!

Melissia wrote:Boring Bland Generic Modern-Military First Person Shooter or Boring Bland Generic Modern-Military First Person Shooter?

Take a third option: SPACE MARINE!

Luckily the latter is coming out first! I only need one modern military shooter every 2 years and don't jump on the COD/BF madden release schedule BOTH publishers are pushing. My friends seem like they're leaning towards BF but the seasonal news of EA closing down servers that don't actively make them money (like even the '10 sports games!!!) is not encouraging. I want MORE than 2 years of multiplayer out of my game as I tend to play shooters for a few months and then come back to them cyclically 6-8 months later. As a side note, the multiplayer Space marine details are being released tomorrow.

There has been Battlefield every year for the last 9 years? That's new to me.

iproxtaco wrote:There has been Battlefield every year for the last 9 years? That's new to me.

Then you're not paying attention too closely.

From the Battlefield wiki page...




Battlefield release timeline


2011
Battlefield 3

2011
Battlefield Play4Free

2010
Battlefield Online

2010
Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam

2010
Battlefield: Bad Company 2

2009
Battlefield 1943

2009
Battlefield Heroes

2008
Battlefield: Bad Company

2007
Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike

2006
Battlefield 2142

2006
Battlefield 2: Armored Fury

2006
Battlefield 2: Euro Forces

2005
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat

2005
Battlefield 2: Special Forces

2005
Battlefield 2

2004
Battlefield Vietnam

2003
Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII

2003
Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome

2002
Battlefield 1942





Some of the earlier ones are expansions but there is a proper game released in the series roughly every year averaged out and both companies have publicly stated in the past few years that they want to monetize their respective series on a yearly basis.

I've been proved wrong, although I haven't exactly said you were absolutely wrong.

Modern Warfare will win on sales figures.
Battlefield 3 will be the better game.

I find the one Problem with Battlefield 3 is that in BF2, BF2142 (awesome game) and the Bad Company series people were cruel and heartless about reviving you already but now you must first drag the dead guy to cover... people are not going to do that. Oh and if BF3 requires you to HAVE an online account to play At all, does NOT have an instant action option and does not have a nice and easy LAN option than i'm not gonna get it. I looking forward for MW3 cause I love the Campaign in MW2 and CoD4 but BFBC2 campaign Sucked... it just SUCKED!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is Battlefield 1943 every coming to PC? I like those classic WW2 games that have been remade

Nightfall wrote:I find the one Problem with Battlefield 3 is that in BF2, BF2142 (awesome game) and the Bad Company series people were cruel and heartless about reviving you already but now you must first drag the dead guy to cover...

I'll do it (if I'm playing soldier class). That was one of the main reasons why I (and many others) rarely revived people, its the middle of the firefight, I shock the guy and he's dead again within seconds. Generally if you're in the 'back' and theres a medic nearby they would rev you pretty quickly because you weren't going to get shot again instantly.

I'll get both, but BF3 is bringing much more to the table, MW3 will be the same old, same old, which is fine I guess since it's extremely popular as it is and people will buy anything with Call of Duty written on it.

When reviving gets you as much as a kill, and is easier, well, I'll do it every chance I get!

MrH wrote:I'll get both, but BF3 is bringing much more to the table, MW3 will be the same old, same old, which is fine I guess since it's extremely popular as it is and people will buy anything with Call of Duty written on it.

Like what? It's not like its vehicles are anythign new, other games have done THAT better. It's the same old settings, too.

Neither. Gears of War 3.

Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!

Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!

Ahh that stinks. I work in the gaming industry so I can give you a little sight into both games without revealing too much. I'd say it truly depends on what you plan on geting the game for. Battlefield 3 will be GREAT. Especially if you plan on playing it on PC. The console version will also be awesome but the PC version will be good as well. Modern Warfare 3 is going to be GREAT as well. But you get a different COD just about every year. I expect some great innovations out of the new one but I still think this year is all about Battlefield 3.