News - Battlefield 3 to lock horns with Modern Warfare 3 in end of year battle

Quote:

---

Two big franchises set to go head-to-head this Christmas?

---

Read more.

The only FPS this year that is worth looking at imho is RO2:Heroes of Stalingrad. The two you mentioned are arcade hop fests for the kiddies :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nn

The only FPS this year that is worth looking at imho is RO2:Heroes of Stalingrad. The two you mentioned are arcade hop fests for the kiddies :)

---

No serious gamer likes WW2 FPS mate!

Wonder who are going to be making MW3, InfinityWard or Treyarch. If Treyarch, then :wallbash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

No serious gamer likes WW2 FPS mate!

Wonder who are going to be making MW3, InfinityWard or Treyarch. If Treyarch, then :wallbash:

---

IW,TRY and Sledgehammer IIRC?

Hmmm Well Battlefield looks like a pretty sweet game. and there is a lot of fallout in COD fans from the recent release of Black Ops (cus its crap) But i still think MW3 will pull out on top. the Modern Warfare series has the most loyal Call of Duty fans, and the most loyal fan base in general. I think with the right marketing (like MW2) the MW3 will blow Battlefield 3 out of the water. Lets just hope Raven, Sledgehammer, and whats left of Infinity Ward can make this game happen, and meet my highest expectations. Modern Warfare for Life BABY!

In my opinion the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchise have both been great head to head contenders. With Call of Duty you get the instant in your face, raw, true grit experience that the world has faithfully come to love. With Battlefield you get the full war zone experience, whether your flying across a sand dune is an attack helicopter, or your blowing up buildings and everyone in it with a tank you can operate! Oh, and how can you forget the fact that the maps are gi-normus!! Either way they have there perks.

With that said, I feel that the problem EA is facing is that they came too late in the game. Lets face it, the Call of Duty franchise totally reshaped the way a FPS should be made and played. Not to mention the fact that they have, yes, monopolized the FPS military genre all together. Needless to say, EA has there work cut out for them.

There is light at the end of the tunnel! EA announced in an issue of Game Informer Magazine that they have a new weapon in the war on gaming. A new graphics engine that promises to bring them back into the fight as a world-class contender in the gaming industry. Lets face it, when you looked at BC2, it was awesome, but the graphics were sub-par to say the least. You can't blame them though, when you have maps as big as they are, there will have to be some compromise. But, if EA holds true to there word, they shall compromise no more.

LOL I was obviously wasting my time. I showed you a game with some real gameplay, made entirely for the pc by people who love pc fps games.

All you are talking is graphics and marketing......

Good luck with EA, Treyarch et al doing anything other than maximizing profits and enjoy those console ports :)

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you have always got :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

No serious gamer likes WW2 FPS mate!

Wonder who are going to be making MW3, InfinityWard or Treyarch. If Treyarch, then :wallbash:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terbinator

IW,TRY and Sledgehammer IIRC?

---

From what I can make out there is IW and Sledgehammer doing the singleplayer and Raven is on the Multiplayer. Tbh I am done with CoD, generally FPS games in general, my money would be on battlefield 3 as being the better of the two games. Although you know CoD will be the run and gun and battlefield will be the more tactical team based game so I suppose it all depends on what you are looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nn

LOL I was obviously wasting my time. I showed you a game with some real gameplay, made entirely for the pc by people who love pc fps games.

All you are talking is graphics and marketing......

Good luck with EA, Treyarch et al doing anything other than maximizing profits and enjoy those console ports :)

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you have always got :rolleyes:

---

Im looking forward to RO2 quite a bit :)

Im also looking forward to BF3 though, im not wasting anymore money on COD games.

After the POS that is mw2 and bo My money is going on BF3.

I hope BF3 pwns the crap out of MW3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nn

LOL I was obviously wasting my time. I showed you a game with some real gameplay, made entirely for the pc by people who love pc fps games.

All you are talking is graphics and marketing......

Good luck with EA, Treyarch et al doing anything other than maximizing profits and enjoy those console ports :)

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you have always got :rolleyes:

---

*cough* Brink *cough* :D

MW3 will outsell BF3 2:1, if not more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trash Man

MW3 will outsell BF3 2:1, if not more.

---

Indeed it will as it will have its fanboys again queuing up for the lastest installment. No doubt more Steam groups boycotting the game then pre-ordering it in the same second. It's a shame as Battlefield brings a lot more to the table, however CoD has its uses for those quick run and gun gaming sessions.

Personally though, recently I have stopped playing CoD as much and now spend around 80% of the time playing Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Vietnam, much prefer the longer team based gameplay.

for christ sakes, people still play that god awful pathetic piece of game series called COD? it losts its way after mw1.

no new features/innovations since mw1. rubbish boring game.

BF3 in the other hand i have a feeling it will be a console port/BC3 instead of a fully fledged BF game. i think all they done was upted the graphics a bit and stuck on 64 players and renamed it as battlefield 3 instead of bad company 3.

All thanks to the consoles.

here's hoping im wrong. IMO its about time BF had 128 player battles. not 64. so far i have not seen any progression from BF2 to BF3. Again if BF3 turns out to be BC3 with more players then i wont bother and i will stick to arma 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nn

The only FPS this year that is worth looking at imho is RO2:Heroes of Stalingrad. The two you mentioned are arcade hop fests for the kiddies :)

---

Thanks for the tip - if they can come up with a decent single-player "story" then I'll gladly sign on - be nice to give my current rig something more strenuous than web/mail and MP3 ripping. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

No serious gamer likes WW2 FPS mate!

Wonder who are going to be making MW3, InfinityWard or Treyarch. If Treyarch, then :wallbash:

---

Sorry I'm going to disagree x2 here. First point, if the game's good then what does it matter if you've got a Kar98 or AK47 in your hand? But then again, I'll admit to bias - I still like CoD2! :o

Next point - first off, everyone's saying that IW are now a zombie shadow of what they were, so the chances of them generating something good is not high, especially with Activision chasing the dollar. Secondly, they're responsible for MW2 - a truly awful game (and this from someone who counts himself as a major league CoD fanboy). Thirdly MW2 v's BO - no contest - for the SP that I play, BO just had a better story, and was more involving to boot. Coincidentally I actually enjoyed having a couple of shots of MP in BO (the mountain top radar station level), but definitely didn't enjoy the single try I had at MW2's MP.

As to MW3 v's BF3 - I'll reserve judgement until closer to the time. I didn't get BF/BF2, although borrowed a copy of the latter, on the other hand I thought the Bad Company games were just superb. I'll definitely buy a copy of MW3 (because of fan boyness), but I'd be willing to be persuaded that BF3 might be worth a go too. Don't think I'll be buying the "special edition" variant of either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

Thanks for the tip - if they can come up with a decent single-player "story" then I'll gladly sign on - be nice to give my current rig something more strenuous than web/mail and MP3 ripping. ;)

Sorry I'm going to disagree x2 here. First point, if the game's good then what does it matter if you've got a Kar98 or AK47 in your hand? But then again, I'll admit to bias - I still like CoD2! :o

Next point - first off, everyone's saying that IW are now a zombie shadow of what they were, so the chances of them generating something good is not high, especially with Activision chasing the dollar. Secondly, they're responsible for MW2 - a truly awful game (and this from someone who counts himself as a major league CoD fanboy). Thirdly MW2 v's BO - no contest - for the SP that I play, BO just had a better story, and was more involving to boot. Coincidentally I actually enjoyed having a couple of shots of MP in BO (the mountain top radar station level), but definitely didn't enjoy the single try I had at MW2's MP.

As to MW3 v's BF3 - I'll reserve judgement until closer to the time. I didn't get BF/BF2, although borrowed a copy of the latter, on the other hand I thought the Bad Company games were just superb. I'll definitely buy a copy of MW3 (because of fan boyness), but I'd be willing to be persuaded that BF3 might be worth a go too. Don't think I'll be buying the "special edition" variant of either.

---

I'm guessing your playing BO on Xbox huh? BO is horrible on PS3, obviously because its a lousy port. For most PS3 users, MW2 vs BO, MW2 wins by a land slide. As for SP gameplay, both of them aren't good for me. I've never been a fan of SP modes where all you do is follow something the whole time. I love to free roam and do my own thing.

Can't wait for BF3 though. Just saw a gameplay video and looked pretty good (SP is going to be follow the leader of course -.-)

This could either be a massive commercial failure for the Battlefield series, or they will stand up well on their own, since hopefully they won't be "up against" COD.

It's all down to which game they decide to make and release...will they make it Battlefield 3? Or will they continue to rip out all the features and feel of the Battlefield series, and release "Battlefield 3: Bad Company". If the latter then they may as well give up now..I won't be buying it and nor will anyone else who's been looking forward to it. Bad enough that commander mode has been removed, using the Frostbite engine is risky..but we'll have to wait and see when the beta is out later this year.

So in short, if it's true battlefield, it will sell bucketloads on the PC and will definitely top the charts there. If they release BC3 instead (with the BF name) then it will be a flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

So in short, if it's true battlefield, it will sell bucketloads on the PC and will definitely top the charts there. If they release BC3 instead (with the BF name) then it will be a flop.

---

It wont be a flop,

I was a big BF vietnam, BF2, 2142 player with over 2000 hours clocked up between them, since then I've got married and had 3 kids, I cant afford to upgrade my pc to play BF3 and that's why I mainly play the console these days, BFBC2 with me mates has been shedloads of fun and so will BF3,
I will be getting it on the ps3 and will be playing with me mates, There are a handful of friends who own top notch pc's but I just cant afford an upgrade.

So for the likes of me, BF3 on the console is going to work and work very well, any improvment on BFBC2 will be great as I love that game.

I cant see myself playing a game like BF2 on the console, 128 players with jets.. I'm content with that, It would be nice to have BF3 just like BF2 in scale (pc version) but I wouldnt ever get to enjoy those fruits so I'm happy with 24 player BFBC2 and I'll be happy with 24 player BF3.

As for COD I stopped playing once I got to 70 on MW2.. The only cod action I see is nazi zombies when I round a friends house and thats on WAW lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtech

I cant afford to upgrade my pc to play BF3 and that's why I mainly play the console these days, BFBC2 with me mates has been shedloads of fun and so will BF3, I will be getting it on the ps3 and will be playing with me mates, There are a handful of friends who own top notch pc's but I just cant afford an upgrade. So for the likes of me, BF3 on the console is going to work and work very well, any improvment on BFBC2 will be great as I love that game.

---

Yes, same here - my poor ole single core Athlon just wasn't up to the job, so I thought "sod it" and went console gamer instead. Okay, now I've got a hex-core rig maybe it's a good time to head back to PC instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtech

As for COD I stopped playing once I got to 70 on MW2.. The only cod action I see is nazi zombies when I round a friends house and thats on WAW lol.

---

Funny you should say that - because W@W is another Treyarch production - maybe they aren't as "lame" as some of the CoD-crew keep saying? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWizz

I'm guessing your playing BO on Xbox huh? BO is horrible on PS3, obviously because its a lousy port. For most PS3 users, MW2 vs BO, MW2 wins by a land slide. As for SP gameplay, both of them aren't good for me. I've never been a fan of SP modes where all you do is follow something the whole time. I love to free roam and do my own thing.

---

Yep, sorry - I'm on Xbox :embarrassed:
I'm going to disagree a bit here - BO isn't a sandbox game, but neither is it CoD3 "running on rails" either. That said, I'm going to agree with gtech - BC2 probably wasn't sandbox either, but it's SP was more free roaming than BO or MW2.

I wouldn't worry about the SP modes though - the way things are going I can foresee that these'll disappear and we'll end up with "online MP only" games, perhaps with a dedicated "training" mode. This is great news for folks who are all clanned up, or those who like PvP deathmatch, but for folks like me who like that story-driven "you v's the machine" experience it'll be a sad day. :'(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtech

It wont be a flop,

---

I'm talking in terms of the PC here - clearly battlefield doesn't work on a console (and I wouldn't want to play it on one!)..and I say a flop as if they go down the bad company route, they are effectively making it compete with Call of Duty directly, but without the advantage of a reasonable single player mode.
The bad company series has nothing to do with the battlefield series, so in that sense it would be an instant flop as "battlefield 3" would never exist, it would be "Battlefield: bad company 3".

I and many many others would be very dissapointed, but it wouldn't be a big shock for EA to sell us out yet again!

Why is using the Frostbite engine risky? It's a mightily impressive game engine.

i would say using frostbite is a lot less risky than trying to develop a new engine, trying to get their older engine up to scratch or redesigning a different engine to fit the purpose. I think frostbite is excellent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terbinator

Why is using the Frostbite engine risky? It's a mightily impressive game engine.

---

May lose the "feel" of the previous BF games and feel too much like BC. If it's not already clear by now thats my biggest worry about it..and the engine can have a huge impact on how a game plays/feels.

Yea BC feels like COD!

i dont knwo what version of BC you have been playing but mine feels nothing like COD :/