Battlefield 3: EA slaps down Call of Duty’s money grab

While others held out hope that it might lead to actual added value via exclusive DLC packages, others decried the naked money grab they perceived. Sure enough, given the escalating marketing war between EA’s Battlefield 3 and Activision’s Call of Duty for top dog position in the FPS realm, Battlefield 3 fans quickly found yet another reason to eagerly await the title’s release.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
movements2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

Oh no. I wasn't impressed with that LONG and BORING Tank footage. Freaking boring to the core. MW3's showing was much more enticing.

zeksta2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

And I'm sure your trolling is the reason you have 1 bubble.

Ontopic, I don't believe BF3 will dominate the market due to Cod Zombies (You know.. those people that just buy the game due to it being called "Call of Duty) and Children buying it cause their friends have it.

I however do believe it's going to make a great impact on the market, with Graphics as amazing as this and hopefully some of the BF2 Gameplay mechanics being in there, It'll be a good game.

The_Ultimate_Guy2744d ago

Actually zeksta I agree with Movements. I was writing off MW3 and eagerly anticipating BF3 (still am) but what was shown in MW3 got me really excited to buy MW3 when I wasn't initially going too. The Tank scene in BF3 was awesome but it didn't have the amount of action over the same period of time as MW3 did. I am now getting them both.

Oh, and less we forget, BF3 was being shown on a high end PC while MW3 was being shown on the 360. Big difference of hardware each game was shown on. Still waiting to see some console gameplay for BF3.

Nadasico2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

@zeksta Ok lets be honest here for a minute. BF3 has only been shown running on a high end PC. An COD's biggest market is consoles. So the graphics shown thus far really won't make much of a difference as far as consoles are concerned. Then there are people who genuinely enjoy cods play style over battlefields. The rock papers scissors balance and indefinite spawn trapping from BC2. Is not the most enticing online play for a lot of consumers.

An to the article they didn't slap down anything. If you were not still misinformed like 90% of people still seem to be. The stat tracking, clan making, group making, internet loadout pushing is all free. So they are not offering anything Elite is not offering for free.

kza2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

It will still be the same COD will sell more because the little kiddies will get there parents to buy it them but any TRUE gamer will buy Battlefield 3!!Just a shame Noobs out number the harecore.

Tank_Commander_E62744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

"The Tank scene in BF3 was awesome but it didn't have the amount of action over the same period of time as MW3 did."

So BF3 didn't have enough quicktime events in it for you to love? Gaming on rails is more your thing I see. MW3 was pathetically boring. I couldn't believe they/you thought that was impressive. And MW2 graphics... I guarantee you that the console version of BF3 will look a million times better than what we saw in MW3, hell BFBC2's graphics looked better than what IW showed yesterday.

yeah this was such a snooze fest

MW3 lol

MW3 is so far behind BF3 is not even funny.

frostypants2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

A bit of that recent footage (the one that showed the prone animation at the beginning) was from the PS3. Look at the bottom corner of the video.

As for MW3 vs. BF3, let's face is all that really matters here. And in online play, BF has SO many more "holy sh*t" moments than CoD. It's simply a function of the terrain and vehicles...there's just so much more potential for chaos. These are moments that are as exciting as any scripted event in single player. Nothing beats ducking behind an embankment, having a Humvee fly over your head, then firing a grenade into the back of it. CoD has no answer for that kind of thing.

The_Ultimate_Guy2744d ago

@ Tank_Commander_E6

You have issues in comprehension. In the amount of time that was shown, being like 15 min, there was more action regardless if MW3 had some rails in the beginning that BF3. Sorry but 5 min of off the beginning of BF3 just showed a tank driving forward in a dessert. If you think that is more epic than moving swimming in the flooded tunnels of New York where then a Nuclear Sub comes out above you then that is your opinion. To me, there was just more action within the 2 demos that were shown. That doesn't mean BF3 action is going to be the same pace as the Tank fight, I just think that DICE may not have shown the best piece to get peoples excitement up.

Also, that scene in which you saw with the tanks was all done on High End PC's. It's not fair to compare PC to Console. You wanna compare graphics yet you want to rule out the tech each game was running on. Lets see actual gameplay for BF3 on consoles and compare them to the actual gameplay of MW3 on consoles.

@ frostypants

"A bit of that recent footage (the one that showed the prone animation at the beginning) was from the PS3. Look at the bottom corner of the video. "

I know, but like you said, that was a "bit" of footage and it wasn't apart of the demo that DICE was showing off during their presentation with the Tank battle.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2744d ago
BeastlyRig2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

What is with people & their obsession with the MW2 Expansion pack?

@Below thanks!

EliteF502744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

"What is with people & their obsession with the COD4: MW Expansion pack?"

Fixed it for you.

death2smoochie2744d ago

MW3 is a tired game now. When you compare it to just early indications of BF3 you can see this right away.

e-p-ayeaH2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

Aside from the graphics was pretty boring xD

but i dont judge that on the full game.

Jezuz2744d ago

graphics are pretty bad for MW3

theonlylolking2744d ago

BF3 graphics are a step ahead of most games. MW3 looks exactly the same as Rage's crap graphics.

Moragami2744d ago

LOL. Well one was a trailer, one was a gameplay sequence. Yes, the MW3 trailer showed hundreds of objects exploding like a Michael Bay trailer.

This tank footage is an actual gameplay segment, a setup leading to a massive tank battle. A well scripted game will have moments of extreme action and moments of calm. It's called pacing.

This is probably too sophisticated a concept for the most impatient of the ADD generation such as yourself. No biggy, get CoD. You'll get a guaranteed 15 explosions every 30 seconds, so your lil' brain doesn't get bored.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2744d ago
TLG19912744d ago

BF3 doesnt't even need to release and it has beat call of duty, paint drying on a wall beat call of duty.

lukasbolander2744d ago

Personally, I'm not looking forward to MW3 or Battlefield 3.

Skyrim and Batman Arkham City are all I need.

Tachyon_Nova2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

So MW3 gets panned for being boring an unoriginal but BF3 shows a tank scene with 3 minutes of sitting in the gun of a tank driving along with nothing to do, then the tank stopping, then shooting some other tanks in the distance gets appluaded like it is the second coming. At least in the MW3 footage where they are taking the submarine you have to avoid mines during the transportation phase of the mission.

Please, when you guys get over your obvious biases, rewatch the BF3 footage and get back to me.

Baka-akaB2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

lol it didnt felt like you truly have to avoid stuff , or that its even challenging to do so .

At least the tank was getting some damage .

Besides i dont get the complaint for the tank sequence , it's was to display engine stuff mostly ...

There is a rather great mp trailer right after on e3 stages , and the first trailer before the tank teased some awesome action sequences with loads of destruction , that seems far more impressive than even that mw3 intro (wich was quite good mind you)

Tachyon_Nova2744d ago

The destruction was hidden behind far too much dust and smoke to get any idea how good it actually was. The MP trailer they showed during the EA E3 conference was a waste of time and only showed 1 or 2 second cut aways of gameplay. The sad part was they introduced the trailer as showing 'you guys' what BF3's multiplayer is all about. I couldn't see what the hell was going on, I have no idea what the object of the game was, and indeed the focus seemed to be on killing people only which is not what a true Battlefield game is about, that is what Call of Duty is about.

The tank sequence was not to display engine stuff, that could have all happened in half the time. They actually thought it would be a good idea to make you sit in a tank for a long time driving somewhere, makes the outlook for the game somewhat bleak if you ask me, and that is coming for a huge Battlefield fan (roughly 1000 hours logged in the series) and veteran.

Baka-akaB2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

except it was to display the engine . You just happen to not like the way they did it .

And i still stand behind the feeling that those short clips (god that buzzing sound effect was aggravating thought) showed enough to destroy what i saw of mw3 so far .

And again there are other trailers to show more . Wich is precisely why no one made a fuss about it

iistuii2744d ago

N4G's, what do you expect. Your of course right, but that won't stop them.

death2smoochie2744d ago

That portion is to show the game engine.
There are other trailers that show more interaction.

TheGameFoxJTV2744d ago

Explosions =/= good gameplay. lol, at least the Tank footage made since and wasn't a bunch of random events followed by Explosions.

Tachyon_Nova2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

You want to go down the incoherent footage filled with a bunch of expliosions path? You just lost that war.

Also, @ your comment below - BF2142 was a PC specific game and got next to no support in way of content and bug fixes, so how do you explain that?

Edit 2: There are at least 4 explosions by my count in 23 or so seconds of gameplay. Thats one every 6 seconds. MW3 is in the middle of a world war, would you not expect there to be a sh*t load of explosions? Even so, I didn'ty count 100 explosions in the MW3 footage, so BF3 still loses if we work with a rate of 9-10 explosions/minute.

TheGameFoxJTV2744d ago (Edited 2744d ago )

Ok, take some multiplayer teaser with about 3 explosions max, and compare it to the 10-13 minute cod trailer that was ALL explosions. Yup, I totally lost. ha

Edit: and at least the explosions in Battlefield make since since they actually do damage unlike the non-destructible environments in CoD games. Also, BF2142 still had stat tracking, and bug fixes when needed so It still had more support than CoD games. Just cause they didn't charge $15 for 3 maps every five months isn't a bad thing.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2744d ago
tdrules2744d ago

Hey EA, hate on MW3 by all means.
But if you pull a Bad Company and stop supporting the game after 6 months and don't add any extra maps whatsoever you're just as bad.
Battlefield 2 had Special Forces, Euro Force and Armored Fury.
That is the minimum you should add on to Battlefield 3 in its lifetime hmm k?

TheGameFoxJTV2744d ago

BC2 was a dumb ass console game, BF2 was a BF game. See the difference? Console Specific, vs PC specific.

tdrules2744d ago

BF2 was PC exclusive, BF3 is not.
hence the worry.
don't forget which platform brought in the cancer of DLC...

Show all comments (40)