GamersNewsFeed writes: "The main reason Battlefield 3 will not outshine and defeat Modern Warfare 3 is due to Call of Duty’s reputation."
In addition to battlefield, other FPSs have been written off aswell because of the grip COD has on the industry. Rainbow six, ARMA, Counter Strike, etc. all good games overshadowed by the game that is COD. Battlefield won't eclipse cod in sales because COD has become a cultural phenomenon. It has been referenced in movies, TV shows, and music. If that isn't representative of how far cod's reach is, it's that it has sold better than hit blockbuster movies. It's a shame that so many shooters are compared to cod, and rated accordingly, but that's the effect of having a monopoly shooter.
The problem is with the use of the wrod "Better". Battlefield 3 may indeed be a 'better' all round game. However it will not have 'better' sales numbers. Are we now a generation of gamers that buy games because of sales numbers, or do we buy games because of better gaming experiences? The real question should be, will MW3 offer a better all round gaming experience than BF3?
Hufanpuf has a point. we buy stuff for its popularity. like he said we see COD everywhere now movies,tv shows, etc. Even your friends make you buy the game because you want to play with them. Battlefield, counter strike, rainbow six, etc are all good games and will still be good games but COD might be the same game every year just different skin guns and maps but it will never be beat in sales. For me im no COD fan after COD4 i tried playing but didnt like the rest so i stood with BF3 and so far i love it.
I really think you all are thinking to much into it we had games like Mario,and now they have games like Cod simple. "will MW3 offer a better all round gaming experience than BF3?" As much as you may hate the fact.To some people yes,For some people COD is what they want fast,quick,easy gameplay jump in have some fun,and jump out with out a big learning curve.Some people arn't looking for a war sim. There are a lot of reasons why people like COD,Huge MP fanbase,quick games,always tuns of people playing at all hours,game modes like zombies and fun MP game modes,small fast paced maps,all your friends play it,a new game every year,DLC. Reasons to hate cod Lag,disconnections/host migration,Spawntrapping and Campers(every gamem has them,just sayin),a new game every year,DLC. I like BF3 as much as everyone but I do think it has a few flaws even for such a great game but so dose cod and I have never felt like any game was perfect and bug free.You may have to work harder in BF but you still have to try hard to be good in COD sure it's easier to get kills in cod over BF3 but to be good at cod you do have to try and think out what your doing just like BF3/BC,and As to what game is better thats all a matter of opinion just play what you like no need to hate on each others games but the real question is who keeps approving this bait ?
Let's see, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 has a more polished single player, more fleshed out cooperative play and a more polished and accessible multiplayer. By every measurable standard, it's better than Battlefield 3. Prior games' successes has nothing to do with why Modern Warfare 3 is the better game. It just is. Battlefield 3 as a package suffers greatly from a mediocre single player, tacked on cooperative play and a multiplayer that is outshone by it's own predecessor. The game doesn't even live up to Battlefield 2. SMH at some Battlefield 3 fanboy writing an article to convince himself that the reason Battlefield 3 wont be as well received critically and commercially as Modern Warfare 3 is because of the success of previous Call of Duty games. Sure buddy. Keep sniffing glue. Battlefield 3 would have been better if it came out next March and they dumped single player and co-op because as a package, it's not any competition for Modern Warfare 3.
I for one don't buy games based on their popularity. I did buy battlefield, and I will buy mw3. But I buy games based on their fun factor, and i believe everyone else does. I find Call of duty more fun, not more realistic, not more stuff like tanks and jets, but because I find it more FUN. Call of duty may have better sales, but i find it very hard to believe that gamers buy stuff because of it's numbers. It gets really old to see articles like this still comparing these two games. Just play what you're gonna play and be happy.
I'll summarize why it won't ever be better than COD: 2 seconds respawn.
i am from the uk but live in france. yesterday mw3 went on sale in shop near where i live, and the queue was enormous all day!!! cod has become an animal! personally, i will wait and see if i will buy it. but for every fanturd on n4g that slags this game off in every thread, there are millions out there that love it. cod is a pick up and play shooter, it doesnt require hours and hours of practice to become good at, and is accesible. that is why the game sells millions and millions. to some people, cod is a great game, that offers limitless on-line fun. and can reward highly for very little time investment. whereas a game like halo takes a long time to become good at, and even then you can be sure that you will go into a game and find someone who will hand you your arse time and time again. at the mo i am stuck into bf3. my on-line pals are on-fire, and our squad or squads when we have more than 4 in a party chat/server (360 im palying this on) are buzzing. in one game of conquest friday nite, me and one of my pals scored over 9k each in the ROUND... that was before the ribbons score was added. bf3 is too much team focused to become a game that can rival in sales cod! im not saying which is better because frankly, they are totally different on-line experiences, and should be considered as such.
in real life, noobs outnumber the good ones several folds. so...CoD is catering to the noobs while BF stays with the good ones! guess which one will sell more?
People are Simple.. They want Eazy Kills, you actually have to try in Battlefield, Thats The Sad Reason People wont Give in That They Suck at Life
Yeah, the part about people being simple and wanting easy kills is definitely true but I mean, they are having fun getting those easy kills, and that is the point of video games right? To have fun? I'm betting a lot of cod players don't have the time for other games so they don't really have time to get skilled with anything else, so they just go with what's easy. Yeah, people who only play cod are pretty lame, but saying they suck at life is going a bit too far.
If People Were in it for the "FUN" then people would have Accepted more Cheats instead of Trophies or Acheivements, they Wouldnt Be Hell Bent in trying to one up each other in there GamerScore ....... .. GTA SAN ANDREAS was a million times funner with Cheats, but if it was forced to play without them in a Compition to Beat it the Fastest or Hardest, it be slightlier less Fullfilling
"they Wouldnt Be Hell Bent in trying to one up each other in there GamerScore" I've never seen a single occasion of this, in real life or even on the internet. Besides, what do trophies and achievements have to do with this? ". GTA SAN ANDREAS was a million times funner with Cheats, but if it was forced to play without them in a Compition to Beat it the Fastest or Hardest, it be slightlier less Fullfilling" True, but that has nothing to do with Call of Duty. Call of Duty pretty much has built in cheats (heavy aim assist, lag compensation, smooth framerate and controls, fast paced), and that's pretty much what makes it fun for people. They can hop on any time and have fun instantly without having to spend 2 hours mastering the controls again. Sure, they're lazy gamers, but then again, they're probably not gamers to begin with, so just because they don't have good games in their collection doesn't mean they suck at life.
I concur with you on that one.Simple is mindless and a brainless while BF3 is strategic and team base with a lot of thinking of how are you going to do the next objective with your team.Sorry quality over quantity is the best way to describe BF3 to MWF3 not how BF3 is not better then MWF3.The good news is now I get to play against real competition and not these idiots running around by themselves with there heads cut off. Sales doesn't mean anything if your still playing the same game over and over for the last few years with out any changes.
the only thing modern warfare has is the sales number
It's the quality of the game to put it simply. Don't you think it will sell if it's not good?
Well it does have cod beat in everything but sales but just cuz cod sales a lot dosen't mean it's good.
Regardless to how much MW sells, 5 million in a week is amazing.
Dude' i don't understand why people could disagree with your statement. BF3 is truly a better game quality wise. Fanboys are way too loyal to an ip.
Doesnt' have cod beat in fun, lol. and thats what counts.
Funny, cuz I've had way more fun in the two weeks I've played BF3 than in the years I've been playing CoD since MW2.
see people keep saying "who cares its more fun." I completely disagree. I am so sick of the same old COD with idiots like "oh no scope!" For me it cant be fun because its to easy. I play, come in first, and was zoned out half the time not even knowing what was going on. Challenge adds to the fun for me and bf5 is just the better overall game. I have never heard anyone who plays cod who hasn't said they were the best cod player, which just means you can run fast and shoot quick. The problem is that its the only online game a lot of these people play and they hate trying to learn new controls on new games because with cod the never have too. And no one wants to be the one person who doesn't own cod.
So true... Fanboys are loyal. too loyal to realize that BF3 is and always will be better despite sells.
lol, Battlefield is better.
as a coaster.
I'm so glad i'm not a BF or CoD fanboy, I probably will wait a bit longer to see how MW3 turns out and then decide if i'll drop $120 on both.
Goddammit. EVERY SINGLE GAMING SITE has an article like this. These are obviously just traffic-bait. It's getting so flipping annoying.
CoD is better because it is a game to relax to and you dont have to think to play.
hate to see this guy play a zelda game.. his head would explode. lol
When I play CoD I just play I dont have to think what to do because it is so simple and any idiot can play. But When I play Zelda I have to think because it has puzzles and stuff that not everyone can do.
If you don't care about winning or losing sure you don't need to think at all,But to do well you need to think out what you are doing and use some type of strategy just like any game.
i dont like playing games online with idiots, especially idiots with mic's
Relax? I find MW kind of frustrating to play even if I am winning.
well not me i love strategy in games. me and my buddy have been tearin it up in bf just by basicly thinking and cooperating. but i guess mindless games have their place in the industry. i could never relax playin cod. people got on my nerves way too much. kinda made me feel like everyone i was playin with were lil bitches. no comradary and everyone was lookin out for themselves.
They will fall just a matter of when
One can hope.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time taking all your MW3 hate seriously when there's a giant "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" advert crammed right in to the middle of the article.
those types of ads are put up through google, not the web owner
But doesn't the web owner choose where those ads are placed? That site is absolutely overrun with annoying ads. If it's really someone else doing all the placement for them, I think I'd be finding another way.
They chose the placement, and number of ads. They don't choose the ad content.
Use Chrome and install this. It will block all those annoying ads. https://chrome.google.com/w...
Thanx man just downloaded it.Have a bub on the house.
"Battlefield 3 is easily the best shooter I've ever played. It has introduced innovative features and gameplay mechanics that have not been seen in any other shooters before." Which features and mechanics are in BF3 that were in no shooter before?
I agree with this article for the most part. Its a shame that a games is better than another just because of sales. You have to look at the quality of the game as well.
i dont think either is better they are both completly different games, MW is get up and go straight in while BF3 is more time consuming, thats how i feel, both are good.its just alot of people prefer to play for half a hour before world or whatever, you cant do that as much of BF3,perhaps on team dm, but not on rush or conquest.
Battlefield 3 for the win. Easily the best FPS game in long time. Only on PC though, console versions are BAD.
BF games are missing something that COD has, it's called fun. I don't give a f*ck how realistic a game is, or if it offers vehicles(I've always hated vehicles in any shooter online). All I care about is jumping online after a hard days work and having fun.
I agree, i got bf3 the other day and although i know it's a great game, i find the fast pace gameplay from cod more fun.
well sorry if you can't run around like a headless chicken, cuz you get shot every single time... It's a different style of game. Don't like it don't play it.
Well, take your pick. Run around like a headless chicken on smaller maps where the action is fast, intense and always on the move... or run 300m across plain desert just to get rubberbanded and sniped. I do fairly well @ Battlefield 3 but the fact is that Modern Warfare is just a better experience for those that don't want 1/2 hour matches where 10 minutes of it is spent getting to where the action is. Also, folks saying that COD has/takes no strategy are completely clueless.
BF games aren't realistic at all. There are certain design elements that are meant to give the impression of realism (Like bullet drop) but at the end of the day its no more realistic than CoD is. BF offers a different play style than CoD .You have sandbox play vs arena style play. If you prefer one over the other, thats fine, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Who cares how realistic a game is. If your focused on an objective, then you hardly notice them at all. The legend of zelda majora's mask had okay graphics and it was an awesome game. CoD for the win
Gotta love these flamebait fanboy articles
Because BF is boring large maps with too much "Nothing" in between firefights? That's my reason.
Say that again when u've played it with 64 players on pc. "no action" lmfao
That's just it though. On PC. Console Battlefield 3 just isn't in the same league as Modern Warfare. I'm sure @ 60fps on the PC with those pretty graphics it's incredible. Most of us game on consoles however and it's really no contest.
@blodulv I haven't played the console version of battlefield 3, but from what I have seen it really looks like a poor man's version. 24 players on those huge maps must indeed be boring as hell.
you haven't played it dont comment!. the maps are scaled. plenty of vehicles to go around as well
The other day I successfully captured a flag in Battlefield 3 all by myself. What a proud personal moment. Then, an enemy tank stopped right next to the flag, trying to recapture it. No problem. It doesn't have a second gunner so I'll RPG it to bits from my hiding spot. A second tank suddenly appear before I could do anything. Followed by a third one. Then, the Tunguska AA tank joined the trio. No. That's one firefight I'll have to pass. The maps in BF3 are large to prevent base rapes that were prevalent in Bad Company 2. Most of the flags are concentrated near each other right in the middle of the map. They really are not that far from each other. The big expanse surrounding them also provide a safe haven for jets to dogfight each other/auto repair from pesky AA missles.
B est F irst-Person-Shooter 3 ver (quickly types) *sv_cheats 1* *god 1* *noclip*
I don't think it matters. The whole battle between the two has gotten boring. I prefer Battlefield 3, so I'm gonna play it and enjoy it. I got no reason to talk or compare it to Modern Warfare 3. As for Modern Warfare 3. If you prefer it, play it, enjoy it, no one cares if Team Deathmatch works better than it does in Battlefield 3, or there are more kiddies to play with at 5am in the morning. Buy your game, enjoy it, and stop with the politics.
dice made battlefield 3 noob friendly for the cod gamers, in the beta i got, max, 38 kills and 12 deaths, those are cod like ratios, while when i play bad company 1 the most i get is 15 kills and 10 deaths, battlefield is no longer hardcore for me. battlefield 3 is a cod clone, there i said it no shame, TRUE battlefield veterans won't disagree with the fact that battlefield 3 is WAY more easier to play then previous battlefield games..... *continues playing bad company*
Then you just suck at Bad Company. I would go high 20s and like 4 deaths.. Yes it has become a bit more COD player friendly, however, it is still not COD.
has longer matches each time you get pushed back on rush the life count goes back up! So if you have 5 points on a map its 75-100 lifes per point for attackers and defenders have unlimited! thats near 375-500 kills per match spread by 12 people max on a team.
PC BF3 > MW3 > Console BF3
I understand what he's saying in this article, but a lot of people will just see this as flamebait. Here's the thing though: he's right. If you wait and see the ratings for MW3, I'm going to guess they will be at least a few points higher than BF3. Why? We already know this, but reviews are not only scored based on a games fun and value, but on money and popularity. No one is completely impartial (a completely impartial and unbiased review would sort of be boring, wouldn't it), but therein lies the problem. A person who loves battlefield and has played every one to date will probably rate BF3 higher than MW3. But chances are, with the sales that MW3 has and the fact that MW3 is MUCH easier to learn and play, most reviewers will have played and enjoyed a previous CoD title and, regardless of what they say or WANT to believe, this will factor into their reviews scored. Long story short -> MW3 will most likely rank higher than MW3. I myself love BF3 right now; I haven't had major problems like I thought I would, I don't hate Origin, like a lot of others do, and I don't have NEARLY as many problems with BF3 like I did with Black Ops on the ps3 at launch. The game is amazing and crazy and every game is fun. That's all that matters to me ... but the guy is right. MW3 will score higher than BF3, most likely. But I don't agree it will be "better."
I seriously laugh at the people who say, "BF3 may be a more realistic game, but it's not fun." 5 million people bought the game because it's not fun. Right. What you (the people claiming BF3 isn't fun) fail to realize is that some people actually enjoy working for their kills. Some people like using tanks, copters, and jets. Some people like strategizing and using tactics. Some people like to do more than just run around knifing others from six feet away. Some people like contributing to a victory in various ways. You enjoy Call of Duty more? That's fine. I'm happy you have a game you like. But I think it's childish and even asinine to claim BF3 isn't fun. When I hear that, my impression is that Battlefield must be too hard for you, when compared to the ease of play which Call of Duty presents. And I'm sorry you miss out on a great game because you can't or won't put in a little effort.