5 comments

1. Go fuck yourself cod fan boys

2. I like CoD, but really love playing Battlefield. Excited for what the next iteration holds, especially with new consoles and new graphics.

3. I have never played battlefield never got round to it is it good?

   1. In my opinion, and I am prior military, currently-it is the most realistic military FPS game to date. I wrote a side by side comparison on this post, check it out.

4. Battlefield 3 vs. Call of Duty, this has been the subject for bragging rights for which one of the two is better since the announcement of both games. I feel as if these 2 games should be classified in 2 categories, a Full Scale War vs. Skirmish; BF3 being the Full Scale War, and COD being Skirmish. (Yes I know the term skirmish is usually used for paintballing but those that don’t know, Skirmish is a close quarter encounter type battle, usually associated with paintballing-but I’m referring it to the close quarter battle-that’s the true definition of skirmish). The gaming industry along with gaming enthusiasts compare the 2 but in my opinion, they really should not be compared to each other because they are both 2 different types of games regardless they first person shooters or not. Let us look at COD first, it does have all the popularity on a global scale, hands down no denying that. It has a 60fps rate as well. Visuals look amazing. There is nothing bad to discredit this game except in my opinion the recycled gaming engine and the fact that there is nothing really new that stands out to go goo-goo ga-ga over. It’s basically the same running and gunning no tactics (except for camping) type of game. Also, let’s not forget to mention that it has less players on maps and the maps themselves are smaller and there is no assault/vehicle game play, those are some of the reasons why Infinity Ward was able to get a 60fps frame rate, Now let’s look at BF3, more players, huge maps, all sorts of combat simulated scenarios from air combat with jets and helicopters, to assault vehicles such as Humvees with 50cals and Tanks, to even parachuting from a crashing jet/helicopter with amazing visual and audio effects all on a rebuilt new engine, that is why DICE had to scale it down to 30fps, to be able to capture all these qualities. There are gamers who really like to play close quarter games, they don’t want to contend to being blown up by a tank or a jet flying over them, this would be more of a man to man styled playing, and there are others that wants to have a war like simulated feeling and I believe that DICE has actually captured that experience with BF3. I have yet to play any other military war like game that can even match or come close to the experience. Both these games should be played on a nice sized flat screen, 32 inches or bigger with a really nice sounding 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound systems to fully be able to embrace the experience both developers were trying to give you. In conclusion and in the end, it really is a matter of personal preference, a running and gunning Skirmish type of game, or a Full Scale War with assault vehicles included-the choice is yours to make. So please, let’s stop the whining and nagging, play your preferred game and enjoy. Stop with these ridiculous comparisons as they both hold their own unique characteristics. See you all in the crosshair of my scope-BANG!!! (HEADSHOT), you’re dead!!!