Battlefield 3

Originally posted by OneMan1Army If Call of Duty doesn't step there game up with graphics, I might as well plan to purchase this game in the fall.

I'll pretend I never seen this!

CoD may have a slight edge of graphics when it comes to trees, building and character models.  But you can't destroy buildings in CoD.  BC2 was 3 times as good as any CoD offering.  It was a good vid that Oneman linked us to, but I'm interested in seeing the same footage running on a PS3.

i know. but i would say that beter tree graphics is the only thing cod has over battlefield LOL,... well... not battlefield 3! lol

Graphics are cool, idea was cool.... but waiting 5 mins to get a kill... then getting killed and having to travel a 1000 miles just to find some again after waiting 15 secs to spawn is just dumb. Unless you have patience and alot of spare time, i think COD is better if you like action.

Originally posted by ThAtSmAtT hahaha i know right.. bad company 2 is better than COD in pretty much every aspect... so batlefield 3 will much much much more of a better than all the CODs put together... and your only gonna buy it if cod dont step up their graphics..? nothing cod can do will match battlefield lol

Originally posted by ThAtSmAtT lol yeah bad company 2 didnt exactly have amazing graphics... but this one has lol.... and in temrs of gameplay bc2 was way better.... much less flaws.. hardly any infact... and it is more realistic.. and just has more action than cod altogether.. since its more epic and alot more you can do.. as well as it hbeing more realistic lool

lol.. actually people have no where close to an equal chance... not at all... for example black ops cos of the matchmaking is not good the game can put u in games with high rank/level players who have all these perks and guns which you dont have... and the low level guns are crap compared to the higher level ones in most cases... the only game in whihc people have an equal opportunity is games like ut3/quake etc where there are no killstreaks/perks whatsoever and who wins is based entirly on someones individual skill without perks/killstreaks helping them..... battlefield has no perks and therefore more balanced as people dont have advantages... not only that.. both sides have vehicles that can be accessed at any time in battlefield... and they usually have a similar amoun of vehicles.. also its good there are no killstreaks in battlefield... i dont get why people who are doing well in a game neeeds to be rewarded with ways to get free easy kills such as dogs or heli's... they dont excactly need it... KS's promote camping.... and in CoD a team can win by a few players camping to get bkillstreaks.. and then a team is rewarded with dogs/heli's whihc pretty much is gamewinning... its too easy... on bc2 is players camp their team will lose... simple.... and the only reason people play cod alot if cos all cod done was make 1 or 2 good games... WaW and MW... then whatever game they make no matter how bad it is (MW2) people would mindlessly buy the next games in the franchise anyway... and poeple also buy it cos its such a noob friendly game and anyone can play it and take a few weeks to get good... bc2 is less populated cos it takes more skill and strategy to play... why do u think ut3 is even much less populated..? cos its probably the hardest fps on the ps3... plus bc2 has way more action... only reason people seem to think cod has alot of action is only cos the maps are smal and encounters are more frequent.. but bc2 has many more ways to kill and die.. and its larger scale... u can do more things such as fly vehicles... black ops is the first in the series in which u can actually control ur own nheli.. but thats it.. one heli... bc2 is overall more epic, fun and skill based

i just still dont get how u can say everyone has an equal oppourtunity when low level people have nothing and go against poeple who have perks which give them great advantages to someone who has no perks... and the game is not baalneced giving poeple free kills they dont need with killstreas... the game is so easy to get decent/good at and takes no real skill... most players play cheaply to rack up kills for killstreaks and win the game... the game just promotes cheap play with the setup it has..... it was even easier to gain high level killstreaks in mw2 where the kills from a killstrerak reward count towards the next killstreaks... meaning it promoteed even more camping and cheap play..... bc2 people have to work as a team to win and not go off and do their own thing plus its actually hard and takes skill... sorry for the long posts but i really do get confused as to how poeple prefer CoD over battlefield... i do play cod cos it is addicting.. dont mean that as a game its good...

Originally posted by SP61gTSupra People play Call of Duty for 1) Activision thrown more advertisement money at the last two games than any 10 games combined, and 2) It's a mainstream game now.  Popularity is the standard of mediocrity.

the answer is i would say 60% of the time lol

Well i keep seeing the trailer for this on TV and i must say im getting interested lol. Looks amazing, still like how COD is set up for multiplayer better, but never know, if the game is anything like the trailer, it might change my mind.

just check some online bc2 gameplay on youtube.. itll give u a good idea on what battlefield is like seph... its really good.. as i said.,.. apart from ut3.. battlefiled is my fave fps... and ive played alot of the fps's on ps3 lol.. and the last few secs of the trailer is online play.. but thats just a few secs lol