Thread: CoD:MW3

I'm not saying I won't like Modern Warfare 3. I enjoyed Call of Duty 4 for what the then TTP brought to it. Order, communication, and tactics. I learned some of my best tactics from Call of Duty 4, and I have to actually thank the game for that. If I didn't care so much about teamplay, I would play Modern Warfare 3.

Unfortunately, you're at TPG. We ARE the self-styled leaders of teamplay. Modern Warfare 3 attempts to do everything in its power to undermine the concept of teamplay, and that's why some people hate it, especially from the TPG point of view. I don't typically let my TPG view get in the way of my personal view. My personal view of MW3 says "Look how they screwed up Modern Warfare 2. Activision/Infinity Ward/Treyarch only care about the money."

As of late, my personal view of BF3 says "EA and DICE have REALLY fumbled the ball with Bad Company 2 and Medal of Honor 2010. Battlefield 3 is a step in the right direction, but they're not appealing to the fans in the greatest way. They're competing with a player base (Call of Duty's) that doesn't even care about the game. In order to win those people on the fence, they need to stick to their roots and build a game based solely on what Battlefield 2 stressed: Squad/Commander mechanics and all-out warfare."

As for the "elitist PC gamers" issue, most PC gamers started their online careers in a Battlefield Game. Most console gamers started their online careers in a Call of Duty game. Both sides think the other is elitist, because neither side was raised on the same games. That's not to say there aren't people who are in the middle, they just aren't horribly popular on either side for obvious reasons.

While I'm addressing issues, the reason Call of Duty and Battlefield are compared to each other so much is because they're the two leading multiplayer FPS's. Battlefield dominated early online gaming ever since BF1942. Call of Duty had a smaller console base (Mostly because early on, global multiplayer wasn't possible for consoles) in the past, but now that Xbox 360s and PS3s can connect to the internet, their player bases have exploded. Unfortunately, the case of comparing apples to oranges does apply, but when you're competing for a PAYING player base, the two fruits all of a sudden look the same.

And as a personal note, I hold nothing against you N-Ur-Face. It's just been a while since I've had the opportunity to debate.

I disagree with the "most PC gamers started on BF game" statement. I think the majority of us started on a Quake game, Counter Strike or Diablo. I personally truely started on UT04 so... But I do see the point behind it.

Also, I understand that we are at TPG. But when do we draw the line and decide to begin liking games because they are fun games and not because a community has deemed it playable or not? I only play L4D2 with TPG now. I used to CSS/L4D. So I, as an individual, play some games with the community and others without. CoD would be one without. At the same time, RO would be one that I'd play it a little with the guys. Maybe BF3 as well if it wasn't the same as the BC2 server. So, what I'm saying is that if you, YOU (whoever is reading this. This is to YOU), choose not to play games because TPG won't be there so be it. That's your opinion/well-being and I will not begin to take away from that. But to bash a game because it doesn't fit the play style of a community of people is arrogant, is it not? You are able to distinguish the view. Others here seem to not be able to do so. And the typical "no new contenty" rant is old and stupid and that's all everyone keeps going back to.

In the end I actually think both of these games will be fun in their own ways. CoD will be a mindless shooter where I can make 12 year olds rage and BF3 will be a tactical shooter where killing someone in a helicopter because I flew perfectly has a real sense of accomplishment. I just get so tired of them being compared so closely when they are, going back to my analogy used before, like cats and dogs to another. Similar in many ways but entire differing as well.

Also, I have nothing against you as well. (Although I could see how some in 5th might seem to think a little otherwise but I'll tay out of that, and have, for a good reason) Debating is fun, so long as it's not mindless. Actually I really like that you made that list earlier, lol. I do NOT have the patience to do that.

Considering the history TPG has with CoD...I'd say no

Originally Posted by N-Ur-Face

Also, you listed a few things for BF3 that are in BC/BC2 but I won't get too specific.

He was comparing BF2 to BF3 :P

I know this. But there's things there that were in other Battlefields. If CoD gets ragged on for reusing all it's stuff from other CoD games, BF can as well.

But he knows what I meant.

Originally Posted by N-Ur-Face

I know this. But there's things there that were in other Battlefields. If CoD gets ragged on for reusing all it's stuff from other CoD games, BF can as well.

He only compared CoD 4 to MW3...?

Notice in my responding post that list I said BOTH lists are a little off. Go back. Reread that please. And notice that. Because I acknowledged that. When you take and break down the lists, NEITHER game really has that many new things. That's cold hard truth. Of course, there are also things that are not on those lists (as I said in the same post mentioned beofre, MW3 isn't attributed with new maps. This was the only thing I personally noticed).

I don't think I'll be getting Modern Warfare 3 in the first place. I don't have a lot of time this fall for games and CS:S and GoW 3 will take up most of my time

Activison is going to make CoD games as long as people are willing to buy. I wouldn't be surprised if I see modern warfare 10 in a couple of years.