Discussion is old news, people play the game they liked the best, not sure what new things can be learned. This dicussion usually will end up into a fanboy vs fanboy argument eventually.
I think I'm boiled_elephant on BC2 too, add me by all means. I don't play it regularly at the moment, just now and then - finding a good server is too difficult and haphazard. If all the contributions were as insightful and interesting as yours, that would definitely be a possibility. Anyway, I don't see why it should matter to you at all that the thread is open and the discussion continuing - or indeed, why it would matter to you if it did descend into a fanboy argument. It literally does not affect you in any way. That is all. On-topic, I've never found a way around camping, untactical but highly skilled snipers in BC2. They don't do anything or contribute much to the game (unless you're playing TDM of course) but they're extremely difficult to sneak up on, especially if they have mortar strikes and motion sensors. They're like fortresses. Tedious, point-and-click fortresses. And while we're on the subject of COD skill, I'd nearly forgotten about this gem:
Whilst I enjoyed the editing on that montage, tbh I don't really see the skill in that video. He runs around with one-hit kill weapons for most of it, and shotguns don't really give you the impression of fantastically precise aim. I'd much rather watch a CS 1.6 high-level match for reflex/twitch skill displays. The grenade launcher kill at the end was pretty cool though. Also it's on console lol, with aim assist I imagine.
Ohh, BF3, sorry, I was thinking BC2, durp. I added someone called Gunsum on BC2, in any event. They're probably very mystified. I was going to buy BF3, but for all the endless praise, it looks very similar to BC2 and BF2, both of which I own, so. edit - Parge, how'd you infer that from the video, I'm confused.
Oh I didn't just that was the post I chose to reply to. Its a massive improvement over BC2 - basically if you like that you'll love this! Really is the only game I've played since its release.
I actually wouldn't say it's a massive improvement TBH, just more of a refinement, since there are more similarities than differences between the two games and the overall experience is similar. The only major difference I can see between the two games is the scale, which can be both good and bad if I'm honest. Both are very good games IMO, but BF3 is just bigger in every way - map size, player count, and content - and is slightly more polished all round.
My main issue with BC2 was the learning curve, it took me weeks to learn the maps and weapons and find my groove. Everything until then was just so many variations on me getting killed by people I couldn't see. I get the impression that BF3, with its all-round larger scale, will have this problem in spades: more open space and longer distances = more potential for snipers. Basically, if it's more tactical and less a twitchy, cover-based shooter than BC2, I'll probably enjoy it; if not, I won't touch it with a barge pole.
I believe the two games can and should be compared, simply because they are the only two real fps games available today, it's not about them being released at the same time it's that we have a number of hours per week to game so which is worth my time and what do the majority of people play. It's just like comparing FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer. I uninstalled BF3 long ago for it lagging or crashing but I've recently got broadband back over mobile broadband and realise BF3 has been patched since so I'm willing to install it again. I've played BF since BF2 and love them. I bought MW3 for £40 this week, after five minutes of gameplay it lags to almost a frozen state but I hit rank three in a minute because it's to fast paced and all guns seem over powered so even though I haven't played COD since MW I found it easy to own these high ranked COD fanatics. COD IS NOT realistic, worth £40 or your time. BF3 wins for me.
COD = run, aim, shoot. BF = run, spot, aim, shoot, manage recoil, cover, revive, heal, provide ammo...the list goes on and on. It's simple, COD doesn't take any skill and to anyone who think's it does, needs a new brain. COD is more accessible because it's stupidly easy. BF isn't.
These cannot be compared directly....MW3 is a lot more of a arcade style shooter for quick bursts of action whereas BF3 is methodical and needs to be taken slowly. It can take a couple of minutes till you find the next firefight. I personally prefer BF3 but I didn't enjoy either that much this year.
You should read 3lusive's post further up the thread. He makes a very good case for skilled COD playing. If you want to say that anyone who thinks COD is skillful needs a new brain, you'll have to at least attempt to respond to the points he raises if you want to be taken seriously. For my part, allow me to point out a basic fallacy: no online shooter requires skill, strictly speaking. The idea that BF3 requires skill is absurd: you can happily play it with no skill whatsoever, and end up with a terrible KD ratio but, plausibly, some great gaming memories nonetheless. Your enjoyment will only depend on your skill if your enjoyment depends on a high KD ratio or score. Even if we were to take score and ranking as the metric of these games' playability, the best you can say is that COD requires less skill to pick up - that is, it's more accessible and has a smoother learning curve. This isn't the same as the game not rewarding skill. Many people (myself included) have described picking up COD and quickly climbing halfway up the scoreboards without much difficulty: but all this shows is that half the players, on average, are terrible. It shows that a lot of unskilled people are playing COD; but, since they're in the bottom half of the scoreboard, it makes no sense to say that the game does not require skill. To justifiedly say that COD requires no skill, you'd have to regularly hit #1 in matches with only a little effort. After all, if none of the people currently playing it are exercising any skill, beating them with just a little skill should be easy, right? Beat the current playerbase to some extent (all of them, not just half of them) before claiming that none of them have any skill, otherwise you're just making baseless claims.
I do love the intellectual pedigree of Bit-tech's new 2012 starters . If you think "cod = run, aim, shoot" only, you are wrong sir.
As modern day WAR shooters go they are the only two real contenders that the world pays attention too, not the 1000 I see when I play Red Orchestra 2.
Is this thread still going? CoD is more accessible, BF3 is more open-ended - they play to different strengths and comparisons are just sillyness.
