surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
After playing the campaign in bf3 for a couple days, I posted it on craigslist and sold it for $45, IT SUCKS.
Here's hoping mw3 is better.
Here's hoping mw3 is better.
People are stupid, Johnny Holmes. That's why this is such a big deal. People are fucking morons that can't let something they don't like be better then what they like. It's simple as that. I can't explain it any other way.
Im pissed at Jim right now because the son of a bitch is playing Skyrim while I have to wait another two weeks, not because of his BF3 score -.-
Speaking of which, this reminds me of IGN comparing Dark Souls to Skyrim and calling one better when theyre completely different types of games.
I don't remember people saying MW3 had 'won' because of Jim's review. Atleast not a whole lotta comments like that but I could be wrong.
I think if anything, like most anticipated games people got "upset" that it didn't score higher. I'd say the same thing's gonna happen for MW3's score but I don't see too many regular commenters on Dtoid liking CoD much these days.
I think if anything, like most anticipated games people got "upset" that it didn't score higher. I'd say the same thing's gonna happen for MW3's score but I don't see too many regular commenters on Dtoid liking CoD much these days.
What I don't understand is who do they think they are putting out a game with such a dismal campaign, especially when they are basically competing with cod for gamer's money. You would think that they would "bring it all" . And not give us a lame campaign and half baked multiplayer.....
The comparison is also kind of silly, because BF series is geared more towards PC gamers and CoD is more of a console series.
@jqm78. Obvious fanboy trollin... I like the cut of your jib.
Though I haven't played the campaign... but that's why one buys bf games.
Though I haven't played the campaign... but that's why one buys bf games.
@JQM78 I would like to hear why the multiplayer is "half baked" to you??? I have not had any problems what so ever, and enjoy it a lot more compared to other fps at the moment.
Fail for whoever buys and/or sells BF3 for campaign. But also fail for DICE for not creating a good single player. You really WOULD think that they would. It's dissapointing because I was actually excited for it after BC2 because that's where you get to show off whatever you want to the players. Not allowing the player to pilot the Jets for the dogfights or Control the Morter was a terrible mistake that sums up how they messed up on the whole single player. Shame.
With that said... CHEERS TO THE MP! AWWWW YEEAHHHHHH.jpg
With that said... CHEERS TO THE MP! AWWWW YEEAHHHHHH.jpg
Also we should never forget the opinion of one reviewer does not make it the better game just to the one reviewer maybe but overall not really. I for one am going to agree with the review on the dutch site tweakers.net wich gave it a 9.5 stating while the singleplayer is short and not good at all the multiplayer makes up for that and really why would you play battlefield for anything but the multiplayer.
I'm 12 hours-played in the multiplayer aspect of BF3. Me and my buddies are having a blast! I'll pick up MW3 for the campaign when it launches, and then I promise I won't buy another FPS til next fall.
I read the review just cause. I already knew I was going to get BF3, I already knew the campaign would be "meh", and I already knew I'd absolutely play the hell out of the multiplayer. I simply like reading Jims' reviews and hearing opinions other than my own. It wasn't a BAD review, it was informative which is what some people need, but as I said eariler, my mind was made up as soon as it was announced. 7.5 out of 10 really only means as much as you want it to. Buy the game and form your own opinion.
Campaign is spectacular in a cod style meaning it's bollocks and on rails . If they'd done an open campaign on huge maps, objective based but not scripted it would have been great . At least the multi is great . Would have lived to have something like original operation flashpoint with the sp but it's never going to happen , just hotta save for a new gaming pc and arma 2-3.
Oh also lol at the ridiculous QTE's .
Oh also lol at the ridiculous QTE's .
The mp on bf3 is amazing (on pc). Can't speak for consoles and don't care. Also dont care about sp and neither should anyone who buys this game. So much more to do than in mw3. Vehicles people. Vehicles. Nuff said. also graphics. Un-friggin-realio. Bf3 4ever
I wouldn't fault gamers for comparing the two titles. The companies themselves have had a feud going on for months themselves.
If you're going to pick on gamers for this, you should pick on the whole concept of marketing to begin with.
If you're going to pick on gamers for this, you should pick on the whole concept of marketing to begin with.
I'll tell you exactly why they get pitted against each other amongst gamers. Whenever someone wants to bash CoD, they mention how they're gonna get battlefield. Look at the commercial for battlefield, ” above and beyond the call”. EA has taken shot after shot against CoD. They have gone out of their way to insult CoD every chance they get. Also after CoD became popular, it became cool to hate it. You got, two groups of ppl. The ones who hate CoD and will buy any other FPS trying to take CoD down and you have the CoD fans who will buy any CoD game period. It's the internet. If BF3 somehow outsold MW3, it would become the new game to hate. And you can bet your ass EA would milk it like CoD. Both are 2 different experiences. I personally prefer CoD. You can be a one man army or work as a team while BF3 isn't even fun unless you have a team. I hate that BF3 essentially forces you to play as a team. Unless you have a dedicated group of friends, prepare to deal with lots of frustration from randoms.
I think people are just insane. Ideally both should be lots of for everyone who buys them. Also you guys still do game of the year awards right? So what is validity of doing that?
It's funny how bf3 can get away with half assed single player, but I hear ppl criticize CoD and many other games single player. Why should gamers have to settle for mediocre single player just because battlefield is a franchise known for online play. Plenty of other developers do a good job. Why should DICE get a pass. Gears has a good campaign, Halo does, CoD does. Why should the battlefield series get a pass?
bf3 campaign is trash, but that doesn't mean mw3 campaign is going to be any good either, if it follows the trend it's going to be shit too.
People are going to buy/spend time with one or the other simply because they don't have the time or money for both. They want to know which game will give them the most for their money. I can't really fault anyone for wanting to know which one is "better" if that's what they're going to be playing for possibly the next 1-2 years.
As far as comparisons go, that's kind of EA's fault, since at every mention of Battlefield 3 they mention just how much better they think it is than MW3. They've cultivated this rivalry, so if anyone's to blame it's not gamers. It's EA.
As far as comparisons go, that's kind of EA's fault, since at every mention of Battlefield 3 they mention just how much better they think it is than MW3. They've cultivated this rivalry, so if anyone's to blame it's not gamers. It's EA.
I still say they’re the same game and this is all an elaborate ruse to get us to by the same game twice.
I didn't think MW3 won, I was just happy that Jim didn't award the game a 9 when it clearly has faults. 7.5 isn't bad, either, so I don't see why people would get upset at that.
I actually really like the campaign. The gunplay is good, but the bad thing is that if you sometimes feel like there aren't enough enemies shooting at you even though you can die so cheaply and randomly. But I've really enjoyed the campaign. Multiplayer is much better though. By a long shot.
@ Ryan Waggoner- I wasn't blaming gamers. Where did you see me blame gamers? Or were you not talking to me?
Did you read the sentence I wrote that said "Is it a Coke Vs. Pepsi, Team Edward Vs. Team Jacob, or Sony Vs. Nintendo Vs. Microsoft-type thing, where riling up the consumer on either side of the rivalry only works to instill cult-like brand loyalty, and in doing so, ensuring profits for both "competing" parties?"
I would have gone on about that, but the post was already getting pretty long.
Did you read the sentence I wrote that said "Is it a Coke Vs. Pepsi, Team Edward Vs. Team Jacob, or Sony Vs. Nintendo Vs. Microsoft-type thing, where riling up the consumer on either side of the rivalry only works to instill cult-like brand loyalty, and in doing so, ensuring profits for both "competing" parties?"
I would have gone on about that, but the post was already getting pretty long.
It's all about what speaks out to you. As far as single player goes they are both like glorified shooting galleries. Mw3 is probably a little better while bf3 looks nicer. Both are really short and jus primers for the multiplayer. I think bf3 is more about teamplay , large maps and vehicles while modern warfare is more about the individual's performance and killstreaks. Both have something a little different to offer and fans of the military shooters should enjoy both for different reasons.
Im really enjoying the multiplayer and the graphics. But the single player and co op do fall a bit short. I just don't think they have the balls to put out just multiplayer at a lower price point. You know how games like dead space 2 and bioshock 2 feel like they needed the multiplayer to make a complete game? This is the polar opposite to that were the singleplayer wasn't needed but expected
....People are seriously going to complain and argue when there's two games that they would enjoy being released? Why can't people just play both? It's not like a console, where they argue in order to justify a rather large purchase, it's two games! Seriously? Those people need to grow up, and enjoy some god damn vijagames.
"They look kind of similar." From the mouth of babes, folks. ;)
Seriously though, I don't really care that much about the differences between these two games, because in my eyes they are pretty much the same thing. They are both military FPS where you look at lots of gray and brown while staring down the barrels of the exact same guns. Show me something I haven't already seen, developers!
Seriously though, I don't really care that much about the differences between these two games, because in my eyes they are pretty much the same thing. They are both military FPS where you look at lots of gray and brown while staring down the barrels of the exact same guns. Show me something I haven't already seen, developers!
holmes: people will mainly stick with one of these two for their online shooter of choice for the next year. therefore, it is somewhat of a competition. they (ea and activision) are competing for the next years worth of map pack / addon income.
Jims distasteful attempt at trolling might actually cause people to purchase COD instead, since for some they dont have the time for both, or just want to focus on one or the other. If Jim wasn't trolling, then it really turns my world upside down because BF3 is fucking hella fun.
But I have to think he's trolling - seriously - because he mentions a couple things that flat out arent true. Tanks are not as slow as he makes them out to be. Also, they have a turbo (boost) for when you're traveling long distances. When everyone jumps in tanks and you're not in one, you are not screwed. There are so many options for disabling and destroying tanks (and all other vehicles) it's ridiculous. It does not turn into a vehicle only battle at all. ever.
For the record I have mw3 pre-ordered so I sit in both camps; but to me BF is a much richer experience.
Jims distasteful attempt at trolling might actually cause people to purchase COD instead, since for some they dont have the time for both, or just want to focus on one or the other. If Jim wasn't trolling, then it really turns my world upside down because BF3 is fucking hella fun.
But I have to think he's trolling - seriously - because he mentions a couple things that flat out arent true. Tanks are not as slow as he makes them out to be. Also, they have a turbo (boost) for when you're traveling long distances. When everyone jumps in tanks and you're not in one, you are not screwed. There are so many options for disabling and destroying tanks (and all other vehicles) it's ridiculous. It does not turn into a vehicle only battle at all. ever.
For the record I have mw3 pre-ordered so I sit in both camps; but to me BF is a much richer experience.
I like how people say BF3 is a "brown shooter" when it's probably the most colorful modern military shooter out there. I love the way it looks.
What actually surprised me (not really) was that from reading Jimbo's review, it sounds like BF3 is basically just a game of "lets race to the vehicles and whoever gets there first wins the rest of the game". You know, just like the Battlefield series has ALWAYS been.
I really don't understand DICE's obsession with shoving vehicles so hard up gamers' asses.
I really don't understand DICE's obsession with shoving vehicles so hard up gamers' asses.
@Rareform:
Being complacent will encourage DICE to put out more shit singleplayer in their future games. We need to recognize when singleplayer is terrible (linear, scripted borefest) so that we can avoid those game experiences.
@Baines:
When trailers for BF3 first came out, we saw nothing about multiplayer. They were too busy with their 10 minute trailer of the "singleplayer". Don't say that BF3 doesn't hype the singleplayer. That's far from true.
On a side note, to troll the MW3/BF3 fanboys, you should have someone besides Jim review MW3 so that there's some ambiguity between the scores causing readers to actually read the reviews and form their own opinions instead of comparing scores right away.
Being complacent will encourage DICE to put out more shit singleplayer in their future games. We need to recognize when singleplayer is terrible (linear, scripted borefest) so that we can avoid those game experiences.
@Baines:
When trailers for BF3 first came out, we saw nothing about multiplayer. They were too busy with their 10 minute trailer of the "singleplayer". Don't say that BF3 doesn't hype the singleplayer. That's far from true.
On a side note, to troll the MW3/BF3 fanboys, you should have someone besides Jim review MW3 so that there's some ambiguity between the scores causing readers to actually read the reviews and form their own opinions instead of comparing scores right away.
follow
