Originally posted by partypoker15
When are you gonna stop hatin on everyone who does compare them. If you listened to the video (which you probably didn't) he compared graphics, sound quality, and the engine. The games can very easily be compared when you look at it technologically. Battlefield has always been focused on war. Full blown 32 player online battles on the computer. Since CoD4, CoD has been all about a storyline, of John Price and John "Soap" MacTavish. Bad Company was a failed spinoff attempt to compare with CoD4 and MW2. BF1943 was their failed attempt to bring BF1942 to console. The reason people didn't compare MW2 and BF2 or BF1943 is because MW2 beat it on all categories. Now that BF3 is being released, it is a serious contender for GOTY. That's why people are comparing them. BF3 is also their attempt at matching MW3 in terms of play stlye. Only, it follows a real war, unlike MW which follows a future war with Russia. And, no offence, who are you to say "We" don't care? I care, and there are certainly people on NGU who care. I'm getting both games as well. When I beat em both then I'll decide which one is better.
All im saying is Mw3 and battlefield are 2 different games and people shouldn`t compare them and side with 1.. And Bf3 isn`t attempting to match mw3 in terms of play style dude.. Mw3 will be fast paced and Bf3 will be more team work based. Battlefield players dont rush, they work as a team.. and Cod players just go rambo style.
---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------
Originally posted by Wondoh
This is what ive said multiple times and you just get people groan you and argue against you :y:
exactly.. im not even argue this point now because people are too stupid to understand me.