Post: BF3 Fanboys: Why All The Hate?
Options
08-04-2011, 03:49 AM
#1
tdga7x
Do a barrel roll!
For the people saying it's the same game as MW2:
Here's my biggest pet-peeve when it comes to the subject. This is one of the most common arguments in a BF3 vs MW3 debate that is rarely followed by any intelligent or logical insight, due to the fact that there is absolutely no way to back this statement up without looking like a fool. My rebuttal is that everything about the game is new. Try and argue the fact and you most likely will have nothing to fall back on. What separates this game from Modern Warfare 2 is as follows:
- MW3 has all new guns (I understand that some guns have appeared in past games, but they will have all new mechanics).
- MW3 has all new maps.
- MW3 has new perks (some irreplaceable perks have returned, understandably).
- MW3 has new killstreaks.
- MW3 has new gameplay mechanics.
- MW3 has new attachments for weapons.
- MW3 has a continuation of a great campaign storyline.
- MW3 has a tweaked and upgraded engine (to any BF3 fanboys who argue with "the engine is exactly the same as the MW2 engine": good. It doesn't need a brand new engine. It's the smoothest and most responsive engine I've ever seen).
- MW3 is devoid of some of the biggest pains of the CoD community, such as Commando, One Man Army, Last Stand, and more.
- MW3 has an all new Spec-Ops mode, featuring brand new gameplay mechanics never seen in Call of Duty before.
All this, and not to mention there are two new studios working alongside Infinity Ward that we've never seen Call of Duty content from. Some things are sure to be completely different. How is this the same game?
This is why I just don't understand the argument "it's the same exact game". It never makes sense and it makes you sound stupid. If you wanna go that far, BF3 is the same thing as BF2. Using your logic, any sequel to any game is the same game. And if you're looking for MW3 to be completely different from MW2, tough luck, because the franchise is Call of Duty, and changing that feel would forever change to franchise.
From CoD4 to MW2, Infinity Ward was still making improvements, such as adding and testing the killstreak system, and the variety of attachments CoD4. MW2 to MW3 will be different. Infinity Ward has built a sturdy and plentiful system with MW2, however, since it was the first game to contain all of these mechanics, it was essentially a test run to see what the fans did and did not want. Now that they have this information, they will use it to make MW3 the ultimate experience for consumers.
For the people who are saying BF3 is so much better than MW3:
Why? I simply want to know what's so groundbreaking about BF3 that separates it from MW3's new content. If you like BF3 better just because that's what you play, fine, I understand that, not everyone has the same tastes. But if you're hating on MW3 at the same time, I wanna know why. There's a reason it's one of the biggest franchises in history. I encourage a BF3 fanboy to step forward and share their thoughts on the game. Don't get me wrong either, I'm excited for BF3 and thoroughly enjoyed BC2, it just annoys me at how many people hate on MW3 with no reasoning.
If it's any consolation, I won't contest that the community generally sucks. It is very much filled with annoying little kids, but that's expected with a franchise so vast. If that's reason enough for you to hate the franchise, fine. But otherwise, I want to know what you hate about the game itself. Also, this is another reason for this post, to inform you skeptics that the whole of the CoD community is not filled with unreasonable, ignorant, immature children. But expect a portion of your beloved Battlefield community to go sour with BF3's release, with as much hype it's getting. Fair warning.
So if anyone would like to step up, I'd be more than happy to hear your debates.
Edit: I feel like a lot of people are taking my arguments as hostility towards BF3 fans; this is not the case. I'm simply debunking some of the rather unreasonable arguments proposed by them. This post isn't to prove that MW3 is/will be better than BF3, quite the opposite in fact. I'm excited for both games' releases and this post is simply to hear the legitimate and reasonable arguments on why they hate the CoD series so much. I am not here to argue their points. I'm here to restore sanity in the MW3 vs. BF3 debate, due to it's extreme lack of intelligence I feel it displaces.
The following 8 users say thank you to tdga7x for this useful post:
The following 4 users groaned at tdga7x for this awful post:
08-04-2011, 03:59 AM
#2
gillysnyter
Haxor!
08-04-2011, 12:59 PM
#3
whitey775
Pokemon Trainer
Great thread mate. I fully agree with you. Most of the BF Fanboys have no valid arguments to back up their opinion that MW3 (or MW2.5 as some are calling it) is shit, most of the time they just say its the same game and that we can feed Activision all the money we want for remakes. Im sorry but EA arent in it for the money now lol. For a start no one knows if its good or not because its not even been released yet! I hope we finally get some real answers back not just immature arguing.
08-04-2011, 02:20 PM
#4
Onehungrywater
Vault dweller
Why all the hatred? Have you EVER PLAYED Bad Company 2? The game is on a level far above any call of duty. I admit I have been a COD Fanboy from COD3 to MW2, but nearing the release of black ops I took a break from MW2 and tried something new. Bad Company 2 left Modern Warfare 2 (and Black Ops) so far behind it is hilarious. Now. I haven't really answered your question. Why all the hate towards MW3? What puts BF3 above MW3? Well, for starters...
- Battlefield has and always will be a tactical game. In COD a team can get by with a few really good players, whereas In battlefield you need a few really good SQUADS that communicate implement tactics, take advantage of each class, supply squadmates and team mates with ammo and health. These are just a few things that make Battlefield's gameplay levels above COD's.
- (My Favorite thing about battlefield) How many times A DAY do you rage playing call of duty? If you have the audacity to answer "None," you are lying through your teeth my friend. How many times a game do you scream "I shot him first!" or "I knifed you!" For the players out there who don't know yet. Call of duty's host based playing system is down right AWFUL; Unless you are the host there WILL be lag for you. Dare you argue this? Well. Let me explain the difference between COD's system and BF's DEDICATED SERVER. Basically in call of duty, the host is the player who loads the map for EVERYONE ELSE, each player must tell the host where and when they are moving. This causes lag in the game as your gameplay requests to the host take time to travel back and fourth. Even though this is an extremely quick process, it still has a noticeable delay in the game. Now. Battlefield on the other hand has a dedicated server. Which if call of duty was smart enough to implement, I would be back in an instant. Basically what happens when you play Bad Company 2 or any other BF game online, the SERVER loads a map where ALL PLAYERS must send it information and wait for a reply thereby leading to minimal or no lag in the online Battlefield games.
- Ill just do one more seeing as how this is getting quite lengthy and I'm sure I've made my point. Campers. Nothing gets my pee-pee harder than sprinting around a corner hoping to encounter an enemy to engage in face to face combat with, (whether that combat involves a gun is not important in COD) and to my surprise I am shot in the back by "xxoL3g1tS1pzQuikscpZxxo" sitting in a corner on a gigantic kill streak. Basically. Camping in COD is a problem. A HUGE GAME RUINING PROBLEM. The camping is caused by one thing, Killstreaks. Killstreaks promote camping, because with just a few simple kills you can put a flying death machine in the sky to do all the hard work for you. Killstreaks are like crack, once you have had a taste you need more, stronger crack. Leading to more, longer camping sessions in a game. Battlefields solution is simple. No killstreaks :p. No killstreaks leads to (Almost) no camping. Oh and just incase there may be some random lone wolf camping in a corner, whats to stop me from DESTROYING the wall he's on? Yeah, we have environment destruction, you don't. That's Battlefield - 4, COD - 0
Rant. Over.
- Battlefield has and always will be a tactical game. In COD a team can get by with a few really good players, whereas In battlefield you need a few really good SQUADS that communicate implement tactics, take advantage of each class, supply squadmates and team mates with ammo and health. These are just a few things that make Battlefield's gameplay levels above COD's.
- (My Favorite thing about battlefield) How many times A DAY do you rage playing call of duty? If you have the audacity to answer "None," you are lying through your teeth my friend. How many times a game do you scream "I shot him first!" or "I knifed you!" For the players out there who don't know yet. Call of duty's host based playing system is down right AWFUL; Unless you are the host there WILL be lag for you. Dare you argue this? Well. Let me explain the difference between COD's system and BF's DEDICATED SERVER. Basically in call of duty, the host is the player who loads the map for EVERYONE ELSE, each player must tell the host where and when they are moving. This causes lag in the game as your gameplay requests to the host take time to travel back and fourth. Even though this is an extremely quick process, it still has a noticeable delay in the game. Now. Battlefield on the other hand has a dedicated server. Which if call of duty was smart enough to implement, I would be back in an instant. Basically what happens when you play Bad Company 2 or any other BF game online, the SERVER loads a map where ALL PLAYERS must send it information and wait for a reply thereby leading to minimal or no lag in the online Battlefield games.
- Ill just do one more seeing as how this is getting quite lengthy and I'm sure I've made my point. Campers. Nothing gets my pee-pee harder than sprinting around a corner hoping to encounter an enemy to engage in face to face combat with, (whether that combat involves a gun is not important in COD) and to my surprise I am shot in the back by "xxoL3g1tS1pzQuikscpZxxo" sitting in a corner on a gigantic kill streak. Basically. Camping in COD is a problem. A HUGE GAME RUINING PROBLEM. The camping is caused by one thing, Killstreaks. Killstreaks promote camping, because with just a few simple kills you can put a flying death machine in the sky to do all the hard work for you. Killstreaks are like crack, once you have had a taste you need more, stronger crack. Leading to more, longer camping sessions in a game. Battlefields solution is simple. No killstreaks :p. No killstreaks leads to (Almost) no camping. Oh and just incase there may be some random lone wolf camping in a corner, whats to stop me from DESTROYING the wall he's on? Yeah, we have environment destruction, you don't. That's Battlefield - 4, COD - 0
Rant. Over.
The following 6 users say thank you to Onehungrywater for this useful post:
08-04-2011, 02:29 PM
#5
hTx_Stunna_713
< ^ > < ^ >
Originally posted by tdga7x
Something that's been bothering me lately is the amount of BF3 fanboys hating on MW3 for no apparent reason. The reason I say that is because anytime I ask, I never get actual responses as to why they have so much hatred for the game. So now, I'd like to go over a few things with you.
For the people saying it's the same game as MW2:
Here's my biggest pet-peeve when it comes to the subject. This is one of the most common arguments in a BF3 vs MW3 debate that is rarely followed by any intelligent or logical insight, due to the fact that there is absolutely no way to back this statement up without looking like a fool. My rebuttal is that everything about the game is new. Try and argue the fact and you most likely will have nothing to fall back on. What separates this game from Modern Warfare 2 is as follows:
All this, and not to mention there are two new studios working alongside Infinity Ward that we've never seen Call of Duty content from. Some things are sure to be completely different. How is this the same game?
This is why I just don't understand the argument "it's the same exact game". It never makes sense and it makes you sound stupid. If you wanna go that far, BF3 is the same thing as BF2. Using your logic, any sequel to any game is the same game. And if you're looking for MW3 to be completely different from MW2, tough luck, because the franchise is Call of Duty, and changing that feel would forever change to franchise.
From CoD4 to MW2, Infinity Ward was still making improvements, such as adding and testing the killstreak system, and the variety of attachments CoD4. MW2 to MW3 will be different. Infinity Ward has built a sturdy and plentiful system with MW2, however, since it was the first game to contain all of these mechanics, it was essentially a test run to see what the fans did and did not want. Now that they have this information, they will use it to make MW3 the ultimate experience for consumers.
For the people who are saying BF3 is so much better than MW3:
Why? I simply want to know what's so groundbreaking about BF3 that separates it from MW3's new content. If you like BF3 better just because that's what you play, fine, I understand that, not everyone has the same tastes. But if you're hating on MW3 at the same time, I wanna know why. There's a reason it's one of the biggest franchises in history. I encourage a BF3 fanboy to step forward and share their thoughts on the game. Don't get me wrong either, I'm excited for BF3 and thoroughly enjoyed BC2, it just annoys me at how many people hate on MW3 with no reasoning.
If it's any consolation, I won't contest that the community generally sucks. It is very much filled with annoying little kids, but that's expected with a franchise so vast. If that's reason enough for you to hate the franchise, fine. But otherwise, I want to know what you hate about the game itself. Also, this is another reason for this post, to inform you skeptics that the whole of the CoD community is not filled with unreasonable, ignorant, immature children. But expect a portion of your beloved Battlefield community to go sour with BF3's release, with as much hype it's getting. Fair warning.
So if anyone would like to step up, I'd be more than happy to hear your debates.
For the people saying it's the same game as MW2:
Here's my biggest pet-peeve when it comes to the subject. This is one of the most common arguments in a BF3 vs MW3 debate that is rarely followed by any intelligent or logical insight, due to the fact that there is absolutely no way to back this statement up without looking like a fool. My rebuttal is that everything about the game is new. Try and argue the fact and you most likely will have nothing to fall back on. What separates this game from Modern Warfare 2 is as follows:
- MW3 has all new guns (I understand that some guns have appeared in past games, but they will have all new mechanics).
- MW3 has all new maps.
- MW3 has new perks (some irreplaceable perks have returned, understandably).
- MW3 has new killstreaks.
- MW3 has new gameplay mechanics.
- MW3 has new attachments for weapons.
- MW3 has a continuation of a great campaign storyline.
- MW3 has a tweaked and upgraded engine (to any BF3 fanboys who argue with "the engine is exactly the same as the MW2 engine": good. It doesn't need a brand new engine. It's the smoothest and most responsive engine I've ever seen).
- MW3 is devoid of some of the biggest pains of the CoD community, such as Commando, One Man Army, Last Stand, and more.
- MW3 has an all new Spec-Ops mode, featuring brand new gameplay mechanics never seen in Call of Duty before.
All this, and not to mention there are two new studios working alongside Infinity Ward that we've never seen Call of Duty content from. Some things are sure to be completely different. How is this the same game?
This is why I just don't understand the argument "it's the same exact game". It never makes sense and it makes you sound stupid. If you wanna go that far, BF3 is the same thing as BF2. Using your logic, any sequel to any game is the same game. And if you're looking for MW3 to be completely different from MW2, tough luck, because the franchise is Call of Duty, and changing that feel would forever change to franchise.
From CoD4 to MW2, Infinity Ward was still making improvements, such as adding and testing the killstreak system, and the variety of attachments CoD4. MW2 to MW3 will be different. Infinity Ward has built a sturdy and plentiful system with MW2, however, since it was the first game to contain all of these mechanics, it was essentially a test run to see what the fans did and did not want. Now that they have this information, they will use it to make MW3 the ultimate experience for consumers.
For the people who are saying BF3 is so much better than MW3:
Why? I simply want to know what's so groundbreaking about BF3 that separates it from MW3's new content. If you like BF3 better just because that's what you play, fine, I understand that, not everyone has the same tastes. But if you're hating on MW3 at the same time, I wanna know why. There's a reason it's one of the biggest franchises in history. I encourage a BF3 fanboy to step forward and share their thoughts on the game. Don't get me wrong either, I'm excited for BF3 and thoroughly enjoyed BC2, it just annoys me at how many people hate on MW3 with no reasoning.
If it's any consolation, I won't contest that the community generally sucks. It is very much filled with annoying little kids, but that's expected with a franchise so vast. If that's reason enough for you to hate the franchise, fine. But otherwise, I want to know what you hate about the game itself. Also, this is another reason for this post, to inform you skeptics that the whole of the CoD community is not filled with unreasonable, ignorant, immature children. But expect a portion of your beloved Battlefield community to go sour with BF3's release, with as much hype it's getting. Fair warning.
So if anyone would like to step up, I'd be more than happy to hear your debates.
u coming off as COD fanboy. As for me im going to get both games and then make my decision once I played them both.
08-04-2011, 02:31 PM
#6
Onehungrywater
Vault dweller
The following user thanked Onehungrywater for this useful post:
08-04-2011, 03:00 PM
#7
Travis
wut
A lot of people are just getting sick of CoD for the reasons mentioned a few posts above. After playing CoD year after year I've just been getting sick of it too. Battlefield is a great game and it's something different without most of the aggravation CoD has. I don't hate on CoD though, I'll probably still get MW3 I just won't play it as much. I also think BF3 vs MW3 is the same as PS3 vs Xbox 360. Some people have their preference and just talk shit about the other one and there's no winning the argument. :p
08-04-2011, 03:16 PM
#8
reddragon3999
Mario!
for me it comes down to team work. in cod you can easily win a match on your own with minimal help from your teammates. in battlefield you need people to work together and have a good balance of the class types to win.
i dont feel like going on a rant and my thoughts are exactly what ONEHUNGRYWATER stated.
and also its the cod community that ruins the game. the game is fun for the first month while everyone is getting used to it and trying out the new guns, then once they figure out what the best gun or class set up is, 90% of the community whores it like its the only thing in the game.
for example, the other day on black ops i got into a match and a looked at peoples states and i say a person's top gun was ak74u, not a big deal but i looked at how many kills he has with it compared to his other guns and this:
ak74u 47000 kills
mp5k 5000 kills.
this was not the first time i have seen this, i see this alot mostly with ak74u and famas because people learned early that they are the best guns that out-gun every other gun in almost every situation. in battlefield i see alot of weapon diversity because there is no one amazing gun or class.
i dont feel like going on a rant and my thoughts are exactly what ONEHUNGRYWATER stated.
and also its the cod community that ruins the game. the game is fun for the first month while everyone is getting used to it and trying out the new guns, then once they figure out what the best gun or class set up is, 90% of the community whores it like its the only thing in the game.
for example, the other day on black ops i got into a match and a looked at peoples states and i say a person's top gun was ak74u, not a big deal but i looked at how many kills he has with it compared to his other guns and this:
ak74u 47000 kills
mp5k 5000 kills.
this was not the first time i have seen this, i see this alot mostly with ak74u and famas because people learned early that they are the best guns that out-gun every other gun in almost every situation. in battlefield i see alot of weapon diversity because there is no one amazing gun or class.
The following 2 users say thank you to reddragon3999 for this useful post:
The following 3 users say thank you to Octavia for this useful post:
The following 6 users groaned at Octavia for this awful post:
08-04-2011, 03:25 PM
#10
tdga7x
Do a barrel roll!
Originally posted by 713
u coming off as COD fanboy. As for me im going to get both games and then make my decision once I played them both.
I suppose you missed the part where I said "Don't get me wrong either, I'm excited for BF3 and thoroughly enjoyed BC2, it just annoys me at how many people hate on MW3 with no reasoning." If it was the other way around I'd defend BF3 in a similar fashion, it's just the hatred displaced by most Battlefield fanboys is unreasonable and they're unable to provide such reasons as to why they hate it. I'm not here to argue against people as to why they hate it, I'm here to ask why they hate it.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
