Should Battlefield 3 be going after Call of Duty?

Villager **Stature** : 3 London, England

DICE and EA have made it quite clear that Battlefield 3 is going after Call of Duty's throne, but I'm not sure this is going to be good for Battlefield fans. A huge part of the battlefield experience is tactics; team work, coordination and planning. To appeal to the fans of COD, DICE will have to completely change the way the game plays.
Your regular killstreaker is either a drunk fratboy or a spoiled pre pubescent piece of bumfluff; people who are unable to work as a team. This is why the COD and Halo series appeals to the masses. It's easy to jump in and get a few kills, and with a few hours of dedication one could rack up an impressive K/D. Most Black Ops owners only own sports games and twitch shooters. How will these buffoons cope with a fighter jet!
Sadly it looks like this is the way Battlefield 3 is heading; look past the pretty graphics in the new 'Fault Line' trailers and you'll see the sandbox nature of the Bad Company games has disappeared, replaced by a more linear, scripted level design. The bad company series never appealed to the casual fragheads, possibly why bad company 2 sold less than 6 million units, compared to Black Ops monstrous 25 million across multiple platforms.
Its understandable that EA wants to milk it's cash cow, but surely the 6 million satisfied users of Bad Company 2 is enough! With the right marketing and aesthetics, anything can sell, look at the Wii, but should Battlefield 3 look a bit Medal of Honor this E3 I won't be happy. Lets hope DICE can disappoint the casuals this November.

As much as I love Battlefield, you're kidding yourself if you think it's unplayable without strategy, coordination, teamwork, and planning. I've done lone wolf run-and-gun tactics many times in both Bad Company games and 1943 and I've done fine.

It's not about making Battlefield like Call of Duty, but simply making it more accessible, which I've always found Battlefield to be anyway.

And I think it's unfair to say Battlefield 3 lost its sandbox nature just based on that 12-minute preview of what is a 6+ hour campaign if I recall correctly.

Villager **Stature** : 3 London, England

I get your point about be able to play lone wolf, it's just not as fun. The gameplay style doesn't lend itself well. And if we didn't see ANY open area's in 12 minutes, I think it's fair to say the games been hemmed in. Another point I forgot to mention is that the bigger and more complicated the architecture is, the harder it is to pull off freeflowing destruction; that's why Red Faction: Armageddon is changing to a linear game, the devs said it themselves.

Boss Spawn **Stature** : 25 **Playing** : People suck.

TRF wrote:: As much as I love Battlefield, you're kidding yourself if you think it's unplayable without strategy, coordination, teamwork, and planning. I've done lone wolf run-and-gun tactics many times in both Bad Company games and 1943 and I've done fine.

It's not about making Battlefield like Call of Duty, but simply making it more accessible, which I've always found Battlefield to be anyway.

And I think it's unfair to say Battlefield 3 lost its sandbox nature just based on that 12-minute preview of what is a 6+ hour campaign if I recall correctly.

True. You do MUCH better with a team or you're squad but from my experience playing BFBC2 and 1943 you can run off and do just fine. Also, team work is pretty non-existent in 1943.

Villager **Stature** : 3 London, England

I don't really count '43, Heroes or Play4Free as true Battlefield EXPERIENCES.

Boss Spawn **Stature** : 25 **Playing** : People suck.

JosefK wrote:: I don't really count '43, Heroes or Play4Free as true Battlefield EXPERIENCES.

Well 1943 is pretty much 1942 updated with Frostbyte and smaller player caps. And 1942 was one of the prime Battlefield games.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:: True. You do MUCH
better with a team or you're squad but from my experience playing BFBC2
and 1943 you can run off and do just fine. Also, team work is pretty
non-existent in 1943.

Non-existent? Was it not you who helped me rig that bridge to explode when a tank drove over it? Non-existent my ass, we fucked over all of Japan with our teamwork.

JosefK wrote:: I don't really count '43, Heroes or Play4Free as true Battlefield EXPERIENCES.

Yet you consider Bad Company, which is significantly smaller in scale compared to the regular series, not only a true Battlefield experience, but one a main entry like Battlefield 3 should model itself after?

Villager **Stature** : 3 London, England

I'm talking about linearity in the single player. No one can say that the Bad Company campaigns have been the only real Battlefield campaigns, so what else would BF3 be based on? I fully expect DICE to create open multiplayer maps, I'm worried about simplification.

JosefK wrote:: I'm talking about linearity in the single player. No one can say that the Bad Company campaigns have been the only real Battlefield campaigns, so what else would BF3 be based on? I fully expect DICE to create open multiplayer maps, I'm worried about simplification.

I'm not worried about simplification, and you shouldn't either. Besides, I'd rather have a great linear campaign than a decent sandbox campaign like BC and BC2.

Villager **Stature** : 3 London, England

Were sort of getting off point. I'm saying EA are trying to be greedy into changing Battlefield into something it's not. They've already used Battlefield as there 'play4free' test dummy and sold Bad Company 2 up the river with the Medal of Honor reboot. I want Battlefield 3 to be great as much as anyone, I'm just putting forward an alternate view to those who already think it's won game of the year.

Boss Spawn **Stature** : 25 **Playing** : People suck.

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:: True. You do MUCH
better with a team or you're squad but from my experience playing BFBC2
and 1943 you can run off and do just fine. Also, team work is pretty
non-existent in 1943.

Non-existent? Was it not you who helped me rig that bridge to explode when a tank drove over it? Non-existent my ass, we fucked over all of Japan with our teamwork.

Touche. 5 minutes of waiting for someone to drive over it, fully worth it.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:: True. You do MUCH
better with a team or you're squad but from my experience playing BFBC2
and 1943 you can run off and do just fine. Also, team work is pretty
non-existent in 1943.

Non-existent? Was it not you who helped me rig that bridge to explode when a tank drove over it? Non-existent my ass, we fucked over all of Japan with our teamwork.

Touche. 5 minutes of waiting for someone to drive over it, fully worth it.

Definitely. Should Battlefield 3 be going after Call of Duty? 725796345

Our teammates must've thought we were weird, just chillin' in that boat off the coast of the island for all that time. We were like freaking out when someone finally drove over it.

You do better with teamwork in any game, including COD. That's one of the perks to not being an anti-social nutcase.

Special Unit **Stature** : 23

I play on the PS3 and since over half the people who play on the PS3 aswell don't have mics I see no "Teamwork and Coordination" on Battlefield... I was into for a little bit with the "Real war" feeling of taking objectives in huge maps. It got old about 2 weeks in when I realized nothing I did personally affected the game, whether it be kills or objective playing.
because no matter how hard I tried it was always 1 on 12...

That said I'm definitely getting Battlefield 3 for how stunning it looks, even though I know I'll be disappointed again...

Final Boss **Stature** : 91 **Playing** : SF3

Even though it may be better, I don't think it will take the throne.
And we have yet to see what MW3 is.

Battlefield will never be as popular as Call of Duty, because it actually requires some thinking and skill to be good at.

Call of Duty all you have to do is point and shoot rinse and repeat....and its only against people.

Battlefield you have to take range and gravity into account and you have to watch out for tanks, jeeps, aircraft, helicopter gunships and attack boats, if you are armed with an assault rifle then you better stick with engineers....promoting teamwork.

That seems to be too much work for the dumb masses so they stick to a retardedly simple shooter.

» Why are there no women in Call of Duty?
» Gamers Debate #2 Modern FPSs Call of Duty vs. Battlefield vs. Medal of Honor
» First look at Call of Duty 2014
» When And How Will Call Of Duty Get A New Engine?
» Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Gets Microtransactions