Battlefield V. Call of Duty

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Played and own Bf3 and BF1943, along with COD Mw2, MW3, and WaW.

In battlefield, the vehicles, including aircraft, and much larger size of the maps, combined with the graphics, more realistic weapon handling, give you a more "realistic" feel. It also feels more team based, whereas in COD it's all about run and gun. World at War is now vacant of players, and most lobbies I find either require a still absurdly priced map pack(s), or has a hacker. MW3, I am thoroughly unable to play for more than 2 games. Mw2 is currently the best, but I still play it less than the rest. In m, and it has the problems of people abusing the perk system to go One Man Amy noobtubing, or Run n Knifing people. COD also has splitscreen, something that BF3 has yet to grasp.
In multiplayer terms, Battlefield is better, unless you prefer quick-paced, "own the lobby" type of games.

In singleplayer, I hand it to COD. It had more "gizmos and toys" to make it interesting, with the lack of annoying spontaneous "press this button in the next half-second!" situations of BF3 and more character familiarization. R.I.P Soap. However, BF3 still has a good campaign. Just not great.

The multiplayer is what really counts. BF3 is lacking in splitscreen, which is annoying, but it makes up for that with the gameplay. I've rarely gone into a game and found myself rage quitting. In COD, that happens in just about one out every 5 games I join. And it seems the newer games are getting worse. Which is why I've abandoned the COD series with MW3....I played Black ops, but never found a reason to buy it.

Battlefield is better than Call of Duty.

Nah, I enjoy COD more myself.

[Absurrania]

Pre-COD: Black Ops: Call of Duty
COD: MW3 and up: Battlefield

This thoroughly summarizes the progression of my stance, lol. Everything after MW2 sent me running from COD.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Pre-COD: Black Ops: Call of Duty
COD: MW3 and up: Battlefield

This thoroughly summarizes the progression of my stance, lol. Everything after MW2 sent me running from COD.

I assume you haven't played Black Ops, Black Ops 2, Ghost?

Really, why people hate COD so much seems to be MW3's and it shitty excuse of a war, and MW2 is no better, it was better than MW3 but its still bad.

[Bezombia]

This thoroughly summarizes the progression of my stance, lol. Everything after MW2 sent me running from COD.

I assume you haven't played Black Ops, Black Ops 2, Ghost?

Really, why people hate COD so much seems to be MW3's and it shitty excuse of a war, and MW2 is no better, it was better than MW3 but its still bad.

BO2, MW3 and Ghosts were horrible for the following reasons:

-Matchmaking
-No server support
-No mod support

MW2 had those problems to but Nemexis solved them, which was mainly due to the hidden mod support that MW3, BO2, and Ghosts lack.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I assume you haven't played Black Ops, Black Ops 2, Ghost?

Really, why people hate COD so much seems to be MW3's and it shitty excuse of a war, and MW2 is no better, it was better than MW3 but its still bad.

BO2, MW3 and Ghosts were horrible for the following reasons:

-Matchmaking
-No server support
-No mod support

MW2 had those problems to but Nemexis solved them, which was mainly due to the hidden mod support that MW3, BO2, and Ghosts lack.

Multiplayer stuff, I don't give 2 fucks.

[Torisakia]

This thoroughly summarizes the progression of my stance, lol. Everything after MW2 sent me running from COD.

I assume you haven't played Black Ops, Black Ops 2, Ghost?

Really, why people hate COD so much seems to be MW3's and it shitty excuse of a war, and MW2 is no better, it was better than MW3 but its still bad.

It's more of Treyarch and Infinity Ward's shitty excuse for a game.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I assume you haven't played Black Ops, Black Ops 2, Ghost?

Really, why people hate COD so much seems to be MW3's and it shitty excuse of a war, and MW2 is no better, it was better than MW3 but its still bad.

It's more of Treyarch and Infinity Ward's shitty excuse for a game.

Yeah, whatever.

[Torisakia]

It's more of Treyarch and Infinity Ward's shitty excuse for a game.

Yeah, whatever.

I'm not saying that it's true, that just what it seems like.

Next COD, if there is one, should just be an HD remake of COD 4. I'd be throwing my money for that.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Yeah, whatever.

I'm not saying that it's true, that just what it seems like.

Next COD, if there is one, should just be an HD remake of COD 4. I'd be throwing my money for that.

Yeah, COD 4 was a good game

[Bezombia]

BO2, MW3 and Ghosts were horrible for the following reasons:

-Matchmaking
-No server support
-No mod support

MW2 had those problems to but Nemexis solved them, which was mainly due to the hidden mod support that MW3, BO2, and Ghosts lack.

Multiplayer stuff, I don't give 2 fucks.

WAW, MW1, and MW2 were the only ones with decent SPs.
BO1's was bearable.
All the others were trash.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Multiplayer stuff, I don't give 2 fucks.

WAW, MW1, and MW2 were the only ones with decent SPs.
BO1's was bearable.
All the others were trash.

I disagree with you, WaW was alright, MW2 was stupid, and COD 4 was rather decent.

Black Ops 1 and 2 were great and Ghost was alright compared to those.

[Bezombia]

WAW, MW1, and MW2 were the only ones with decent SPs.
BO1's was bearable.
All the others were trash.

I disagree with you, WaW was alright, MW2 was stupid, and COD 4 was rather decent.

Black Ops 1 and 2 were great and Ghost was alright compared to those.

How on earth was MW2 stupid? Its plot was one of the most thought out plots in any milFPS I've ever played.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I disagree with you, WaW was alright, MW2 was stupid, and COD 4 was rather decent.

Black Ops 1 and 2 were great and Ghost was alright compared to those.

How on earth was MW2 stupid? Its plot was one of the most thought out plots in any milFPS I've ever played.

lol

http://www.gamesradar.com/modern-warfar ... s-exposed/

This sums it up imo, not as well as I would like but still.

[Bezombia]

How on earth was MW2 stupid? Its plot was one of the most thought out plots in any milFPS I've ever played.

lol

http://www.gamesradar.com/modern-warfar ... s-exposed/

This sums it up imo, not as well as I would like but still.

Page 1 of that article can be summed up by saying "the author somehow managed to completely miss that Zakhaev was in charge of Russia already, and that Makarov inherited from him".

First part of Page 2: Same exact thing. Not sure how whoever this author is managed to miss that part of the story.

Stuff about the nuke: It was a HAND missile, which we already know the Russians are developing IRL. Considering MW2's story takes place in the early 2020s or so, not that hard to believe that the HANDs would be in production.

Stuff about Sheperd: That was the entire point. Didn't the author listen to the long speech at the beginning of the game?

"Army of two": Looks like somebody doesn't understand how NATO works.



Everything else is just grasping for straws.

[Paddy O Fernature]

lol

http://www.gamesradar.com/modern-warfar ... s-exposed/

This sums it up imo, not as well as I would like but still.

Page 1 of that article can be summed up by saying "the author somehow managed to completely miss that Zakhaev was in charge of Russia already, and that Makarov inherited from him".

First part of Page 2: Same exact thing. Not sure how whoever this author is managed to miss that part of the story.

Stuff about the nuke: It was a HAND missile, which we already know the Russians are developing IRL. Considering MW2's story takes place in the early 2020s or so, not that hard to believe that the HANDs would be in production.

Stuff about Sheperd: That was the entire point. Didn't the author listen to the long speech at the beginning of the game?

"Army of two": Looks like somebody doesn't understand how NATO works.



Everything else is just grasping for straws.

Projected UEG Response:

You countered my argument with logic and sound reasoning, and I have no response. Therefore, I give no fucks about plot!

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

lol

http://www.gamesradar.com/modern-warfar ... s-exposed/

This sums it up imo, not as well as I would like but still.

Page 1 of that article can be summed up by saying "the author somehow managed to completely miss that Zakhaev was in charge of Russia already, and that Makarov inherited from him".

First part of Page 2: Same exact thing. Not sure how whoever this author is managed to miss that part of the story.

Stuff about the nuke: It was a HAND missile, which we already know the Russians are developing IRL. Considering MW2's story takes place in the early 2020s or so, not that hard to believe that the HANDs would be in production.

Stuff about Sheperd: That was the entire point. Didn't the author listen to the long speech at the beginning of the game?

"Army of two": Looks like somebody doesn't understand how NATO works.



Everything else is just grasping for straws.

Not good enough of an explanation.

Such as why did Russia invade, how did they not know Makarov was behind it?

How did Russia get past Europe, and attacked the United States in the first place, they should have attacked from Alaska and the west coast.

How did a fucking space station get blown up when the missile was blown up?

Provide evidence that it was a HAND.

If Russia was controlled by Zakhaev, then why didn't the war start right there upon his death?

Its bullshit regardless, MW3 is a continuation of MW2.

Page 1 of that article can be summed up by saying "the author somehow managed to completely miss that Zakhaev was in charge of Russia already, and that Makarov inherited from him".

First part of Page 2: Same exact thing. Not sure how whoever this author is managed to miss that part of the story.

Stuff about the nuke: It was a HAND missile, which we already know the Russians are developing IRL. Considering MW2's story takes place in the early 2020s or so, not that hard to believe that the HANDs would be in production.

Stuff about Sheperd: That was the entire point. Didn't the author listen to the long speech at the beginning of the game?

"Army of two": Looks like somebody doesn't understand how NATO works.



Everything else is just grasping for straws.

Projected UEG Response:

You countered my argument with logic and sound reasoning, and I have no response. Therefore, I give no fucks about plot!

And you, you don't know my response, so really, you shouldn't bother speaking as a mouth piece for me, I can talk myself thank you.

Says the person who didn't use any logical debate at all in what is most likely still a humorous debate about gaming platforms.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And you, you don't know my response, so really, you shouldn't bother speaking as a mouth piece for me, I can talk myself thank you.

Says the person who didn't use any logical debate at all in what is most likely still a humorous debate about gaming platforms.

I don't know your response, but I can make a logical guess based upon your inspiring and well thought out responses so far in this thread, when someone shows you up.

Don't blame me, if you can't comprehend that Consoles suck compared to the PC, and that games on consoles will never be as good as on PC... even when reviews to modern games are provided backing up my claim.

[Bezombia]

Page 1 of that article can be summed up by saying "the author somehow managed to completely miss that Zakhaev was in charge of Russia already, and that Makarov inherited from him".

First part of Page 2: Same exact thing. Not sure how whoever this author is managed to miss that part of the story.

Stuff about the nuke: It was a HAND missile, which we already know the Russians are developing IRL. Considering MW2's story takes place in the early 2020s or so, not that hard to believe that the HANDs would be in production.

Stuff about Sheperd: That was the entire point. Didn't the author listen to the long speech at the beginning of the game?

"Army of two": Looks like somebody doesn't understand how NATO works.



Everything else is just grasping for straws.

Not good enough of an explanation.

Such as why did Russia invade, how did they not know Makarov was behind it?

How did Russia get past Europe, and attacked the United States in the first place, they should have attacked from Alaska and the west coast.

How did a fucking space station get blown up when the missile was blown up?

Provide evidence that it was a HAND.

If Russia was controlled by Zakhaev, then why didn't the war start right there upon his death?

Its bullshit regardless, MW3 is a continuation of MW2.

1: There is no distinction between "Makarov" and "Russia". By the time of the events of "No Russian", Makarov was already in control of Russia.

2: The eastern half of Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, etc.) still have strong Russian alliances, and are essentially still salivate states.
Also, they did attack Alaska. The invasion of Alaska is only mentioned a couple times because it isn't really relevant to the rest of the story, but it is mentioned.

3: Do you have any idea how nuclear explosions work?

4: The fact that it's a nuclear device that blew up at a high altitude? Guess what HAND stands for.

5: The war itself was orchestrated by Makarov and Sheperd, each for their own reasons. Zakhaev didn't have any ties with Sheperd. The war started as soon as it reasonably could have.

6: And MW3 was a POS game that abandoned any sense of thought out storywriting that MW2 had because all of the good writers left the studio.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

And you, you don't know my response, so really, you shouldn't bother speaking as a mouth piece for me, I can talk myself thank you.

Says the person who didn't use any logical debate at all in what is most likely still a humorous debate about gaming platforms.

I don't know your response, but I can make a logical guess based upon your inspiring and well thought out responses so far in this thread, when someone shows you up.

Don't blame me, if you can't comprehend that Consoles suck compared to the PC, even when reviews to modern games are provided backing up my claim.

Yeah...yeah...

Sure whatever, I don't need you as a mouth piece, don't speak for me.

And fuck no...its subjective regardless. I don't need super hyper fucking graphics to enjoy a damn game, or mods, or anything.

I play on the PC too, I need to upgrade it but still I play games on my PC as well, I started out on a PC.

I appreciate both, but I don't have my head up my ass and defend one or the other with my life....

Its a product, meant for entertainment, I still get my entertainment from Mario games for the Super Nintendo, a majority of my love for gaming comes from the first Play Station.

regardless your response wasn't logical, especially since you have yet to make no logical response to prove any statement you made in an earlier argument.

Suck it up, you never made a good point here. Goodbye.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Not good enough of an explanation.

Such as why did Russia invade, how did they not know Makarov was behind it?

How did Russia get past Europe, and attacked the United States in the first place, they should have attacked from Alaska and the west coast.

How did a fucking space station get blown up when the missile was blown up?

Provide evidence that it was a HAND.

If Russia was controlled by Zakhaev, then why didn't the war start right there upon his death?

Its bullshit regardless, MW3 is a continuation of MW2.

1: There is no distinction between "Makarov" and "Russia". By the time of the events of "No Russian", Makarov was already in control of Russia.

2: The eastern half of Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, etc.) still have strong Russian alliances, and are essentially still salivate states.
Also, they did attack Alaska. The invasion of Alaska is only mentioned a couple times because it isn't really relevant to the rest of the story, but it is mentioned.

3: Do you have any idea how nuclear explosions work?

4: The fact that it's a nuclear device that blew up at a high altitude? Guess what HAND stands for.

5: The war itself was orchestrated by Makarov and Sheperd, each for their own reasons. Zakhaev didn't have any ties with Sheperd. The war started as soon as it reasonably could have.

6: And MW3 was a POS game that abandoned any sense of thought out storywriting that MW2 had because all of the good writers left the studio.

Look, I don't give a shit, the issue at hand is a subjective one, the fact that you haven't added any sources just doesn't make this a worthwhile debate.

[Torisakia]

Look, I don't give a shit, the issue at hand is a subjective one, the fact that you haven't added any sources just doesn't make this a worthwhile debate.

Seems POF was right...

Wouldn't the game itself be counted a source?

[Alexiandra]

Its a choice between a broken game or a shit game. Guess which is which.

[Marsisian]

World at War and MW2 were very good games. MW3 and Black Ops were terrible.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I don't know your response, but I can make a logical guess based upon your inspiring and well thought out responses so far in this thread, when someone shows you up.

Don't blame me, if you can't comprehend that Consoles suck compared to the PC, even when reviews to modern games are provided backing up my claim.

Yeah...yeah...

Sure whatever, I don't need you as a mouth piece, don't speak for me.

And fuck no...its subjective regardless. I don't need super hyper fucking graphics to enjoy a damn game, or mods, or anything.

I play on the PC too, I need to upgrade it but still I play games on my PC as well, I started out on a PC.

I appreciate both, but I don't have my head up my ass and defend one or the other with my life....

Its a product, meant for entertainment, I still get my entertainment from Mario games for the Super Nintendo, a majority of my love for gaming comes from the first Play Station.

regardless your response wasn't logical, especially since you have yet to make no logical response to prove any statement you made in an earlier argument.

Suck it up, you never made a good point here. Goodbye.

So, to make sure we have this covered. You don't give a fuck about:

Graphics/resolution
Plot
Modability/re-playability
Realism
multiplayer anything

Tell me again, why you game? As it seems like it would be impossible for you to have fun, based upon your own admissions.

World at War and MW2 were very good games. MW3 and Black Ops were terrible.

I'm very glad I never bought into BO 1&2, as they both stunk.

[Bezombia]

Yeah...yeah...

Sure whatever, I don't need you as a mouth piece, don't speak for me.

And fuck no...its subjective regardless. I don't need super hyper fucking graphics to enjoy a damn game, or mods, or anything.

I play on the PC too, I need to upgrade it but still I play games on my PC as well, I started out on a PC.

I appreciate both, but I don't have my head up my ass and defend one or the other with my life....

Its a product, meant for entertainment, I still get my entertainment from Mario games for the Super Nintendo, a majority of my love for gaming comes from the first Play Station.

regardless your response wasn't logical, especially since you have yet to make no logical response to prove any statement you made in an earlier argument.

Suck it up, you never made a good point here. Goodbye.

So, to make sure we have this covered. You don't give a fuck about:

Graphics/resolution
Plot
Modability/re-playability
Realism
multiplayer anything

Tell me again, why you game?

He probably just reads games.