Call Of Duty Is Dying

krudler wrote: »

Battlefield looks amazing on that video as its running on a pc you wouldnt get much change from a grand for probably. I'll be getting both anyway. I'm happy with MW3 being similar to MW2 because its a direct sequel in the same franchise, long as it fixes the issues and give me more of the same gameplay I'm happy. Doesnt mean I dont want to experience new things in BF3 either.

As a sidenote, I was trading in a pile of dvds in gamestop last week and was chatting to the girl doing the trade in for me about how many great games coming out this year there are, they've taken over 250 preorders already for MW3, paid preorders at that. COD isnt going aywhere.

yimrsg wrote: »

Just want to say that "Call of Duty Is Dying" would be something that the gutter press would publish and to me you've not put a lot of thought into your post. I'm sure if you looked at the numbers of copies sold as the series has progressed you'd see just how wrong your assertion/diagnosis of COD being deceased is.

COD has Activision whilst Battlefield has EA, both are responsible for yearly re-releases of vastly similar games. They're always going to look for ways of making the most money from a series and alienate the fans. EA made a balls of the exclusive content with Battlefield 3 and no doubt Activision want as much dlc out there as possible for MW3 and black ops. Don't assume they're going to be near as generous (insane) as Valve and release games the quality of team fortress 2 for free.

I regularly play both games and on black ops there is on average 400k on xbox when I sign in during the evenings, I've seen it around the 1 million mark at launch and around 700k when a new map pack comes out. That's on a single system. PS3 and PC won't have the same number as that but the total amount of COD players far outnumber the total number of Battlefield players. On bfbcs.com you can see live numbers of players on, I've never seen it get near the numbers of black ops but it might have done, it might push 100k for all three systems but that's the same as Halo reach. For numbers played it's pitiful for Battlefield in comparison to COD.

The content put out by treyarch has always (to me at least) been weaker than IW who put out the best in the series. Also their multiplayer map design is bland compared to IW. Out of the 2 map packs I've bought only Stadium and Cotd were good. The rest were largely disappointing and I won't be buying more dlc for black ops. Zombie maps are even more specialised than normal multiplayer maps as far less people use them. It might make sense for the hardcore zombie players for a special zombie mappack only but then they're limiting themselves to a smaller market percentage and the majority of players wouldn't get it.

Both battlefield and cod have flaws and positives, bad company 2 has about 4 or 5 game types which truth be told can get very boring if you want variety whilst Cod lacks dedicated servers. I would hope that by them both being in direct competition that they advance their games further but to be honest I'm not expecting that from EA and Activision. MW3 has regressed in doing a 2 player zombie/horde mode whilst black ops had 4 player, battlefield 3 could have sod all game modes and do what they did last time and make players pay for a dlc game mode.

Neither game has advanced significantly for me, if you've played Bad company then you're not going to be blown away with what's put out there to whet your appetite. To me B3 looks even more similar to Bad Company 2 than Black Ops compared with MW2. Sure it might have the newer version of frostbite but if I don't see a noticeable improvement graphically for the new iteration I'm still going to be p*ssed off thinking they just made it that tiny bit nicer looking but it's 90% of the same.

Just to go off an a tangent, I don't buy into the typical COD gamer is a kid and battlefield player are adults. There are d*cks and decent randomers playing both, one game on bbc2 I've gotten messages of "gg" and from other players the typical "LOL camper ure s*it" the same happens in COD. You're more likely to meet (good and bad) people in COD due to no dedicated servers requiring matchmaking lobbies and the ability to talk in groups larger than 4 people. I particularly hate all the hardcore/normal comparisons that inevitably arise in both games. Neither games are realistic and nor should they strive to be, games are meant to be fun first not realistic. Without wishing to stigmatise people, I'm of the opinion that COD gamers don't slag off battlefield (possibly haven't even played it and have no opinion of it) but battlefield players generally think less of COD players.

To be honest COD/Battlefield aren't dying but stagnating like most of the games industry. They're the biggest names in fps out there and they know that the game will sell on reputation alone and don't have bother striving for that perfect game. I'll still get both but don't expect me to throw my money away for overpriced DLC that should have come with the game. Until another series comes in and usurps them we're going to have this duopoly with us for quite some while.

Magill wrote: »

You sure on that ? Theres on average 500-600k on the PS3 online at around this time in the day. 562,299 atm (Map pack isnt out till the end of next month so its the typical amount).

I agree with alot of what your saying.. but BF3 looks insanely good compared to BC2. black ops has a different art style than MW2, thats the only reason it looks so different from MW2, not that its improved graphically.

krudler wrote: »

so is COD though, not just pub stomping either, thats gets boring. Although some people seem to think that 6 guys in a clan who know each other hammering 6 random people is an achievement, its like Ali being delighted he knocked out a blind kid once :pac: