Sections

BF3 vs MW3: “Underdog” Gibeau turns pitbull for EA

Tuesday, 14th June 2011 15:51 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Openly aggressive EA Games president Frank Gibeau has said that competition between the Battlefield and Call of Duty series is good for the industry, despite the two providing different experiences.

“I can tell you from the top down that we’re going after them, we’re leaving nothing behind. We’re going all out.”

Speaking with the Guardian, Gibeau said that in order to be an effective competitor in the industry, you have to have total commitment to your teams, tech and consumers and go “all out” in order to succeed.

This applies to all competition in the games industry, he said, whether it be sports, or another shooter like the Call of Duty series.

“You’re talking about hundreds of hours of people’s lives, building and working on these things,” he said. “If you don’t have total commitment and passion to the craft and the art of games, you’re not going to be a particularly effective competitor. It’s the same for sport, and it’s the same for business.

“I can tell you from the top down that we’re going after them, we’re leaving nothing behind. We’re going all out. Whether it’s PES vs Fifa or Madden versus 2K Sport, we take these things very seriously – frankly, we enjoy them. We like to compete. It’s good for customers – they get innovation that might not have been there otherwise. They get more buzz, more choice, and it will grow the category.

“The interesting thing about Battlefield versus Modern Warfare is, they’re very differently shaded games, they’re very different experiences; it’s not like buying two football games, where it’s all the same teams. You can buy and enjoy both experiences. We’re proud of what we have in Frostbite – it’s a generation ahead of anything else that’s out there right now. Dice has been together for 10 years, it’s a tight team and they know what works.”

Gibeau is keen on such competition, and feels its good for the “overall category for shooters,” especially considering Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are different enough to appease both audiences at the same time.

“It’s a situation where it’s not like you can only root for one of two football teams in the Super Bowl,” Gibeau told VentureBeat.

“These are very differentiated experiences so I think fans and players can potentially play both and compare and contrast them this holiday. We are going all out. We are going to leave nothing to chance. We love competing as a company. We have a history of these fights with FIFA, PES and EA Sports. So you know it’s a heavyweight fight. We are the underdog but you know that we are going for it.

“One way to think about it is just like Roger Moore’s James Bond versus Jason Bourne in the spy realm. You can have spectacular, killer, exciting visceral moments. Battlefield has that. But where Battlefield has always come from is its authenticity at depicting big battles. And the technology that we have — the Frostbite 2 engine — allows us to do a lot of things differently like that tank level. You can drive the tank anywhere on the map. It’s a huge open place and it’s not just a rail shooter where you can only go in one direction. You can drive the tank left. You can drive the tank back. You can have a full tank battle that way. We have environmental lighting, lots of really cool weapons effects, and it looks unbelievable. You have that fidelity, that authenticity of feeling like you are in the Paris Metro and there are soldiers approaching you with flash lights on their guns. We really believe that visceral realistic feeling is what sets us apart from them.

“You know it’s a heavyweight fight. We are the underdog but you know that we are going for it.”

“Destruction is another big deal. We haven’t really shown off the full extent of destruction yet, but you can take whole houses down, drive a tank through them. When you place them in the competition’s titles, you will be shooting and you run behind a paper billboard and you will put holes in the paper billboard and the bullets won’t go through the paper billboard. Battlefield allows you to knock the whole billboard over. You may knock down a wall, knock down a door so it opens up different ways of playing the game.”

Gibeau feels that Battlefield 3′s destruction, scale, vehicles and engine gives the game “something very different from what the competition has.”

He added: “If you play the multiplayer, they are very different in terms of team tactics. You can mix and match a guy flying overhead with a helicopter, getting shot at by a tank while somebody else drives a Humvee into the side of the tank with explosives. Or there is a sniper in the building knocking somebody else down with an artillery strike. That literally all happens in one level as opposed to the competitor’s battle where you have ten guys on each side in a small confined space shooting at each other without a lot of those features. So I can go on and on but yes those are the things we think about.”

What worked, what didn’t

While Gibeau seems to know what works and what doesn’t, sometimes even the best laid plans don’t execute: Medal of Honor is one such example.

Last year, the firm said it was going after the shooter crown and the revamped Medal of Honor franchise was going to help it achieve its goal. This pitted the title up against Call of Duty, and while the former did well at market, it didn’t even come close to touching the sales of Black Ops, which became the number one entertainment launch in history.

“We learned that [shooters are] a tough category,” Gibeau admitted to VentureBeat. “We also learned that Medal of Honor did sell well, we were proud of it, but we wished it had done better from a quality standpoint. The key learning was, we wanted to get on to a common technology – the Medal of Honor and Battlefield teams are now operating in the same group together so they can share tools, technologies, innovations, without feeling like the same games.

“Battlefield and Medal of Honor will be part of a rotation that we go after the shooter category with, and this year, with Battlefield 3, I think we have a generational breakthrough in terms of technology. We have a team that’s been together for ten years. The Medal of Honor team was fairly new, they were using middleware and software that had already been out there, so…they’re a great team, and we’re going to continue to invest in them, but we’re going to approach it slightly differently than we did before.”

Battlefield 3 launches on October 25 in the US and October 28 in the UK, while Modern Warfare 3 is out November 8.

Both will be made available on PC, PS3, and Xbox 360.

Breaking news

55 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. manamana

    To each their own. But Battlefield for all of ya! :-D

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Dralen

    I can’t wait till they show us some good destruction footage. He really hyped me up for it there.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Bloodyghost

    I love the looks of the destruction for Multiplayer. I hope to god that the skyscrapers collapse after so much shots unlike BC2 when some building would just literally be supports and no doors, walls or windows.

    Also I hope they make it more realistic then BC2 which was close to the destruction you can cause at the level of Red Faction.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    After what i saw, i don’t get it. Why you need to compare Battlefield 3 to Call Of duty:MW3?

    MW3 stands somewhere in between polish shooters and Homefront|MoH kind of games. One thing where MW3 will win are sales because Activision trumps when it comes to PR marketing.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. M. K.

    `BC2 which was close to the destruction you can cause at the level of Red Faction.`

    I lol’d

    #5 3 years ago
  6. DEADEYES

    Destruction means no place for campers! :)

    #6 3 years ago
  7. OlderGamer

    EA keeps making noise about it because there are tons of CoD/shooter fans that think they already have the best game and won’t even look at BF. They are just trying to keep the hype machine on high.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Bloodyghost

    @5, Sorry its tad early here in Cali. MY BAD!

    #8 3 years ago
  9. IL DUCE

    Yeah while I will most likely buy both since my friends will never just trust that bf3 will be better and go to their safe boring CoD, I think I will enjoy BF3 much more especially since MW3 looks like more of the same from the past 4 years and visually looks identical to MW3…battlefield on the other hand has its first entry in the major series since 2005 and also looks completely different visually and gameplay wise to bad company 2…so really looking forward to bf3, just hope they put a no respawn game mode in there maybe without vehicles so my boys will quit whining and not have to run to cod to play hardcore search and destroy all the time…

    #9 3 years ago
  10. IL DUCE

    Yeah while I will most likely buy both since my friends will never just trust that bf3 will be better and go to their safe boring CoD, I think I will enjoy BF3 much more especially since MW3 looks like more of the same from the past 4 years and visually looks identical to MW2…battlefield on the other hand has its first entry in the major series since 2005 and also looks completely different visually and gameplay wise to bad company 2…so really looking forward to bf3, just hope they put a no respawn game mode in there maybe without vehicles so my boys will quit whining and not have to run to cod to play hardcore search and destroy all the time…

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Bloodyghost

    @10 I might do the same but I would LOVE to get Halo Anniversary since I am a Halo-Head and the fact I can play 4 player coop with all my brothers like we did when we played 2 player split screen and 4 player LAN Multiplayer ages ago.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. G1GAHURTZ

    Blah, blah, blah…

    More gibberish, more nonsense from the also rans.

    CoD is lightyears ahead of BF3 on so many levels. Sales, most played charts, MetaCritic, etc. Not only that, but it offers tons more than BF ever did.

    An intense single player, Spec Ops/Zombies with tons of replay value, which is set to get bigger, and that’s before we even get to the MP!

    The MP is not only super playable, instantly accessible and bags of fun, but it also boasts tons of stats, and a level of customisation that BF can only dream of.

    Game modes from 1v1 up to ground war, and you’ve got a game type for whatever mood you might be in…

    Search and Destroy, Free For All, Sabotage, Hardcore, Demolition, etc, etc, etc… All different game types to mix things up when you feel like it.

    Play with killstreaks or without them. Play clan matches or just for fun. CoD caters for so many different FPS tastes that BF could only dream of.

    The only major thing that BF has going for it are the big bucks behind EA’s big mouths. Without that, it’s just another OpFlash/Crysis/Haze.

    An also ran going fading into obscurity…

    CoD has THIRTY MILLION PLAYERS who have contributed towards the biggest gaming community going.

    I don’t see BF videos in the most popular of the day/week/month/etc on Youtube. I don’t see pro players playing BF tournaments and posting vids. Where is the BF community?? Too busy reading CoD articles, probably…

    Compared to CoD in just about every way you can think of, BF doesn’t even come close.

    There’s no contest.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. freedoms_stain

    Someone has his defensive pants on.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. JGaLaXY815

    used to love CoD but bring on the destruction like #6 said…tired of these little punks hiding all the time…show me the clip of someone hiding behind a door in the corner, then me respawning going there with a launcher destorying the whole house…then i will pre-order…

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Dralen

    Holy crap! I just feel like I walked into an Activision Rep with me wearing a “COD is Shit!” T-shirt.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. M. K.

    `also looks completely different visually and gameplay wise to bad company 2`

    Oh really? You can’t say that because the only thing we saw from this game is a short MP clip and some singleplayer footage which didn’t look diferent than BC2, if you forget the graphics and the new engine.

    And G1GA, I always thought that you’re just trolling, but you’re bloody serious aren’t you? :)

    #16 3 years ago
  17. DSB

    @16 Yeah, the particle effects and the lighting are vastly improved, but it looked a lot like BC2 gameplay.

    Frostbite 2 is obviously going to give EA value for money, but whether DICE are still capable of making a truly great multiplayer shooter remains to be seen.

    I doubt we’ll see any major strides until Respawn burst onto the scene.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Erthazus

    “but it looked a lot like BC2 gameplay.”

    and it should be like that. Like Battlefield 2.
    Nothing need to change. It’s perfect for what it is. 4 classes (team gadgets) Needs more balance with snipers which they finally solved judging by the demo version at E3.

    and… thats it. More destruction and better destruction. fantastic sound effects, great vehicle physics and vehicle controls. Everything is great.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. Maximum Payne

    LoL G1GAHURTZ not sure if he serious.
    Quality over quantity.Cod can have 15 attachments,killstreaks,maps…but how many of them have stupid spawn system,choke points,balance issue(harrier,ump,spas12,tar….) I love MW2 I still play it and Black Ops was in good direction removing stoping power/danger close but now if MW3 going to have again quickscope and no dolphin dive…Again BF and Cod are not comparable, Cod is lone wolf type of game and BF is all about team work.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DSB

    @18 BC2 is vastly different from BF2 beyond containing mostly the same components, minus the jets.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. Mondayding

    I’ll get both, and I don’t care who says what about either. Because when I’m playing a game everything anyone has ever said about it means bugger all.

    Helpful, huh?

    #21 3 years ago
  22. Erthazus

    G1GAHURTZ, are you Robert Bowling?

    Serious question.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. G1GAHURTZ

    @16:

    Of course I’m serious!

    Today I took my 360 in to work, hooked it up to one of the projectors and within a few minutes me and some other people I work with were playing 1v1 on rust on MW2, then on Firing range on BO. We took turns doing 1v1 (because I only had 2 controllers) and it was a load of laughs.

    Can you do that on BF?

    Sorry, you need about another 30 people first…

    #23 3 years ago
  24. Erthazus

    @DSB, and it should not do anything further. It’s not a fast twitch shooter like Quake or Call Of Duty.
    It’s slow/limited movement and should be that way. All what they are doing right now are improving interactivity with the Battle field and physics, destruction and vehicles. It’s Battlefield. It’s all about what you can do in the field. Heavy team gameplay.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. G1GAHURTZ

    @22:

    No.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. DSB

    @24 That does little to explain why DICE removed all the major cooperative elements they used in BF2. Commanders and squadleaders removed, support requests removed, slower vehicles, slower overall movement, dispersion on the guns, and far fewer buildings and chokepoints on the map.

    Ironically they kept the same slow progression system.

    BF2 was a hardcore, competitive shooter that went extremely far in forcing people to work together and fill out their roles, particularly as squadleaders and commander, with far superior balance. BC2 is just another online shooter with vehicles and destruction.

    The fact that you’re able to throw packs around and stab people with magical syringes is hardly teamplay. You’re just aiming at your own guys every once in a while, too. Teamplay would require an element of real coordination, which BF2 was very much about.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. Maximum Payne

    @26 I think there is squadleaders in BF3.But all those problem that you mention is because design of BC2 becase again its primarily console game.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. DSB

    @27 That doesn’t make it less of a step backwards, though.

    In BF2 you had a command channel specifically for the people coordinating the fight, don’t tell me you couldn’t replicate that on a 360 or a PS3.

    You could essentially just ensure that the commander would always override everybody elses mic input, and you’d still have coordination in the game.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. Maximum Payne

    @28 Its not about it could or not its about accessibility and I think BF3 is going to be golden middle.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. DSB

    @29 That was my point, though. BC2 is just another online shooter with vehicles and destruction. BF2 has it beat in pretty much anything but tech.

    I hope that BF3 means a return to that, but ultimately DICE have made nothing like it in more than half a decade now.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. freedoms_stain

    @28, I play with a lot of dedicated BC2 players and the more or less universal opinion on Commanders is that console players would not listen.

    imo CoD has changed the way people play online shooters. People don’t play to win anymore. They play for kills and points. Doesn’t matter if you lost the game if you’ve got the best k/d and the most points!

    I don’t play BC2 on my own very often any more, because any time I do at least half my team will be clustered in typical Wookie positions in ghille suits staring down a 12x scope. Requests to help the team are ignored or met with a torrent of abuse.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. DSB

    @31 That’s just a load of nonsense.

    You could’ve made the same argument when we went from CS to BF1942 and BF2 in the first place, but BF2 did it, and people embraced it. Which is what always happens if you design a good system – People play along.

    A large ammount of the people playing on consoles today are liable to’ve been PC players in the past, and peoples notions on userbases that they believe to have intimate knowledge of, based on nothing but their own prejudice ultimately proves very little, considering the fact that such a system was never even attempted on those platforms.

    If you’ve designed a gamemode that doesn’t center around killing the opposite team, but that’s what people focus on, then you just haven’t done a very good job of engineering that gamemode, because clearly they still feel more rewarded doing things that they aren’t supposed to.

    Likewise, if people were somehow ruined by CoD, then they’d obviously have more fun playing that game, than running around in BC2.

    #32 3 years ago
  33. Bloodyghost

    This industry is hilarious.

    Modern Warfare is only really Multiplayer. I think we can assume that Battlefield 3 will have a big Multiplayer but the fact that EA is singling the showing of the single player means they want people to see the Battlefield Single Player as a component rather then a supplement to the experience and whole package.

    Countless times Activision shows there Single Player right when there game is announced, then builds up the fans anticipation and hype with the riding on what they are doing via Multiplayer.

    The only problem I see with Battlefields Multiplayer game is that they seem to be waiting a little to long to have a public beta….a beta stage for that game would be best during Late Summer like in July to August.

    I think EA is riding on a public beta thats more of a Release Candidate then a beta to build anticipation for the game’s multiplayer. Just releasing a post Beta patch after the “BETA” on September to help balance the game.

    #33 3 years ago
  34. polygem

    preordered both – will play both – will (probably) enjoy both – will play the hell outta both for a year or so – wich makes both well worth the purchase – they both have pros and cons if you compare them to each other – sales don´t proof quality – shakira is just one example – i adore bf for bringing this battlefield feel to gaming – it´s outstanding and so very good- i really love a good fast paced free for all cod competition as well – like i said – buy both – if you like shooters you´ll have to anyway or not? yes.

    #34 3 years ago
  35. GwynbleiddiuM

    @G1GAHURTZ So let me get this straight, in your very honest opinion!!! id Tech 3 (a.ka Quake 3 engine) is light-years ahead of Frostbite 2.0?!

    #35 3 years ago
  36. freedoms_stain

    @32, me and my friends mostly play Domination on MW2, we’re pretty good at it because we’re very objective minded. We’re not really bothered about k/d as long as we get to 200 points 1st, however frequently we’ll finish up a round having won and the clan tag boys on the other side will be hooting about how they won because they have better individual scores.

    This is almost guarantee’d to happen at least once a session. So, prejudice, or experience?

    Fact is modern shooters gush ‘points’ on players for everything and anything, every barest achievement is showered with pointage, Bad Company is guilty of it too, but CoD is the absolute worst. Bonus points for getting one kill after a “death streak” bravo my man, well done. I know I’m a pretty shitty CoD player and I sit and lol when the game showers points on me for stupid shit.

    #36 3 years ago
  37. DSB

    @36 I wasn’t really looking to exchange good and bad experiences, I just think it’s silly to say that because you’ve met a few cunts online, teamwork would never work, and supposing that people somehow get brainwashed by what they play. Games really don’t have that kind of power.

    It’s a bit like kidding yourself that 30,000,000 consumers are all 13 year old kids or fratboys, rather than 30,000,000 million people, who are likely to be everyone from stock brokers, gamers, priests, busdrivers, academics, aka the general taxpaying public, which also happens to include kids and fratboys.

    I generally don’t have a lot of problems playing HQ or Domination, but it’s a general rule of the internet that you have absolutely no control over what people are gonna be doing, all you can to is entice them to do the right thing.

    #37 3 years ago
  38. G1GAHURTZ

    @35:

    Frostbite 2.0 is like a braindead bimbo with a beautiful face. She might look stunning, but once the visual appeal wears off, what’s left underneath isn’t all that great.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. GwynbleiddiuM

    @38, I almost took you for a serious person, oh wait! you are serious, now I think you’re just sad…

    #39 3 years ago
  40. G1GAHURTZ

    Gameplay will always, always, always be more important than visuals.

    It’s as simple as that.

    When it comes to gameplay, CoD has BF beaten. No contest.

    Why?

    Because IW have taken a simple game and year after year, added more options, more customisation and more and more layers of depth and complexity. They’ve still kept the simple core of the game, which means that CoD can be enjoyed by beginners as well as the hardcore.

    Don’t forget that were talking about a game that offers hundreds of hours of gameplay, which IW keep adding to with every release.

    It’s an award winning game that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, so while some people might like them to throw all of that work into the bin and focus on some new smoke effects and explosions, any serious gamer will realise that visuals sometimes need to take the back seat.

    DICE, on the other hand, have taken a complex, hardcore PC game and tried to dumb it down and dumb it down year after year.

    As DSB has clearly shown in this very thread, they’ve actually REMOVED features (and vehicles!) and tried to streamline a game, which they realise is too hardcore for the masses.

    So while anyone can pick up CoD and play intuitively from the get go, BF has three or four (I can’t remember exactly how many) screens for control customisation!

    Oooh, it’s got planes! Well woop-ti-do, because all your average gamer is going to do is give up trying to fly one, once they crash before even taking off for the third time in a row…

    CoD is action, action, action, but in BF, where a single game can last up to an hour, you might only see 1 person every 10 minutes if you don’t know what you’re supposed to be doing first.

    That’s BF’s self inflicted problem. It’s facing an identity crisis, trying to imitate a game which is nothing like it!

    Adding a generic single player, removing options and features, adding dinosaurs(!), it’s all pretty desperate.

    But it does have amazing graphics.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. GwynbleiddiuM

    @40 well, I really didn’t want to continue this, but I couldn’t agree more with your first sentence, but I pity you for being in the illusion and delusion that is “CoD actually has a better gameplay”.

    You obviously have no clue what gameplay means and what it stands for. CoD’s gameplay is surely fun, bloody hell, I myself played that shit a lot back in days it looked fresh and solid. But if you actually believe today’s CoD games are anything close to that experience you have joined the long list of mindless drones who does not even realize what happened where, and when it has happened. for that I strongly urge you to took some step backwards and play CoD, CoD2 and CoD4 again. Maybe there might be still hope for you, which I don’t want to give anyone any false hope, so I truly don’t think there’s any hope for you and mindless drones like you. You have lost your touch with what was fun yet serious long before this.

    The only thing IW adds to each game is more guns, attachments, perks and killstreaks. Oh, how ignorant of me, I nearly forgot the emblems and titles, for that I truly apologies, I hope you were not offended by that.

    In what universe this adds to hundreds of hours to gameplay if you’re still sane?!

    The story, a cliche, that needs to be dropped like a bad habit. and each year seem to lose an hour worth of gameplay. Bunch of cool dudes from US and UK, team up too dismantle some ugly Russian ultra nationalists, which after each mission they seem to get even more ugly, some lose an eye some lose an arm, some lose a son, someone’s BFF comes in the next game and takes the world buy a circus caliber stunt, some cool dude turn against his pals and becomes the ultimate bad dude. Where have I seen these things before? oh, the 80′s…

    So why I do not see the value you’re keep referring people to?

    and YES! BF got planes, it also got tanks, oh and choppa!!! yay, but you don’t have any obligation to use them, it also has humvee and atv, you don’t even need to use those. There are plenty of others who’d take the burden off your shoulder and pilot the planes and choppers, no need to sweat that much. grab your rifle and get right into battle and start pwnage. Oh, yes it is harder for you, you’re used to maps the size of a tennis court, where 8 dudes RPS each other in some places that best left unmentioned. You never seen a map in the size of your entire neighborhood, oh wait, that’s still small in comparison, how do I put it, erm.. how do I put it, it’s a bit tricky.. oh wait, I just had an idea, how bout a large scale warzone, that pretty much is it. You never seen that, how could you? you were trapped inside a matchbox, around some corner waiting for someone to show up in front of your scope, so you can ninja kill them and get your streak and call on an airstrike where practically each rocket worth a lot more than all the people worth combined in the entire map…

    This is your idea of fun, where a single camper can decide the fate of a game. Where teamplay, is just some bad joke. where you take 3 steps and you end up in the enemy’s base, where you throw a grenade and almost everytime some dude goes up high in the sky. So that is your idea of hardcore gameplay experience.

    Well, it seems, I truly don’t like to play with bunch of guys who fit in the description. You see, my idea of an engaging and fun and challenging experience is not, how many attachments I can mount on my gun, or how many weapons I get to unlock, how many different kind of killstreaks I might chose from, or how many different corners in a map I can camp in. My idea is to get in a squad, where I can join bunch of other dudes who understand tactics, and can use their head to advance in such an unfriendly environment, that when you make mistakes, it affects the entire gameplan of your side. Where I can use my own ability to drop a bomb off a fighter jet, so precise that the enemy suffers from it, not some AI nut-jub do it for me. I love it when I see people working together to get the job done and not thinking about their individual scores and frags. I love it when the team wins, everyone wins, or everyone lose. these things make me feel ecstatic. So don’t call me an average player because long before you call yourself a gamer my team was working hard to qualify for WCG finals back in 2003, we had such a great CS team, until our government decided to piss on it and ban the game and every competition for it.

    You don’t know nothing about anything. So I suggest you go and play you CoD, and leave us average BF players to rot in our battlefield.

    #41 3 years ago
  42. noherczeg

    #41

    Oh man, what have you done?! My tears, the tears… Best comparison i’ve ever seen on the internetz. Well done, well done _o_

    #42 3 years ago
  43. G1GAHURTZ

    @41:

    Quick reply:

    1. They added value, because they added things like Spec Ops, (Sorry, I must have missed the Spec Ops part in CoD2…) New game modes (barebones/Third person mode/different hardcore modes/etc), and more that adds hours upon hours of extra gaming that wouldn’t be there without them.

    BF has a meagre handful of imitation modes that get boring very quickly.

    2. You’re contradicting yourself by saying that CoD used to be fun, then they added more stuff, and now it’s not fun(!?). This is even more bizarre when you think about exactly how little BF has changed over the years.

    3. You make the schoolboy error of complaining about a game because your team mates don’t do what you want them to do. Maybe you just have no clue tactically, so no-one listens to you, or you just have no friends that want to play with you. Either way, the few people that you’ve played with bear no reflection whatsoever on what the game makes possible for you to do.

    I think you just need more practice.

    4. I’m older than you, and so I’m pretty sure that I was playing FPS’s long before you even knew how to use a mouse. So please spare me the ‘I know more about gaming than you do’ drivel.

    #43 3 years ago
  44. GwynbleiddiuM

    Oh what a gigantic load of crap…

    4. you as you said are only 3 years older than me and I don’t give a damn when you were introduced to fps genre first but I remember my days of playing Doom, crystal clear. and btw, playing games long before the next guy is not an achievement to shove in ppls face. We all play games around here and that’s why we are here.

    3. You don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. people are required to have some sense of teamwork, in MW2 nobody cares about teamplay and strategy, maybe I didn’t play more than a 70 hours of modern warfare 2 MP awesomeness but las time I checked I played 70 hrs, and pretty much one of the few people alive who did not hacked his profile. Everything is unbalanced in this shit, people are running either with TMP, dual wield shits, Uzi, AK, or a sniper rifle for brave and valiant quick scoping. So yeah, I fucking know what I’m talking about, do you?

    2. Adding more stuff is not my concern, I want a solid and balanced gameplay. that’s why I still play Counter-Strike, CoD4: Promod and BF2 and BC2 time to time. Variety is nothing compared to solidness and balance of the game. Yeah sure I wouldn’t mind customizing my weapon, but at the same time I hate how killstreaks and perks ruins the game balance. Of course you wouldn’t know these things because you obviously never played a teamplay focused game in your entire life, or you failed miserably at it.

    *sarcasm* Yeah BF changed little, right….

    the core gameplay experience of the game remained intact yes, but the game improved on stuff that needed improvement and worked on balance issues.

    1. pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
    fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
    ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff…

    We live in a world that some community mod that pretty much existed since the beginning of the modifications, where random dudes spawn and attacks in waves, this is considered value.. yeah it was value when modders were making it as a mod free of charge for games like I dunno, Half-Life, HL2, Serious Sam, quake, unreal tournament, etc, etc, etc..

    IW packs the same zombie survival mode that was first introduced by Treyarch and replaced the horde of zombies with angry Russians or Muslims or some south American dudes that armed to the teeth, and giving it to you and you feel like such a satisfied sod.

    News flash, all been done before. And truly I’m glad people like you are in MW2 and 3 because it means I’m not gonna suffer from your presence and its consequences in my game. Go enjoy a round of MW2 now and don’t bother replying, cuz I probably skip on reading it anyway…

    #44 3 years ago
  45. G1GAHURTZ

    Quick reply 2:

    1. You’re the only one trying to big yourself up like you’re some FPS king from back in the day… You seemed to be suggesting that playing CS with your buddies, in 2003 made you some sort of FPS expert. I was simply pointing out that you might not be as ‘uber l337′ as you think.

    2. Again, for the SECOND time, you’re whinging about people that YOU’VE played with not being tactical enough. This has nothing to do with the game itself. It’s like if I spent 70 hours playing BF, then came away saying that everyone who plays the game only wants to sit in a bush and snipe.

    Also, the game is NOT unbalanced. If it was, everyone would use the same setup. Just go to Youtube, check every pro player that you can find, and I guarantee you, you won’t find 2 that prefer the exact same loadout.

    Your problem seems to be that you’re not good enough to deal with n00bs who run around with n00by weapons.

    3. There are barebones game types in CoD. No killstreaks and no perks. Strangely enough, relatively few people play that game type… I wonder if it could possibly be because most normal, non-whinging, gamers can realise that the killstreaks and setups are fair and balanced if you’re not a complete n00b.

    I’m not really bothered about people like you moaning about imbalance though, as you can pretty much guarantee that even in the most balanced game in the world, you’ll find some inexperienced players saying that everything is overpowered…

    4. When exactly did I say that Spec Ops was new??

    What does the fact that it’s based on an old idea have to do with anything??

    About 90% of the content of all new games that get released has been done before, but that doesn’t stop people from playing them, does it!?

    The fact remains that people still play, and enjoy Spec Ops today, meaning that there is tons of replay value in there, and without doubt, this has added to the overall value of the game.

    There’s at least 500+ hours of varied gameplay in CoD for anyone who wants it. 3 modes (SP/MP/Spec Ops) that other devs/pubs would probably try and sell seperately as full games.

    You can’t say the same about BF.

    I’ll just remind you of how your comment ended now… “Go enjoy a round of MW2 now and don’t bother replying, cuz I probably skip on reading it anyway…”

    See ya!

    #45 3 years ago
  46. GwynbleiddiuM

    I only answer the first part and only because you are wrong, you undermined everyone and said CoD haters are average players, I give you some background to tell you I’m not an average player. that’s all. as for the rest you keep repeating yourself, and in order to provide an answer I have to do the same, so, whatever. I don’t when would I meet with tactical enough players, after 70 hours and when everything is random, and no servers so I’d know those people are playing there let’s join them.

    #46 3 years ago
  47. G1GAHURTZ

    I in no way intended to imply that ALL BF players are average, so you misunderstood me if you thought that that was the case.

    I was simply making the point that (IMO) an average player who is average at FPS’s and struggles to go positive in CoD, can be a medic or engineer in BF, putting hours into the game without having to worry about shooting.

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. DICE have come up with an excellent way to get the less skillful involved and playing their game without getting too frustrated.

    However, that doesn’t then give said people the right to claim that there’s a fault with CoD.

    They keep dying because they’re not good enough at the game yet. Not for any other reason. If you put these exact same people in front of CS, they’d probably be just as bad, and die just as much.

    As for the tactical thing, you could simply join a clan. There must be countless CoD forums with like minded people looking for clan mates. I have one of my own, and we have tactics for all game types and occasions.

    I know of people who are so tactically minded with CoD that they get the maps from the internet, sit down and work out how they’re going to play each game type positionally, move by move.

    Anyway, it looks like the dedicated servers might be going back into MW3, so it shouldn’t be so random in future…

    #47 3 years ago
  48. furdelance

    @G1GAHURTZ you keep going on about how bf3 does not have enough features but you fail to give an example.
    You say that “IW have taken a simple game and year after year, added more options, more customisation and more and more layers of depth and complexity”
    But this can and does get boring after a while.Its like having your favourite food every day for 40 years. you just get bored of it.

    In the battlefield series, every time you jump into a game something new happens, something unique, something that COD can’t offer.
    One example of this would be that I was playing bc2 last night and as i was capturing a flag, a helicopter spun out of control and landed on me.

    In COD you get shot from the same position, the same angle, the same method of death. ALso, you mentioned that no one will use the exact same loadout but the differ very slightly.

    Yes, there are more gamemodes in COD but bigger is not always better. Halfbaked gamemodes like third-person which are riddled with bugs and glitches.

    To this day i know someone who can hack your xbox to get you to 10th prestige.

    As a closing comment I would like to say tha bf3 will be better than mw3 because having seen gameplay footage of both games, mw3 seems repetitive, foucused more on hollywood blockbuster “one-man army” type of game than bf3.

    #48 3 years ago
  49. Lounds

    The only shooter to keep me hooked was Counter Strike source. MW2 equally as much, BF1942 was best BF, BF2 was good, BC2 got boring fast.

    #49 3 years ago
  50. rackshatta

    Lol Gigahertz sounds like a fag Talking about how much COD changes the only change ive seen is the same guns with different names red dot sights (ohh i can make my dot a heart how lovely)acog scopes and thermal scopes. The only reason I bought Blackops was for zombies MP got boring after I got all the weapons in 12 hours and had a kd rate of 6.7. Specops bored me it was like playing paintball with wooden targets that occasionally sprayed 2or 3 bullets 3 feet away from me. dont even get me started on the annoying 12 year olds that scream at me every time I get a headshot with my m14 in hc. Plus the same game engine has been used for 4 years now and the graphics look about the same as combat arms in my oppinion. Bad co 2 had some issues but ive played it since it came out and im still finding things that are fun by playing with server mods that ristrict weapons. All COD MW3 will be is another copy and paste like blackops. MW2 was the end of COD unless some changes are made.

    #50 3 years ago
  51. Ireland Michael

    ITT: Lots of b’awwwing fanboys.

    #51 3 years ago
  52. OrbitMonkey

    Huh, I read the post title & assumed Mr Gibeau had gone all out slating COD, when in actually fact he did no such thing…

    I cannot be bothered to read what the *fans* are saying, doubtful it’ll be as courteous or rational as what Gibeau was saying o_O

    #52 3 years ago
  53. Fin

    Everyone just shut the fuck up.

    Really getting sick of these BF/CoD PR stories – RSS feed without them pls?

    #53 3 years ago
  54. G1GAHURTZ

    How exactly is it that people end up writing responses to comments in 3 month old stories…?

    #54 3 years ago
  55. OrbitMonkey

    Y’know I didn’t see the date :D

    #55 3 years ago