DICE Message To Competition: We Are Coming For You

[BD2003]

Give me a COD where the top person on the scoreboard got all the kills himself instead of getting a few kills and letting his AI vehicle kill everything for me and I will be interested.

The last two CoDs have featured modes without killstreaks, and the non-stackabilty of them in BO made it basically a non issue.

And lets not gloss over the ridiculousness of the vehicles in BF game. Sure, theyre not controlled by AI, but instead you have people fighting over them. Theres almost always multiple people camping vehicle spawns. Airpower was also completely dominant in BF2, even worse than MW2's killstreaks.

And dont even get me started on constantly getting shot from half a mile away by snipers, of which both teams are almost entirely comprised of because its much easier to hide and snipe than to get out there and cap flags.

Each game has their merits and annoyances. Lets not pretend otherwise. But as long as one game performs so much better than the other, I cant see them on equal footing.

 

[American Gunner]

Yeah, at least snipers in BF have to take bullet drop into cosideration. And if your team is full of idiots waiting for vehicles, then you will loose. At least they are controlled by people, not AI. The performance thing is a personal opinion. Just because you think COD performs better, it doesn't make it fact.

 

[BD2003]

60fps is better than 30fps. Call of duty performs better. This is not my opinion, this is absolutely a fact.

 

[CVSiN]

or get off your 5 year old dinosaur consoles and have 100fps? with Frostbite 2? and a new engine?
BF will dominate the PC.. you console shooter peeps can have your COD we don't want it.
I'm looking forward to it but then again I was always partial to BF since the 1942 days.

CoD is just too arcadey and lame..

 

[American Gunner]

You're set in your opinion, I am in mine. When looking at the overall performance of a game, the framerate is one factor. We could debate for pages, but it won't accomplish anything.

 

[BD2003]

You're set in your opinion, I am in mine. When looking at the overall performance of a game, the framerate is one factor. We could debate for pages, but it won't accomplish anything.

I'm just curious what other factors you consider performance?

 

[zerocool84]

After playing CoD, playing the Bad Company 2 demo made me feel like a slug running from cover to cover. Realistic? I guess. Fun? Not particularly. CoD is more like old school Battlefield, when it was still fun.

The new CoD games not not even close to the old school Battlefield games. The newer CoD games are all run and gun, older Battlefield games are much slower with many more options on how to play. Very different FPS's.

 

[BoberFett]

The new CoD games not not even close to the old school Battlefield games. The newer CoD games are all run and gun, older Battlefield games are much slower with many more options on how to play. Very different FPS's.

BF1942, of which I played assloads, was most definitely a run and gun game.

 

[Duder1no]

If it was the name, it wouldnt be getting bigger and bigger each year.

this does not make any sense at all

 

[BD2003]

this does not make any sense at all

It makes perfect sense. People might buy a game based on the brand, but if the game is bad they'll be less likely to buy the next. The fact that each CoD sells more than the last means it's popularity is growing, not shrinking. Crap games don't build audiences like that.

 

[American Gunner]

If all your friends play it, you are more inclined to play it. They haven't innovated in a long time. Each COD has all the same things from the last game.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Cool BF3 promo video:

http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/videos/faultline-episode-3

I'm definitely interested in this game.

 

[Stuxnet]

Yeah, at least snipers in BF have to take bullet drop into cosideration. And if your team is full of idiots waiting for vehicles, then you will loose. At least they are controlled by people, not AI. The performance thing is a personal opinion. Just because you think COD performs better, it doesn't make it fact.

You don't seem to understand that COD and BF are two different types of games: one is a focused shooter, the other is a large scale battle. Both are good concepts in their own right.

And by the way, COD *does* perform better, and that's a fact. Arguments to the contrary are delusional. No one with a brain can play Black Ops and BC2 side-by-side and claim they perform at the same level; it's simply not true. Claiming otherwise severely undermines your credibility.

Perhaps you could argue that Frostbite is trying to "do more" (destructible environments, larger maps, etc), which is fine, but now we're no longer talking about performance alone. And in my opinion, if a goal can't be accomplished fluidly and without compromising performance, then its net effect on the game is negative. BC2's experience was choppy as fuck, and DICE still can't get fluid player control down like the COD franchise does. I don't think people/developers understand just how much that affects the overall experience.

Before every BF-based release, DICE is always yapping like this and talking smack... then a buggy-as-shit game gets shipped with totally borked matchmaking, crashes, buggy browsers, and shoddy performance. A lot of us are pessimistic because DICE always talks a huge game before they ship... and it's never panned out. Been here, does this.

 

[Dankk]

Cool BF3 promo video:

http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/videos/faultline-episode-3

The "Faultline" series they've been showing is awesome, and it does a great job of showcasing the new engine, what it's capable of, and just how intense the in-game events are. Makes me totally stoked for BF3.

And yeah, durr, both Call of Duty and the Battlefield games use totally different engines. CoD is more console-oriented, therefore they use an older engine. Which is fine, because it works for them. And Battlefield is more PC-oriented, hence they like to be more cutting edge and push the limits of newer hardware. Why complain? This argument is stupid.

Before every BF-based release, DICE is always yapping like this and talking smack... then a buggy-as-shit game gets shipped with totally borked matchmaking, crashes, buggy browsers, and shoddy performance.

I'm willing to forgive DICE for this. They're one of the best current developers for making fresh, exciting, innovative games.

 

[Stuxnet]

I'm willing to forgive DICE for this. They're one of the best current developers for making fresh, exciting, innovative games.

I'm finding it more and more difficult to do so. Above all else, they need to STFU until they actually pull off a stable game at release. Second, like BD2003 said, unless their game can run at 60fps like COD, they're comparing apples to oranges.

Their PC games are absolutely stunning, but we're talking about one console release versus another. If we want to discuss their PC games, then it's even more difficult to forgive them... BF2 was buggy as hell for over a YEAR before they finally got their heads wrapped around it. The server browser was downright unusable, and BC2's browser was only a little better. It's pathetic that it was 2010 and DICE still hadn't figured out how to put together a basic server browser.

So really, they need to shut up with all this "we're going to blow everyone's heads off and leave them in the dust" bullshit. It's just talk. It's just platitudes. They don't have one iota of a track record for following through on such outlandish claims, but they have a rock solid track record of failing at it.

I love the goals DICE sets forth with each game. I've built brand new PCs so I can play their games in all their glory... but their execution sucks, and I'm not just talking 1, 2, or even 3 releases... each and every single one of them has fallen flat on its face come Tuesday.

They are notorious for shipping bugs, and it's a reputation they've spent a decade solidifying.

 

[BD2003]

Well, considering this is the console forum, I'm not terribly interested in how it looks or performs on the PC. We all know those visuals are going to have to be pared back to squeeze onto the 6 year old 360, and the end result is still going to perform poorly.