CoD vs BF3 vs Arma (why do people hate at least one?)

[Sarrok]

I like CoD

 

I like Arma

 

I like BF3

 

Each is different and each have their strengths and weaknesses

 

CoD is a fast paced and arcade style shooter

 

Arma is a extreme military simulation that requires lots of teamwork

 

BF3 is a good mixture of both

 

with all the hate going around I just thought I would put this out there

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

Everyone has different tastes and opinions on their games. Some are more defensive about their choice game than others. I understand the dissatisfaction of some folks when they pay $60+ for a video game and not like it, or the pure pwnage attitude when folks find their favorite game, but I'm not going to hate anyone over it.

[AlarmedBread]

What next, you're going to try and tell me it's ok to like light beer?

 

Seriously though as long as you are part of the glorious PC gaming master race and not a dirty console gaming peasant you are good in my book.

Edited November 7, 2011 by AlarmedBread

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

Super LOL!!

 

I have no CoD experience in MP, I played MW1 and was epic, I played BO and I didn t even completed the single player, boring and repetitive.

 

Of course I play ARMA, love nad hate. It is not for PvP but mostly P v AI. Some missions are good, others are mediocre. It is not designed for CQB. Sometimes the few glitches related to Super AI performances just make it frustrating. After 20 minutea approaching a target, a super AI wit a rifle ironsight kills you in 1 shot at 600 mtrs, there are many reasons to hate the game.

It is not for a quick game. If you have only 15 minutes and you wanna relax killing something... You just go to play something else... BF3

 

BF3 is a nice experience. Conquest to me is the only mode making sense. Just personql opinion, we are agree to disagree.

It s fast pace, when played with a team, just simple communications and moving together, gives a lot of satisfaction, adrenaline rush and enjoyment. When you play alone, no comms,unkown players, just sucks, plain and simple.

Sometimes I hate it, most of the times I love it.

 

I do not put in competition these games. The way I like em depends on my mood. It is nice to have the choice

[Cylawyer~SPARTA~]

I am not a huge Conquest fan, but it is ok. In very large servers, it is difficult to get any kind of coordination going. Even when we play on our 32 man server, with good comms among our own, it is difficult to get things flowing your way.

 

Rush is more to my liking because it is a very straightforward objective oriented play, halfway decent comms gets your through, poor comms kills you. I wouldn't mind Team Deathmatch either.

[MH6~SPARTA~]

COD was a PC-centric series (that was awesome) which became a console-centric series (and after Modern Warfare, became nothing but rehashed crap--nothing unique about them anymore). This is why I will never buy a COD game again.

 

That, and the COD multiplayer community has got to be the most immature bunch out there. The COD and Halo crowd are now essentially one and the same. I can't wait for the next COD game to come out, because I bet the majority of the immature players in BF3 will flock to it.

 

But again, that's just my opinion. I won't look down on someone for playing COD, but I'll be damned if I ever play a COD game again.

[Athlon64~SPARTA~]

I gess before alot of the new fellas showed up here, we, the Spartans had one heck of alot of fun on crouch only nights on call of duty, I had alot of fun, Call of duty has the best single player game besides crysis. I have the whole series of call of duty. Where else can you burn them out with a flame thrower.

Anyway, to each his own, Game on friends.

[Steel~Sparta~]

I liked the first CoD in single player... CoD MW was a complete let down to me.

 

BF has always looked great but like the cheerleaders in highschool it is not something that you really want to get to know. Not much depth IMO.

 

ArmA is a no frills infantry sim with a lot of other cool things thown in for good measure. A lot of peeps complain that you get 1 shotted some times from 500+ meters by infantry with open sights (or iron sights if you will). The reallity is that is EXACTLY what those weapons are designed to do. The reallity is that soldiers train to drill holes in targets at 600 meters. I know. I was there and I trained to do these things. I like the realism but that is me. Your mileage may vary.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Steel~Sparta~

[custard~SPARTA~]

At aparta we played cod4 for a year solid with a really good crowd one of the best gaming years I've had lol. I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking to BF3 unless MW2 has dedi servers mod tools and bigger maps and works (Black Ops was awful out of the box).

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

I liked the first CoD in single player... CoD MW was a complete let down to me.

 

BF has always looked great but like the cheerleaders in highschool it is not something that you really want to get to know. Not much depth IMO.

 

 

LOL that is one way to describe it haha.

 

Going back to the original question, why do some hate at least one? Because Arma/BF3/COD are vastly different games. Arma sucks in the close-up fast paced action. It's more of a thinking man's game and manuver-based. COD/BF3 are pretty much the same game IMO. Playing that one COD game that Custard referenced really was one of the best years, so was last year with Arma2. Hopefully BF3 will continue the fun, although I gotta say every time I play the game I come away feeling a little dumber and dumber, lol. I doubt there will be a "perfect" game for years (if ever again) so we might as well play and have fun as a group!

 

[Skaz~SPARTA~]

no way, I had CODs, the only thing I like is the single player. online is just packed with cheaters.

[Gunthar~SPARTA~]

Going back to the original question, why do some hate at least one? Because Arma/BF3/COD are vastly different games. Arma sucks in the close-up fast paced action. It's more of a thinking man's game and maneuver-based. COD/BF3 are pretty much the same game IMO. Playing that one COD game that Custard referenced really was one of the best years, so was last year with Arma2. Hopefully BF3 will continue the fun, although I got to say every time I play the game I come away feeling a little dumber and dumber, lol. I doubt there will be a "perfect" game for years (if ever again) so we might as well play and have fun as a group!

 

 

Lets break it down yo.

ARMA 2:

PRO: Adaptability in modifications and user created content. Massive gaming world with sandbox mission completion ability. Vehicle and infantry tactics taken from the real world with hardcore and insane close combat, where failure in teamwork is severely punished.

 

CON: AI on the 6th grade level that has inhumane accuracy and ESP without third party modification. Bugs galore that, at times, cripple game play to the extent of rage. Net code issues that cause massive lag along with memory leaks that truly damage the multiplayer game play abilities. PVP is intresting but full of hacks that can truly detract from the experience along with massive amounts of cover that can result in frustration and rage quitting.

 

BF3:

PRO: Fosters teamwork through reward system that benefits the individual when playing as a team through use of the kits for health and ammo along with other benefits. Fairly balanced game play between vehicles and infantry tactics that allow well coordinated teams to make the most of their play experience. Sufficient amount of unlocks and awards for playing the game that give it a purpose beyond just completing the objective. Insane match pace when above 30 players that in many ways gives the impact of real combat with a few exceptions. Fairly low amount of hackers and stat padding on the servers and relatively few instances of spawn camping with a few exceptions.

 

CON: Same game play as you have seen in every other BF title with the exception of 2142 with the same match modes minus titan mode of 2142. Overpowered vehicles at the moment which can create all sorts of rage along with imbalanced weapons where the IR scoped weapons give a massive advantage to the users in many cases (speaking as a user). Children I think this one speaks for itself, these little bastards ruin everything. People tend to fight over vehicles more often than not leaving a few people on the ground to get raped endlessly. Community issues of lack of teamwork and a need to get more kills rather than complete objectives, this is not a game flaw only a community one.

 

COD MW3:

PRO: Fast paced shooter with tons of special abilities, guns, and ways to pwn noobs. Usually outstanding single player campaign which great story and compelling action. Since the game is not out yet the Pro section on this one will need to be adjusted once the game comes out.

 

CON: I think this one is pretty well known on the cons for this franchise.

[Steel~Sparta~]

 

Children I think this one speaks for itself, these little bastards ruin everything. People tend to fight over vehicles more often than not leaving a few people on the ground to get raped endlessly. Community issues of lack of teamwork and a need to get more kills rather than complete objectives, this is not a game flaw only a community one.

 

 

Gunther I think your synopsis is well writen. I have taken the above quoted text out of context to make an additional point. How a game is designed fosters the community that it has. If a game rewards kills over teamwork then what is the incentive for teamwork? If Battlefield was restructured so that more points were awarded for assists and completing objectives than say pwning n00bs i belive that you would see a shift in both additudes and gameplay.

 

That is one of the reasons that mosts kids dont play arma and the ones that do are, in my experance, more mature.

 

I don't think for a second that the designers of BF or CoD have given any intentional or rational thought behind the community they are fostering beyond having a forums and some sort of anti cheat system. To be fair I am not sure that BI has either but the results they have (with regard to the type of community) are completely differant in the end result. The end result is this...

 

Gunther can perch on a hill and needs to complete an objective but heavy armor is surrounding it. He and his ground team can engage in a lengthy and likely costly ground fight OR he can call for help. He calls for help. Steel and BigWorm (Call Sign Dragon flight) respond but due to HEAVY AA in the AO can not close to visual range and engage the target(s). Gunther has a teammember Doppel grab a laser meanwhile Dragon flight sets up for BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat (I will skip all the stuff that goes into that but it is a lot of work). Gunther calls the target, Doppel paints the target and authorizes weapons release. Steel completes a final check and releases the weapon(s) while Bigworm holds the chopper in position and monitors for threats.

 

That is a lot that goes in to killing 1 target. A failure in one part of the system results in a net gain of 0. Success is for the team to share. So is failure.

 

You will simply never see that level of teamwork in BF or CoD

Edited November 8, 2011 by Steel~Sparta~

[AlarmedBread]

There is no real reason why you can not employ that level of teamwork and come out ahead in other games. The difference is in BF you have seconds to assess, communicate and act where as you have minutes in ARMA. Try using a SOFLAM and four tanks with guided shells + chopper and jets. It requires good communication and team work, but you wanna see some people rage quit as you mercilessly shoot down everything that flies and drives?

[Steel~Sparta~]

There is no real reason why you can not employ that level of teamwork and come out ahead in other games. The difference is in BF you have seconds to assess, communicate and act where as you have minutes in ARMA. Try using a SOFLAM and four tanks with guided shells + chopper and jets. It requires good communication and team work, but you wanna see some people rage quit as you mercilessly shoot down everything that flies and drives?

 

But that is just it!!! I dont... I can I have the ability but I CHOOSE not too to ensure that I am NOT the only one having a great time. If i am in the server and someone says "Dude I dont feel like having air support today lets just ground pound" I will give up a pilots slot in a second. Hell I have had a lot more fun ground pounding then being a chopper seat. Worst case senario, If i am hell bent on flying I can go to a differant part of the map where there are NO friendlies and shoot down choppers and aircraft. No one complains and the ground pounders are left to their own devices. Bigworm is the same way.

[warzer0]

Lets break it down yo.

ARMA 2:

PRO: Adaptability in modifications and user created content. Massive gaming world with sandbox mission completion ability. Vehicle and infantry tactics taken from the real world with hardcore and insane close combat, where failure in teamwork is severely punished.

 

CON: AI on the 6th grade level that has inhumane accuracy and ESP without third party modification. Bugs galore that, at times, cripple game play to the extent of rage. Net code issues that cause massive lag along with memory leaks that truly damage the multiplayer game play abilities. PVP is intresting but full of hacks that can truly detract from the experience along with massive amounts of cover that can result in frustration and rage quitting.

 

BF3:

PRO: Fosters teamwork through reward system that benefits the individual when playing as a team through use of the kits for health and ammo along with other benefits. Fairly balanced game play between vehicles and infantry tactics that allow well coordinated teams to make the most of their play experience. Sufficient amount of unlocks and awards for playing the game that give it a purpose beyond just completing the objective. Insane match pace when above 30 players that in many ways gives the impact of real combat with a few exceptions. Fairly low amount of hackers and stat padding on the servers and relatively few instances of spawn camping with a few exceptions.

 

CON: Same game play as you have seen in every other BF title with the exception of 2142 with the same match modes minus titan mode of 2142. Overpowered vehicles at the moment which can create all sorts of rage along with imbalanced weapons where the IR scoped weapons give a massive advantage to the users in many cases (speaking as a user). Children I think this one speaks for itself, these little bastards ruin everything. People tend to fight over vehicles more often than not leaving a few people on the ground to get raped endlessly. Community issues of lack of teamwork and a need to get more kills rather than complete objectives, this is not a game flaw only a community one.

 

 

 

Actually gunthar I think BF3s netcode and ARMA2's netcode are about par. You need to understand; DICE hasn't really changed the netcode since BF2; lots of tweaks and the like but no big changes. BF3 however just hides the rubber banding and desync better; Player hitboxes can be rubberbanding all over the place but the client side player smoothing makes it looks like it's 100% fluid. ARMA2 strictly enforces having the hitboxes and avatar locations in the same so even if someone's rubber banding, if you hit them you hit them regardless. Plus ARMA2 has to deal information several orders larger then what BF3 deals with.

 

Not saying it's good netcode, just saying they're both shit.

[Watchman~SPARTA~]

Coming from someone who's introduction to the world of multi-player FPS was that gaming-god, Ghost Recon I am new to all of these franchises:

 

COD MW was my first foray into that series as (like most) I was giving up on GRAW and the guys over at BPR were getting into MW. I found it an easy game to pick up, with entertaining multiplayer, in particular the crouch-only nights.I played through the SP and enjoyed it, even with the linear storyline.

I picked up COD5, World at War and although it was okay to play, something about it frustrated me: Possibly the fact it was a Treyarch offering not Infinity Ward? Although I was looking forward to MW2, I declined to buy when news of all the key PC features were being dropped.

 

ARMA2 came about because SPARTA we're playing it and I enjoyed the camaraderie. Best gaming decision I have made in recent years. It has it's flaws but the tactical play offered is enough for me to forgive everything. Never played the SP though, as I didn't see it as a single player game.

 

BF3 came about because of all the hype and expectation. I picked up 2142 on the cheap from Steam, to see what a Battlefield game was about. I enjoyed it enough to buy BF2 (oddly never been out of it's case) and get BF3 on release. So far, despite the issues I'm experiencing I enjoy it enough to stick with it and play it for the fun it offers. Haven't started the SP yet and might not but who knows?

 

Only ARMA appealed enough for me to get any previous versions plus I was always an OpFlash fan, so seemed obvious to pick up ARMA1.

 

So, I certainly don't hate any of the games, just choose where I play and consequently spend my hard earned. Reading the fanboi posts dotted around the interwebs is good for a laugh or two and so far hasn't thrown up a reasoned argument for why haters should hate.

 

If Red Storm ever cough up a true successor to OGR all bets are off, it will be the greatest game ever and you'll all be losers if you don't agree!

[MedicSN6]

[MedicSN6]

FIXED

 

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

Love it

[Steel~Sparta~]

FIXED

 

 

Well played sir