Comment deleted by Site Moderator
battlefield 2 was awesome back in the day. unfortunately all my mates that have played the beta of bf3 have slated it so much i haven't even bothered to download it.
the thing i always liked on it was the huge 64 man infantry battles.... but on consoles its limited to 24, which on maps the size of bf maps is gonna be poo.
I find battlefield too slow because I always want to be in the action. I do admire it's brilliant graphics though.
Anyone know why the consoles have limited the size to 24?
I always enjoy playing a decent sized team deathmatch (One of the reasons I still play MAG is because it has 256 player online matches)
Anyone know why the consoles have limited the size to 24?
I always enjoy playing a decent sized team deathmatch (One of the reasons I still play MAG is because it has 256 player online matches)
-------------------------------
processing power. more people, more variables.
COD by far. Team killing is so much fun on COD, especially when you end up in team deathmatch with a whole group of nerds from America who are on team speak and start crying when you ruin their fun.
MAN YOU ARE WRECKING MY STATS
Battlefield for me. COD is just too simple. All you have to do is run and gun and the maps are too small. At least with battlefield there is some team play. As for the BF3 beta demo, i think that it looks pretty good. I'll definately be investing.
I dont think COD has been the same since MW2 and I have sold the last few versions.
on pc battlefield bad company 2 conquest mode owns all.
on console i prefer cod as theres no proper team play on either game on console so i just play cod as more people are on it
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
COD vs Battlefield
Page 1 of 1
posted on 6/10/11
WUMs
posted on 6/10/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/10/11
battlefield 2 was awesome back in the day. unfortunately all my mates that have played the beta of bf3 have slated it so much i haven't even bothered to download it.
the thing i always liked on it was the huge 64 man infantry battles.... but on consoles its limited to 24, which on maps the size of bf maps is gonna be poo.
posted on 6/10/11
I find battlefield too slow because I always want to be in the action. I do admire it's brilliant graphics though.
posted on 6/10/11
Anyone know why the consoles have limited the size to 24?
I always enjoy playing a decent sized team deathmatch (One of the reasons I still play MAG is because it has 256 player online matches)
posted on 6/10/11
Anyone know why the consoles have limited the size to 24?
I always enjoy playing a decent sized team deathmatch (One of the reasons I still play MAG is because it has 256 player online matches)
-------------------------------
processing power. more people, more variables.
posted on 6/10/11
COD by far. Team killing is so much fun on COD, especially when you end up in team deathmatch with a whole group of nerds from America who are on team speak and start crying when you ruin their fun.
MAN YOU ARE WRECKING MY STATS
posted on 7/10/11
Battlefield for me. COD is just too simple. All you have to do is run and gun and the maps are too small. At least with battlefield there is some team play. As for the BF3 beta demo, i think that it looks pretty good. I'll definately be investing.
I dont think COD has been the same since MW2 and I have sold the last few versions.
posted on 7/10/11
on pc battlefield bad company 2 conquest mode owns all.
on console i prefer cod as theres no proper team play on either game on console so i just play cod as more people are on it
Page 1 of 1