By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 18 May 2009
Edit Thread
BxN said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
BxN said:
This thread is delusional.

I'd be interested in a Battlefield 1942 for my PS3, but the simple thought of this game ''owning'' COD is just plain ridiculous.

 

 

Name something the COD series does that Battlefield 1942 or Desert Combat didn't already set the standard for. Delusional my ass. You seem to be forgetful that I am not speaking if Bad Company.

 

No matter what new features and innovation this game will offer, it won't have 1/4 of Call of Duty's user base and sales. I can't call that an ''ownage''. It's like saying Killzone 2 owned Halo 3 because it has better graphics and features. And yes I am aware that 1942 and Bad Company are nothing alike.

 

edit:

Let's also not forget how the almost all COD games have been more critically and commercially acclaimed than any Battlefield 1942 game.

I've been agreeing with with you the whole time about the userbase and the sales. COD is already a major name in war-time shooters. I'm not comparing BF1943 to COD in the same light as KZ2 having better graphics than Halo 3. That is not what matters to me. It's the gameplay thats always mattered to me and BF WWII games always delivered. COD has sold over 4 million, of course it would be more commercially acclaimed.