By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Is Battlefield 3 beta multiplayer better than COD multiplayer?

 

Is Battlefield 3 beta multiplayer better than COD multiplayer?

Yes, better than any COD multiplayer 45 43.69%
 
Better than MW2 but not as good as Black Ops 6 5.83%
 
Better than Black Ops but not as good as MW2 13 12.62%
 
No but better than COD World at War 5 4.85%
 
No, even worse than COD World at War 30 29.13%
 
Total:99

Never played Call of Duty, so can't compare. But let me just say: I am VERY disappointed with this beta.

Like KylieDog said, the damage is simply ridiculous. To me a good FPS has enough health that allows me to actually react and respond to an enemy. Getting shot twice by a pistol from behind and dying is not Battlefield.

As of now, Uncharted 3 feels more like fucking Battlefield. More open maps, low damage/high health, emphasis on teamwork, cover, positioning, movement.

... ARGHHH! I'm so tempted to cancel my preorder...



Around the Network

Caspian Border map is pretty good. I think EA messed up by releasing a very poor map (Metro) and this may mess up BF3 sales. I'm making a big assumption that Metro is one of the weaker maps for BF3. If it's one of the better ones, I'm definitely holding off getting this game.

Metro map has made a very poor first impression on most people. It's a beta and shouldn't be judged as such, but for most people, it doesn't matter.  Only 1 chance for a 1st impression.  I bought into the hype for the game, BUT after playing the beta, I won't say that I will not get the game but will hold off until the official game is release and waiting on word-of-mouth.

I'll most likely be getting MW3 because I know what I'm getting.




The Metro map is awful.  Don't know why they are using that and only have a few Caspian Border servers.  I think they even took those down this morning for some reason. 

The game still has a ton of issues though, as well as some really dumb decisions.  Namely battlelog.  Why, oh why, would you not put a main menu in a game?  Why do I need to launch Origin, launch a browser, find a server, join that server, launch the game, and actually spawn just to be able to get to an options menu?  What idiot thought this was a good idea?  You can't even access it when you are dead.  Of course the game starts out as windowed so the first thing you'll want to do is get to an options menu.  Also I haven't been able to remap anything to the mouse buttons.

The game also has a ton of bugs, almost too many to even start listing.  It's supposedly a beta though, so we'll see.  Seems like a lot to fix in a month.

Also all the flashlight/laser/sniper reflections seem poorly implemented.  Why am I being blinded by a flashlight when I am outside in the sun.  Why am I seeing a reflection from a sniper scope when they are in shadow.  Plus it looks more like a spotlight than a glint off a scope.  Also why can't I choose my squad?  Why do you have to unlock flares and missiles for the jets?  How will people ever unlock that stuff after release when everyone else has it and engineers have stingers?  Why do the jets fly so slow?  Why can't I seem to find a way to see the whole map.  Does DICE not see how a little thing like choosing your spawnpoint off a big map really helps compared to choosing from a list?  When it is a brand new map you don't know where things are in relation to each other and you can't tell where the action is.  Also something about the maps felt less destructible, but I'll wait for a city conquest map to really judge that.

One thing I'll commend them for though.  Being able to spawn into the jets.  It seems to have cut down on airfield camping by a ton.



The BF3 beta was okay.... but personally I like CoD better. CoD has just the right amount of hardcore while Battlefield is too hardcore for me, it takes alot the fun out of the game.



Playstation All-Stars is one of the best games I've played this gen, and is the most fun I've had in a game this gen.

bevochan said:

The metro map is mediocre but the last section of the map is good.  Also, I played some Caspian Border multiplayer map on the PC and it is awesome.  Tanks, helicopters, planes..  but the map is big. 

I was underwhelmed at first but BF3 is growing on me.   I prefer to play FPS on PS3 but the PS3 beta graphics are also very underwhelming.  Everything looks hazy or the colors look washed out.  Too much lighting and not enough contrast.....

Overall, 60 frames per sec of COD is better than 30 frames per sec BF3 on consoles. 

Tweaking the contrast/saturation settings on your tv helps. The frame-rate is noticeable ofcourse but it didn't really affect gameplay for me, felt super responsive, even more so than bad company 2 :p 





Around the Network

I like the battlefield multiplayer better. People are always quick to judge the game off one map from a beta. Sure it has bugs and issues,but it's a BETA. Let's not act the cod multiplayer never has any issues. So,I think people need to stop being so quick to judge. That's just my opinion. I'll eventually end up getting both games,because I love them both,but the battlefield multiplayer is just more my cup of tea.



yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
It depends. If you're iq is under 90 and you have adhd then call of duty is your game. If you're not retarded and actually prefer substance and non-yearly rehashes then battlefield would be your game.

Wow....SMH


Wow that's what he said lol, couldn't see because he's banned. That's such a terrible thing to say even if you dislike the game!



           

As for DICE's statement that BF3 is a beta and console games don't really understand the point of the beta..... and how bugs will be improved for release or how the graphics will be upgrade for the release, but after putting in a good amount of time in MP beta... the bottom line is that this game is not that fun.




I don't think it touched Call of Duty multiplayer, I don't think any game will, they just don't know what gamers want.