COD4'S new contender.. and i dont mean just any contender.

[oli]

Well Frontlines sucks , so BF wins that , I think it will be a 3-way battle between COD , RSV and BF.

[Kona Palangi]

BF sucked ass on the 360 ... PC is a different story but CoD4 and R6 are far superior to BF.

[Real Gryff]

Originally Posted by rcourtman

Couldn't disagree with you more, what cod4 features are you talking about? Killcams? thats really the only feature i can think of that cod4 has that previous battlefields didnt. Battlefield 2 had pretty much everything cod4 has but more..vehicles, larger maps and this frostbite engine thats far better than the engine that cod4 runs.

Everything BF has is in my opinion far worse. Large maps take away from the run and gun action and always turn out to be vehicle warfare. I didn't buy COD4 to play Twisted Metal. Infinity Ward really knows how to make an action packed map without the use of vehicles, which seem to be a crappy gimmick in my opinion, like many other games. I think the only real contender nearing completion is RB6V2. Needless to say I'm going to give it a rent since I'm not a big fan of the first one.

[oli]

Originally Posted by Kona Palangi

BF sucked ass on the 360 ... PC is a different story but CoD4 and R6 are far superior to BF.

I disagree , the single player i would agree 'sucked ass'. But i personally think the multiplayer on the 360 was seriously overlooked , some of my best live moments were on that game.

[Blasterpez]

i haven't played a BF since BF 1945 (which i would still play if i could find some decent servers), but i assume that bf2 and 2045 are both predominately meant for online multiplay. I know with 45, there wasn't really a story, but you could play against the bots if you were doing single player. do bf2 and 2045 actually have single player stories? Either way, i think most people would expect to play multiplayer with the bf series, since that seems to be what it is mainly geared towards.

[shane32Eire]

Battlefield 2 on the PC is far far superior then COD4, Its years older and yet it has everything COD4 does(apart from perks, which we can all agree are just ****ing ***, martidom and juggernaught? NO ****ING THANKS)

BF 1942 was the best craic I had with a game, and every BF game(on the PC) has been brilliant, and I like COD but it doesnt compare.

only ever played BF demo on 360, and compared to PC versions it was ****e.

[bennyboo03]

Originally Posted by KiladuBz

looks pretty, however, im gonna have to take a wait and see attitude, army of two look great, and it turned out to be so so, the only game ill be looking forward to is call of duty 5!!!!!!!!

You do know that CoD5 is being made by Treyarch, right? The same people made CoD3, a game that everyone hated but me.

[Blasterpez]

i didn't hate cod3. it had a different feel to it, but it did well. I think the veteran was way too f'ing hard though. like over the top, way past difficult. i'd rather paint the house before trying cod3 on vet again. what a chore.

[bennyboo03]

Originally Posted by Blasterpez

i didn't hate cod3. it had a different feel to it, but it did well. I think the veteran was way too f'ing hard though. like over the top, way past difficult. i'd rather paint the house before trying cod3 on vet again. what a chore.

did you ever beat it? It took me a while to. I thought CoD2 was a bit harder

[Blasterpez]

I beat cod3, but not on vet. after about 5 missions and after about 6 months, i gave up on vet, and just wanted to see the rest of the game. cod2 hasn't been to hard on vet, i mean it's hard, but not cod3 hard. Maybe i just never got the patterns down right for the guys in cod3.
Right now i am stuck in village on the american campaign on vet, in cod2, where you have to clear all those stupid houses, right before you have to snipe from that silo. doesn't matter how many grenades you throw, there is always one dude by the bed, or something, that shoots you immediately as you walk into the room, regardless of how cautious you are.

[oli]

Treyarch FTL , all about Infinity Ward .

[colonelpwnage]

WTF?? - Battlefield: Bad Company To Charge For Weapons?

After the launch of the Battlefield: Bad Company multiplayer beta this week, there are reports popping up all over the Internet about a little secret EA has been keeping. Xbox 360 Fanboy is report that beta testers are saying that the publisher is locking out some of the in-game weapons and saying that they’re available for purchase as premium content on Xbox Live Marketplace. Ten in all have been reported to be locked out, and five of them supposedly come unlocked in the gold edition.

This is not the first time EA has done this kind of thing. The last few Need for Speed games have had what looks like pretty extensive DLC (downloadable content) but in actuality, the content was already on the disc and consumers had to pay to unlock it. As we’ve stated before, using DLC like this is totally unfair to the consumer. Its one thing to have a free-to-play game that charges for premium content, but it’s another to pay for a game and have to pay more to access everything.

[oli]

Ok that would be taking the piss big time , no one else does it so why do they think they should? muppets.

[Sir Charles]

Unless they sold the game for about £24.99.

[oli]

But still I wouldnt like to think i was paying for ****ing weapons , it takes the bloody biscuit.

[Spartan1127]

Originally Posted by oli

But still I wouldnt like to think i was paying for ****ing weapons , it takes the bloody biscuit.

Agreed.

[blu_yu_away]

New info from EA on the purchasing weapons aspect:
IGN: More Details on Battlefield: Bad Company Emerge

[colonelpwnage]

"At launch, EA will release a Gold Edition of Battlefield: Bad Company which will feature an additional five new weapons. For players who do not purchase the Gold Edition of the game, they can still buy the five weapons at a small individualized price per item. All weapons are balanced for gameplay. More weapons offer players more choices but do not create an advantage/disadvantage for players who do not opt to buy new items."

Hmmm...way to encourage people to spend more money on either the "gold" edition of Battlefield or the weapons off the marketplace if there is no advantage for players to buy these weapons. I still think this is a greed tactic.

[oli]

Well the weapons you have to buy are obviously going to be the best on the game or something , forcing players into purchasing or just taking their game back in anger. Risky tactic in my books.