Battlefield 3 to 'Take Down' Call of Duty with Over $100 Million in Marketing - Games

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;29025148]Not gonna happen Most of the people that buy it will be fans of previous BF games and CoD will still be just as popular I remember them saying something like that with Medal of Honor and look how that turned out[/QUOTE] Medal of Honor wasn't a good game really though. If EA plays its cards right, it won't beat Activision but it does stand the possibility of levelling the playfield which is really the best thing to happen. Anyway anyone who complains about them selling out is dumb as fuck, because they're not changing the essential gameplay or the foundations of the game, they're just using a different marketing campaign which should be totally fine.

Yes, let's try to beat Generic Modern Warfare Game with Generic Modern Warfare Game. The COD-killer won't resemble COD. It's like... Facebook and Myspace. Facebook definitely killed Myspace, but it's not just Myspace in a different outfit.

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;29023095]I'm fine with COD fanboys playing battlefield, it's not like they can use COD tactics without getting their asses handed to them. It's good to have a little cannon fodder.[/QUOTE] I really hope cover and teamwork is a big part of BF3. It's too easy to be a one man army in CoD, while in Battlefield you're at the mercy of your team.

I know what I'm getting this Fall. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mokkan;29024502]I like CoD, strictly because it keeps the 12 year olds out of my game.[/QUOTE] PFFFFFFTT-- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! No it doesn't.

I hate how EA is always trying to one-up Activision and CoD. They did this with the map packs, Vietnam, and that "customization" specat dlc. It doesn't make Bad Company 2 look any better, it doesn't make Battlefield looks more appealing, all it does appear petty and shallow while CoD continues to experiment with new ideas and areas. At least EA is returning to its roots, instead of trying to follow Activision into "Black Operations" or something. [QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;29024284]I hate that you all think CoD players all act and think the same way.[/QUOTE] I agree, it seems to happen a lot that hardcore gamers all think CoD fans are identical in their beliefs and enjoyment for CoD. It's like they think CoD gamers are mindless sheep that play only because it's popular.

[QUOTE=Reimu;29026117]I hate how EA is always trying to one-up Activision and CoD. They did this with the map packs, Vietnam, and that "customization" specat dlc. It doesn't make Bad Company 2 look any better, it doesn't make Battlefield looks more appealing, all it does appear petty and shallow while CoD continues to experiment with new ideas and areas. At least EA is returning to its roots, instead of trying to follow Activision into "Black Operations" or something. I agree, it seems to happen a lot that hardcore gamers all think CoD fans are identical in their beliefs and enjoyment for CoD. It's like they think CoD gamers are mindless sheep that play only because it's popular.[/QUOTE] It's not like Bad Company's Vietnam pack was made solely to combat Black Ops considering DICE made [i]an entire game based on it years beforehand.[/i] However, it does bug me that they're at awkward rival odds with COD. I guess since both are in the same general thing of modern combat now, EA/DICE know they have to find a way to appeal to people more then Activision does. Hopefully EA and DICE learned their lessons with the flop of Medal of Honor (2010) and the general dislike for Bad Company 2 so they can get their heads together for BF3 and bring something new to the table - somehow.

[QUOTE=RikohZX;29026535]It's not like Bad Company's Vietnam pack was made solely to combat Black Ops considering DICE made [i]an entire game based on it years beforehand.[/i] However, it does bug me that they're at awkward rival odds with COD. I guess since both are in the same general thing of modern combat now, EA/DICE know they have to find a way to appeal to people more then Activision does. Hopefully EA and DICE learned their lessons with the flop of Medal of Honor (2010) and the general dislike for Bad Company 2 so they can get their heads together for BF3 and bring something new to the table - somehow.[/QUOTE] That's true, but I doubt it's a coincedence that the Vietnam revival pack was being created during BO's development, and released not long after BO. Regardless, that sense of rivalry between the two games is mindnumbing, yeah. Would be best EA & DICE focused on making Battlefield a good game as a whole, instead of pushing the next big thing to rival whatever IW/Treyarch/Sledgehammer is trying.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;29025658]Medal of Honor wasn't a good game really though. If EA plays its cards right, it won't beat Activision but it does stand the possibility of levelling the playfield which is really the best thing to happen. Anyway anyone who complains about them selling out is dumb as fuck, because they're not changing the essential gameplay or the foundations of the game, they're just using a different marketing campaign which should be totally fine.[/QUOTE] I know Medal of Honor wasn't good, that's what I meant [editline]7th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Apple Pi;29025616]This makes no sense. Why is everybody stereotyping people into 'Call of Duty players' groups? Yes a lot of people buy the newest Call of Duty and play them, etc, but that doesn't mean that's the only game in their library. Just about everybody I've met in school that plays Call of Duty also has good games in their collection like Orange box collection of games, Left 4 Dead, Battlefield BC2, etc. Stop saying people that play Call of Duty are narrow minded and stubborn about trying other games.[/QUOTE] I'm basing this on personal experience Even if they've never played it before, all the CoD fanatics will say any FPS sucks or is trying to be CoD or something

Fuck yeah DICE, take em' [i]down![/i]

Regardless of the silly Call of Duty nonsense going around, I'm excited to see them spend good money on advertising. I always like to see commercials for games I know I want (odd, I know). It may also bring in some new players to the franchise, but that could go either way.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;29023105]I kind of wish DICE would hop off the CoDkiller bandwagon, BC2 suffered due to it, I don't want to see the same happen to BF3.[/QUOTE] Bad Company 2 was never intended to be any form of "CoD-Killer". It was more of a interactive tech demo for the upgraded Frostbite engine. Basically nothing more than a filler so they can work on Battlefield 3.

Please no CoD killer please please please [editline]7th April 2011[/editline] Oh thank god it's just the EA boss and not someone who's working on the game

[QUOTE=Shotacon;29027545]Bad Company 2 was never intended to be any form of "CoD-Killer". It was more of a interactive tech demo for the upgraded Frostbite engine. Basically nothing more than a filler so they can work on Battlefield 3.[/QUOTE] Was the gameplay design intended to beat CoD on it's own terms? Debatable. Certainly in favor when you consider the smaller map sizes and the perks. I personally would disagree, but there is a discussion to be had there. Did EA's advertising and entire marketing strategy hinge on letting people know their shooter was the CoD killer? You bet your ass it was. The CONSTANTLY compared their game to CoD, especially to PC players who felt they had gotten burned by IWNet. It seemed every week someone at DICE or EA had to condescendingly mention how much better their hitherto unreleased game was than CoD. From a marketing standpoint, Bad Company 2 was definitely EA's attempt at a CoD killer, and it kind of failed. It sold less copies than MW2, then Black Ops came out and absolutely demolished both games on sales. I don't know why EA is trying it a second time. Maybe they should run on a marketing strategy of [b]showing[/b] how good their game is, instead of telling everyone how bad COD is.

The best marketing I saw was on reddit. [url]http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDsHIHxYXeLs&start1=10&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlOJqicM6x84&start2=0&authorName=sittingducks[/url]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;29027665] It sold less copies than MW2, then Black Ops came out and absolutely demolished both games on sales.[/QUOTE] let's be honest, it also demolished both games in quality

What I don't like about most recent games is that the playable characters and the movement is just clumsy and bothersome especially with terrain changes, unlike in for example Team Fortress 2. In Crysis 2 the characters feel too heavy and wobbly, and BF:BC2 takes the ultimate cake of that, it felt like you were stuck in a bubblegum when you were crouching as a sniper around cliffs. Ugh. Shift-sprinting and action-button for climbing over obstacles, I don't like :colbert: Only if you could make the climbing over obstacles more dynamic by using the jump-button in some simple manner, much like TF2 but it's pretty old-school, but good.

To me BF games = a few years of entertainment. CoD = a month or two after I unlock everything.

When you get a company trying to outsell another franchise, it's a sign that the game is going to be nothing but eye candy. I'm not buying BF3 until I at least get to test it for a few months. Even during the demo days of BC2 it seemed fun, but after a while felt really shitty.

That's fucking crazy

[QUOTE=Binladen34;29028066]When you get a company trying to outsell another franchise, it's a sign that the game is going to be nothing but eye candy. [/QUOTE] half-life was an attempt to outsell quake 2

The reason I always get Call of Duty is simple: peer pressure. Almost EVERYONE at my school gets it. And I always regret it a few months later. :saddowns:

Other thing that's kind of worrying me is who they're giving the beta to. I mean I know they needed some ploy to sell that god awful Medal Of Honor game but really, won't BF2 players know what the game should be like, why not give it to them?

...maybe they should spend the 100$ Million to hire someone who can write some half-decent netcode for multiplayer.

Or on a better anti-cheat that kicks me for a better reason than simply because I exist.

I find it so funny that a good majority of people bitch and call the CoD player base dumb. They're called idiotic fanboys and all other sorts of things but it seems people just can't get over the fucking fact people are going to play games they like. All you hear is "hurp derp, CoD community is going to ruin the game for us." No the only people going to ruin the community is the assholes that continue to compare this game with CoD and treat other players like shit because they play a different game then them. Hows this sound, everyone shut up. Both sides sound stupid. CoD is a good game, it isn't a spectacular game. But it is a game anyone can pick up and play, you can get a bunch of friends over and have them play. It isn't a big deal, is it popular? Yes. Big fucking deal, time to get over it. Battlefield is a great game all in itself, it is a different type of game. Battlefield has a strong community all in itself but it is filled with just as many idiots as CoD it seems. The only people destroying this community is the massive amount of fanboys that talk shit non stop about each others games. I just find it so funny that everyone makes up these stupid arguments about CoD and their player base but I never see it. I see the opposite, I see the complainers acting like idiots instead. On top of this we've only seen a few trailers of BF3 and everyone is already praising it and saying "most people can't appreciate the team-work aspect or complexity of it." How do we even know that it is going to be anything like BF2? Look at BC2 they swore up and down it was going to be the greatest thing sense sliced bread and look at it. It was more generic then most people would care to admit. Also just being a realist here, why don't they spend that 100 million on something else. Marketing is all good and all, but no amount of money is going to topple CoD's marketing and overall number of sales. I mean if they want to try go right for it, but I just can't help to feel as if that 100 million can be spent on something better.

[QUOTE=Foda;29028670]...maybe they should spend the 100$ Million to hire someone who can write some half-decent netcode for multiplayer.[/QUOTE] Ouch. Have you played BFBC2?

But CoD is such a mediocre game. The original Battlefield 1942 had more features than the most recent Call of Duty game

*eyes closed* yeah i'm sorry mrx most of the fish playing people (heh fish as in cod, get it?) just don't posses the right skills set to be part of the group that i represent while it's fine for those plebian childeren to play their little toy games i'd much rather partake in a complex team-oriented simulation of combat like battlefield that their small minds could never understand *sigh* maybe with a couple of years experiencing the things i have experience they can perhaps even dream about being on my level, but you know

[QUOTE=MR-X;29028753]All you hear is "hurp derp, CoD community is going to ruin the game for us."[/QUOTE] If cod is popular then people will copy it and you will admit this has ruined some games because they want to be just like cod. Also the average cod player aren't the best people to play with.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29028897]If cod is popular then people will copy it and you will admit this has ruined soem games because they want to be just like cod. Also the average cod player aren't the best people to play with.[/QUOTE] There's 'average cod player' in the manner of some random shmuck who thinks Call of Duty is the coolest game around and is, well, average at it. And then, the one I think you're talking about, there's the MLG-wannabe 'im betr thn u' assholes.