These rewards are also more geared toward support elements, and offer things like ballistic vests, a recon helicopter that you can control and use to mark targets, and an EMP. Killstreaks are amazingly fun because they add tension to the match. The longer you go, the more you become a target, adding to the tension. When you are using the support package, it is also nice, because even if you die constantly you can still find a way to help the team. As with MW2 , they can sometimes overwhelm a game, but not to the extent that they used to, and the offensive rewards seem to do less damage — which is a very good thing.
Battlefield 3 relies on different classes, but to a much greater extent. There are classes for supporting other soldiers, although now there is no dedicated medic. Where BF3 gets more credit in terms of realism is that these classes have a greater impact not just on how you play, but on the outcome of the matches.
If you choose the support class and equip yourself with heavy guns to provide ammo support for other troops, you will find you move slower and need to think about finding hiding spots.
If too many people are running around on the front lines shooting down enemies without troops providing support, your team will lose. That makes BF3 more tactical overall, and arguably more fun to play, especially if you are looking for a teamwork-oriented experience.
Still, just because Battlefield 3 is more tactical and authentic does not mean it is superior overall. There is something to be said for the faster gameplay in MW3 when matched with the killstreak perks that makes you want to keep playing, even with the occasionally frustrating round.
In some ways, the difference between the games is that BF3 is meant for a bit more of a long-form experience working with teammates, whereas MW3 has a greater emphasis on quick games, where you accumulate as many kills as possible. Oddly though, it is much more difficult to form a party of your own friends in BF3 than it is in MW3. Some people love them, others hate them, but from an impartial point-of-view, unlocking rewards along with more weapons, perks, badges, etc.
BF3 does not provide quite as much incentive to keep playing, even if the game has much larger maps and more tactical combat. Battlefield 3 is a much more expansive, tactical game than Modern Warfare 3. Battlefield 3 carries on the tradition of massive and authentic battles. The basic game modes from the original games are still the best: Conquest where you capture and hold flags scattered all over the map and Rush where you either attack or defend two bases, and move on to the next until you finish the map or run out of respawns.
BF3 brings back the basic team deathmatch mode that everyone will remember from the beginning of time, but it is not a major selling point here. Fortunately, the deathmatch games take place on smaller maps, but the action is still not as fast and furious as MW3. The best way to describe BF3 multiplayer is as an ecosystem. With more possible weapon and equipment variations within each of its four classes than many shooters have within their entireties, the actions available to a player and the differences each can make to the evolving shape of an overall battle are boggling in scope.
Make the right shot in the right place, kill or repair the right tank, airlift or resuscitate the right guy, and you can tip the whole war. Snipers attack and defend ground troops. Ground troops support and maintain each other and their vehicles. Ground vehicles bully the hell out of enemy objectives, while air vehicles survey and reshape the whole warzone from above including taking out those snipers.
Battlefield fights are long, drawn out, and as intensive on the brain as they are on the trigger finger. What they never are though, is anything less than thrilling, unpredictable, and deeply, deeply satisfying on an epic scale few games ever match. Current page: Page 1. Get the best gaming deals, reviews, product advice, competitions, unmissable gaming news and more! Page 1 of 2: Page 1 Page 1 Page 2. David Houghton. See comments. Gaming deals, prizes and latest news.
Community subscriber. Email Me. Notify Me. Update avatar. Browse or drag an image. File must be at least xpx and less than xpx. GeForce Forums. Join Now or Login. All Topics. Feature Requests. Sort by. Topics details. Create a New Topic In Games. By Recency Recency Votes Hot. Filters 2. Mark as read. Full screen games become blurry. The sims. Fortnite Login. Fortnite Capped at 20fps. Pavel C. Strange effect problem in CoD: Vanguard. Turning camera in red dead 2 oversharpens all edges.
Xplane 11 Crashing Quadro Games In Community Talk. That's pretty good going, not to mention an excellent platform for future titles in the series. After all, it's worth remembering that Call of Duty didn't become a console phenomenon overnight - it took four years, four games and a new console generation before the series really ignited.
Our contention is that the war between these two heavyweights in the FPS genre isn't over at all - in fact the battle has only just begun - and gaming technology defines the conflict. The gameplay offered up by 's epoch-making Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is intimately connected to the phenomenal technology at its core.
The combination of state-of-the-art visuals married up to 60Hz gameplay produced a game that not only looked fantastic but also felt quite unlike anything else: it was arcade-like in its look and its controller response.
The combination of this exceptional interface between player and game, along with the XP unlock mechanic, created a sensation. Infinity Ward and fellow COD studio Treyarch have spent the last four years building and iterating upon this base formula.
Using a Ben Heck latency controller monitor board - the exact same piece of kit used by Infinity Ward itself to optimise pad response on previous COD titles - we can measure the responsiveness of the controls on each game.
The pad inputs are connected to LEDs on the board, so measuring input lag is a simple matter of counting the number of frames between the LED illuminating and action kicking off on-screen.
Input lag tests for Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. The figure of 50ms we see for MW3 makes it the most responsive first-person shooter we've ever tested on console - the ultra-fast response defining its gameplay. Battlefield 3 at ms is ballpark with other 30FPS titles including Killzone 3. With input lag measured at 50ms - or three frames - Modern Warfare 3 simply feels so much more crisp and responsive than any other first-person shooter we've played on the current-generation consoles.
Somehow it even seems to be faster than other titles in the COD stable, as previously we've measured MW3's predecessors at anything between 66ms to 83ms latency.
As swift and responsive as MW3 is, though, we should expect frame-rate drops to take a toll on that superlative level of response.
However, where it matters most - in multiplayer - console frame-rates remain high, preserving that all-important feedback. As the video demonstrates, Battlefield 3 on console - running at 30FPS - clearly has a deficit in response in comparison with Modern Warfare 3. Our latency measurement of ms might not sound too fantastic it's over twice the response time of its competitor but it is roughly ballpark within a frame or two with a whole host of other console shooters. For reference, ms is the same as Killzone 3 and 16ms faster than Epic's Bulletstorm.
However, Call of Duty's unique strength is also in a sense its greatest weakness. The notion of processing gameplay and rendering a whole new frame in less than Changes made for Modern Warfare 3 are impressive though - if clearly incremental in nature.
The gap in performance level between Xbox and PlayStation 3 has been addressed to a certain extent , audio has significantly improved via a system of contextualised sound effects processing, similar in concept to if not quite as effective as the "HDR" audio instigated by DICE in its earlier Frostbite work. Lighting and particle effects work has seen some improvement, although the room for improvement here can only go so far owing to the tight rendering budget.
DICE's approach on console is remarkably different. While dropping down to 30 frames per second obviously impacts input lag, doubling the available rendering time opens up a whole new world of possibilities. The tile-based deferred rendering setup allows for lighting that is in a completely different league to what the IW engine is capable of on Modern Warfare 3, so hundreds of light sources can be rendered simultaneously - point lights, lens flare, emissive particles and muzzle flashes are all genuinely dynamic light-sources.
Similarly, while Call of Duty still allows for different materials to offer varying levels of resistance to bullet impacts, and renders decals on top of the environment detail to signify damage, DICE's destruction system actually allows for cover to be incrementally chipped away by incoming gunfire, and for entire structures to collapse, giving a more realistic, visceral experience - not to mention opening up new gameplay strategies.
On a more macro level, DICE's engine also allows for more players and larger terrain, in turn opening up the ability to use a range of vehicles.
0コメント