Originally Posted by Dopamin3
Recycled gameplay, console port, pay2play (Call of Duty Elite IIRC) service available, no dedicated servers for real gameplay. You decide. Or you could support a developer that actually develops with PC in mind, has way better team gameplay, better graphics with DX11 support, up to 64 man servers, and actually listens to the community (aka BF3, just sayin').
See, people who make it a task to compare CoD and BF clearly havn't played enough of either. I've played both of them on PC and console, admittedly BFBC2 on PC more recently because it's alot better than the console version. But I'm level 26 on PC and have everything unlocked, and maxed out on all CoD's (except BO, I skipped it).
They are different games. CoD is an arcade style shooter while BF3 is more team based with mild influences of tactical gameplay, not as much as people say though, at core it's just 2 teams killing eachother which is why people like to compare it. Don't mean to be rude, but I don't think people have the right to rack on a game if they simply "don't like it", you have to respect what other people think about the game.
Anyway, to settle some of this. It's not pay2play, elite is the service for checking advanced stats and if you subscribe before it comes out, you get the DLC for free.
There will be dedicated servers, but they will not be ranked.
Better graphics at the cost of a waaaaaay
better system, my Pentium D/9600GT rig can run MW2 in singleplayer with 80 fps, it will probably run MW3 well too. For alot of people, BF3 is just not an option, you're going to need at least what I have to run it respectably on medium settings, even more for high, and moreso for ultra settings.
Don't rack on CoD for being bad, hate Activision for doing what they did to it, and forcing the best games developer to leave in doing so. To be a bit frank, alot of people seem to ignore it and call it a bad game without even having played it.