[cas-97]

I just thought what do other people think. I'm a fan of both Medal of Honor and Battlefield but i always thought who is the better developer. But i'm also thinking of Medal of Honor released in 2010 as Danger Close made the Campaign and DICE the Multiplayer and thinking of MoH: Warfighter just looking at game trailers so far, do you think Danger Close are doing better with Warfighter than DICE did with Battlefield 3. What are everyone's thoughts?

[1whitebuddah]

why does it have to be competition?, the 2 games are very different and you cant really compare them, moh looks like it will be heavy infantry while bf is a bit of everything. IMO EA are using medal of honor to compete with cod because moh has kill streaks and no vehicles just like cod.

medal of honor is nothing like it used to be, the old medal of honor games were so..original and awesome, but now its just like every other fps shooter out there.

[cas-97]

QUOTE (1whitebuddah @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 12:07)

why does it have to be competition?, the 2 games are very different and you cant really compare them, moh looks like it will be heavy infantry while bf is a bit of everything. IMO EA are using medal of honor to compete with cod because moh has kill streaks and no vehicles just like cod. medal of honor is nothing like it used to be, the old medal of honor games were so..original and awesome, but now its just like every other fps shooter out there.

I'm not saying it's competition, I'm just saying who do you think does a better job at it or do you think Medal of Honor or Battlefield is better, just what people think, sorry if i sound like I'm comparing and i agree that Medal of Honor has kind of fallen back from it's roots.

[Sgt. Foley]

DICE, cause Danger Close makes sh*t games like Medal of Honor (2010). How can you make a game where every gun sounds the same, and you spawn in sh*tty places?

Go Battlefield!