The Man With the Soap said:
Frosty05 said:
The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.
Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?
You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).
But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.
TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.
Cheers.
Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.
See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying
Dragon Age is the same thing as
Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is
Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose
Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.
Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of
Quake III, while
Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of
Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.