Battlefield 3 or MW3

[Jawehawk]

You didn't at all. At this year's GDC game developers voted Battlefield 3 to be have the best technology in a game for the last fiscal year. They figured out ways to get more performance out of the ps3 that nobody had before, they rebuilt their engine, and developed ways to make soldiers move in a more realistic way than anything before.

Last I checked that is quality and just because your likely terrible at both games and therefore don't like them doesn't mean they are awful games. Why your still in this thread I have no idea...

I don't know what game you've been playing, but there's little to no realism in BF3. And that includes the character models, and the way they move. If you honestly believe that BF3 uses more of the PS3's power than any other PS3 exclusive game, then I don't even know what to tell you. The ignorance goes further than I first thought, I guess.

I'm not saying the Frostbite 2.0 engine is bad in any way. But a good game engine, does not neccesarily mean a good game. The AI is still horrible, the destruction has been nerfed compared to previous games(though you could argue that it's for the better), and it certainly does not have the best graphics around. That's not to say the game looks bad though.

So your idea of quality in a game, is when a game has a decent game engine? Really? The word quality, usually implies a product that is great in more than just one way. A product needs to be innovative, and to have a certain level of polish. Modern shooter have tons of minor imperfections, along side their more serious problems. That, my good sir, is not quality.

And on a final note. What is it that I didn't? My second post had a ton of arguements. You missed it or something? I see you like to just lower yourself to the common CoD player level of intelligence. "Oh, he doesn't like those games. It must be because he sucks at them." If that's your idea of an arguement, then you probably need to attend some more school.

 

[Smilenator]

The AI is still horrible

What do you mean 99% of the time on BF3 is spent playing online where there are no AI players so I see little problem with this.

 

[Jawehawk]

What do you mean 99% of the time on BF3 is spent playing online where there are no AI players so I see little problem with this.

The game has a Single Player campaign, and thus, Dice should've taken the time to at least attempt creating some proper AI. While the BF franchise has always been MP oriented, that's no excuse for sloppy work with the Single Player campaign. It's in the game, so obviously, it's going to be judged as anything else in the game.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

No one cares about the campaign. The large majority by this game for these games for the multiplayer aspect. Your ranting about the single player isn't related to the experience people have with the online portion of the game.

In fact, your only 'argument' about the portion of the game that's played by the majority of players was:

Online is just a mess, with half the community consisting of kids in their early teens, and horrible balancing.

The people who play the game aren't part of its quality. I don't actually have any problems with balancing.

 

[CMvan46]

I don't know what game you've been playing, but there's little to no realism in BF3. And that includes the character models, and the way they move. If you honestly believe that BF3 uses more of the PS3's power than any other PS3 exclusive game, then I don't even know what to tell you. The ignorance goes further than I first thought, I guess.

I'm not saying the Frostbite 2.0 engine is bad in any way. But a good game engine, does not neccesarily mean a good game. The AI is still horrible, the destruction has been nerfed compared to previous games(though you could argue that it's for the better), and it certainly does not have the best graphics around. That's not to say the game looks bad though.

So your idea of quality in a game, is when a game has a decent game engine? Really? The word quality, usually implies a product that is great in more than just one way. A product needs to be innovative, and to have a certain level of polish. Modern shooter have tons of minor imperfections, along side their more serious problems. That, my good sir, is not quality.

And on a final note. What is it that I didn't? My second post had a ton of arguements. You missed it or something? I see you like to just lower yourself to the common CoD player level of intelligence. "Oh, he doesn't like those games. It must be because he sucks at them." If that's your idea of an arguement, then you probably need to attend some more school.

I like people who make stupid arguments....

First off did I at any point claim either game was realistic? Nope, in fact you even quoted my post whee I said that they created an engine that allows the in game characters to move in a MORE realistic way than nearly any other game and there is no way to dispute that.

Again I didn't say the game is high quality because they have, arguably, the best game engine in gaming in use today but the expense, time and polish of that engine certainly helps. The tech in that engine is phenomenal but I guess you need some more schooling to understand that.

So a game needs to be great in many areas to be of high quality? Well engine, graphics, sound, and partical effects are some of the best in recent memory... Your not allowed to dispute that until you've played the game on a high end computer as it was designed, because they had to dumb down everything for consoles isn't DICE's issue. The game's graphics on ultra settings are like almost nothing you'll find in any other game out today, the sound is fantastic on PC and consoles, and the destruction of walls and buildings while having vehicles and numerous players on screen is an amazing feat. Also, the multiplayer offering is fantastic and absolutely encourages teamwork and rewards it accordingly. Now according to your definition that is a high quality game.

Also difference of opinion is one thing and I don't mind people disagreeing with me but don't try and tell me I need more school, I'm quite well educated thank you. You make irrational arguments in a thread which you obviously don't belong and can't be open minded enough to to even think about what we are saying. Games are meant to be played for fun and if you don't enjoy these games then I couldn't give a crap, it doesn't mean I can't and it doesn't mean we are idiots or whatever else you'd like to say. I'm sure there are some games you like that I don't but in no way will I call you an idiot for playing them.

 

[Patrick]

^^^ Well said. 👍

 

[Jawehawk]

I never once called you or anyone else an idiot. The word "ignorant", does not mean "idiot". Furthemore, the word ignorant in debates like these, are only indicating ignorance at the topid at hand, and not ignorance overall. And finally you cough up a few arguements. Good!

The sound, as I've previously mentioned, is good. However, just as Bad Company 2, it lags from time to time, and occasionally fails to play the reloading sound. I've played the game on both the PS3 and PC mind you. With the PS3 being setup to 5.1 Surround Sound, and the PC using regular speakers. Both versions had the problem. You want a game where character models move more realistic? Try Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising.

About the graphics. On consoles, I can tell you that Killzone 2/3 and MGS4 looks quite a lot better than the console version of BF3. The PC version on highest setting in SP, I've yet to see. I have, however, seen the Multi Player on highest settings, and it certainly doesn't have the detail of some other games. Overall it looks good, but lacks in the small details.

A MP game where a single player can do any of the online objectives on his own, does not encourage teamwork. There is zero incentive to do things together with others. As I've already mentioned earlier, there is no way what so ever, for the entire team to coordinate attacks against different objectives. The reason for this is the lack of commander/squad system of older BF games, where you could literally coordinate the entire team. In BF3, you will at most have one squad working together. And even that is rare. Medics often times do not bother using their revival tool, and people often times just drive off in transport vehicles/gunships, without waiting for passengers/gunners. Try actually reading my second and long post, instead of my having to repeat things.

You mention 4 things the game is good at, with 2 of those things being in the same catagory(particles belongs under graphics). The gameplay is thé most important thing, and it fails to innovate the franchise, nor does it fix mistakes that have long been in the franchise. Battlefield is notorious for it's somehat poor hit ditection, where you'll literally see blood comming from your opponent, yet he doesn't actually take any damage. Again, the game engine is great, but it's not the holy grail you make it out to be. A great engine does not make up for lackluster gameplay. In a franchise that once innovated it self in every game, and actually encourages teamwork. BF3 is a sad step in the wrong(CoD) direction. You need look no further than its SP campaign, and MP players, to come to that conclusion.

I think you completely failed to understand what I meant about going back to school. Let be quote myself there.

If that's your idea of an arguement, then you probably need to attend some more school.

Your arguement in your comment was that the reason I didn't like the games, was because I wasn't good at them. Do you deny that that's a kidnergaarden insult?

And quit trying to tell people they don't belong in a thread, just because they don't share the same opinion as you. Unlike you, I've brought a good deal of arguements by now. You have yet to leave the talk about the game engine, and what it achieves on a technical level. Though at least you've started to come with actual arguements now.

 

[Spagetti69]

I'm confused? Which is the best game ?

 

[Jawehawk]

I'm confused? Which is the best game ?

That would be BF3. Though it's still a bad game.

 

[bevo]

The sound, as I've previously mentioned, is good. However, just as Bad Company 2, it lags from time to time, and occasionally fails to play the reloading sound. I've played the game on both the PS3 and PC mind you. With the PS3 being setup to 5.1 Surround Sound, and the PC using regular speakers. Both versions had the problem. You want a game where character models move more realistic? Try Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising.

About the graphics. On consoles, I can tell you that Killzone 2/3 and MGS4 looks quite a lot better than the console version of BF3. The PC version on highest setting in SP, I've yet to see. I have, however, seen the Multi Player on highest settings, and it certainly doesn't have the detail of some other games. Overall it looks good, but lacks in the small details.

What games can you actually say look better then the PC version of BF3, on a system that can run it at the highest settings ?

It has extremely high detail with everything at the highest settings and at a high resolution. The only game I have seen that looks better is witcher 2, and it would be alot easier to make look like it does. Shooters have so much more going on then adventure or RPG games. The dust from explosions, and the debris flying through the air looks fantastic.


I have played a good bit of BF3 on PC and the 360. I have never heard the sound lag. I play both versions on the same 5.1 high quality sound system. The only shooting game I have played with better sound is socom confrontation, and that was just because that game seemed so accurate and crisp. The bass timing and quality in BF3 is amazing. My SVS PB 13 ultra actually gets a workout from the game. It seems like they took the time to think about people who have a decent system, instead of just making it sound decent on cheap sony HTIB systems. The midrange is also very convincing and tight. Turn your system up to reference levels and play this game, and you can't tell me it doesn't scare you to death. One thing with the sound is that this game likes to be played really loud. There are many sounds you don't hear until you get close to reference levels. I honestly can't believe anyone would say this game has bad sound, unless they just have junk speakers, or are not playing it at decent levels.

As far as the graphics go, they are not that great on consoles, but are actually pretty good for a console shooter. The PC version though looks great at max details on a system that can actually max out the game, and looks better then any console shooter even at it's lowest settings, or any other shooter made for that fact on any system. BF3 and witcher 2 on PC are probably the best 2 looking games I have ever played. What games can you actually say look better then the PC version of BF3, on a system that can run it?
All of my opinions though are based on multiplayer. I haven't played MW3 single payer at all, and have only played maybe an hour of BF3 single player.

My comparison for which are better
Sound BF3
Graphics BF3
Strategy BF3
Leveling player BF3 (MW3 is just to easy to unlock guns an equipment)
satisfaction of a kill BF3 (It's just to easy to rack up kills in MW3, when I get a kill in BF3 I feel i earned it)


Ease of getting in games MW3
Ease of getting in games with friends MW3
Pick up and play MW3
control mechanics MW3
Teamwork MW3 ( BF3 requires more teamwork, but they way the chat system is setup, and how hard it is to get people to use their mics makes MW3 easier to actually get people to work together)


It's hard for me to recommend one over the other. I like BF3 better if it's just me playing by myslef, and actually liek BF3 alot better then COD, but I like MW3 better playing as a group. MW3 is just so easy to get a group together and be in a game playing quickly. In BF3 you can only take 3 other people into a game with you, and 9 out of 10 times at least 1 of you gets put onto the other team, then you have to keep checking to try and get that person to find an open spot to switch to your team. If there is more then 4 of you, it makes you go to a server browser and try and find a server that all of you can fit into together, which is sometimes impossible. That's almost a deal breaker for me, and blows my mind that they made BF3 like this.

If I had to keep only one of the games, as much as I hate to say it, it would be MW3, just because I like to play with larger groups of friends, and BF3 makes this sometimes impossible, or complicated and time consuming. I really can't believe they would make such a strategy based game so hard to get teams together that will actually work with each other and use strategy.

 

[Patrick]

I'm confused? Which is the best game ?

BF3 by far.

 

[Jawehawk]

I have played a good bit of BF3 on PC and the 360. I have never heard the sound lag. I play both versions on the same 5.1 high quality sound system. The only shooting game I have played with better sound is socom confrontation, and that was just because that game seemed so accurate and crisp. The bass timing and quality in BF3 is amazing. My SVS PB 13 ultra actually gets a workout from the game. It seems like they took the time to think about people who have a decent system, instead of just making it sound decent on cheap sony HTIB systems. The midrange is also very convincing and tight. Turn your system up to reference levels and play this game, and you can't tell me it doesn't scare you to death. One thing with the sound is that this game likes to be played really loud. There are many sounds you don't hear until you get close to reference levels. I honestly can't believe anyone would say this game has bad sound, unless they just have junk speakers, or are not playing it at decent levels.

I never said the sound was bad. In fact I said the sound was good, and that Dice have proven themselves to be extremely competent in recording/making sound in past games. I can't explain why you don't get audio bugs from time to time. While my Surround Sound certainly isn't in the premium price range, it is pretty good. And seeing as no other games other than Bad Company and BF3 have audio problems on it, I find it hard to blame the system. Espicially as other games like MGS4 makes far more use of it, and I never had any problems with that game. My PC speakers and sound card are nothing to cheer about though.

As far as the graphics go, they are not that great on consoles, but are actually pretty good for a console shooter. The PC version though looks great at max details on a system that can actually max out the game, and looks better then any console shooter even at it's lowest settings, or any other shooter made for that fact on any system. BF3 and witcher 2 on PC are probably the best 2 looking games I have ever played. What games can you actually say look better then the PC version of BF3, on a system that can run it? I honestly can't think of any except witcher 2.
All of my opinions though are based on multiplayer. I haven't played MW3 single payer at all, and have only played maybe an hour of BF3 single player.

In terms of online graphics, it depends on what you're looking at. The lighting in the Multi Player matches is pretty damn great, I'll give you that. But the overall detail level is cut down, due to the massive amount of stuff happening in the matches. Which is fair. As I haven't played the Single Player portion, I won't go into detail with the graphics seen there.

There are a couple of areas where I'd say Killzone 2/3 rightfully challenges BF3's graphics. Mainly in lighting, particles, and overall detail/polish. BF3 is, however, vastly superior in large scale battles. if you really want to look into detail, I'd say MGS4, and the way characters move and handle guns etc. To point out a certain detail that I've never seen in other games that MGS4, is when AI characters use things like pistols, and you can actually see the slide moving, with a used bullet casing being ejected. This same level of detail is present when they reload their guns and the like. While BF3 overall looks better than MGS4, it doesn't have the same level of detail. And of course one must'n forget the original Crysis, which looks pretty damn gorgous on the highest settings.

In retrospect, I should change my former statement on the online graphics from...

it certainly doesn't have the detail of some other games

To "it certainly doesn't have any higher level of detail than other online shooters." That's not saying that the online graphics are bad. But again, I'd like to say that the graphics and sound is not and never has been my biggest problem with the game. It's the lack of teamwork, innovation and proper balancing that brothers me. But thank you for bringing out good and solid arguements. You seem to have some good knowledge regarding sound design in game(and the often times, lack of proper sound design)?

 

[bevo]

It's the lack of teamwork, innovation and proper balancing that brothers me. But thank you for bringing out good and solid arguements. You seem to have some good knowledge regarding sound design in game(and the often times, lack of proper sound design)?

That's also my biggest problem for the game. It kills me that they made a game, that requires teamwork, but it's impossible to get large groups of friends into the game together. The balancing to is very bad just like you say. I was in a game earlier with no one over a level 20 and the other team was stacked with people who had call signs I had never seen before. We didn't have one person in the plus K/D and never got one of the bases destroyed in rush.

I hate when they design a great multiplayer game, and then do a really bad job with the way you get into games together. COD is probably the best example of how parties should be set up, and how you should get groups to be able to get into a game together, and play on the same team. It's really a shame they never add any new elements to COD, or that other developers just don't steal their party system and game launch ideas.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I am a Marine; I prefer BF3.



^AI moves extremely realistic.

But, what do I know.... Lol.

Semper Fi