Battlefield 3 or MW3

  • Thread starter Smilenator
  • 103 comments
  • 8,946 views

Which one?

  • Battlefield 3

    Votes: 115 77.2%
  • COD: MW3

    Votes: 34 22.8%

  • Total voters
    149
Its funny everyone keeps saying MW3 didnt inovate or push anything forward( besides the story) but you know what there is no rule book that says a game has to do that many games do many little tweaks that change the overall expereince. I think people take there gaming too seriously it si after all just a game lol.
 
Its funny everyone keeps saying MW3 didnt inovate or push anything forward( besides the story) but you know what there is no rule book that says a game has to do that many games do many little tweaks that change the overall expereince. I think people take there gaming too seriously it si after all just a game lol.

True. Ironically, this discussion is being held on a forum dedicated to Gran Turismo, a game that doesn't really 'innovate or push things forward'.
 
Its funny everyone keeps saying MW3 didnt inovate or push anything forward( besides the story) but you know what there is no rule book that says a game has to do that many games do many little tweaks that change the overall expereince. I think people take there gaming too seriously it si after all just a game lol.

no the fact that I payed $60 and got a MW2 game pisses me off.
 
Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 are two entirely different games tring to achieve two entirely different things. Modern Warfare 3 is suppposed to be a fast paced, Console predominant FPS, with you basically just getting up and going. They achieve this very well, I believe. On the other hand, Battlefield 3 is supposed to be a tactical game, were you utilize teamwork and are a bit more strategic in achieving the required objective .and is really a PC dominant title.

Graphically, Battlefield gets the nod, but when it comes to Consoles, they are actually about the same. To get Battlefield to run at its very best, you would need a pretty powerful PC, which will cost you. Singleplayer mode, Modern Warfare 3 runs rings around Battlefield 3. Infinity Ward's expertise with Singleplayer modes will keep you on the edge of your seat all the way. It's a far more polished single player, and multi player mode if you ask me, but it is limited in features, and what you can do.

Multiplayer is they key thing here, but, as i've said, they are trying to achieve two entirely different things with their multiplayer modes. People fell the need to compare them because they are both FPS, when that's about all they have in common. It all depends on what you want to do online. no game is better than the other, that's all just opinion. If you want to just jump in and have some quick, non-technical fun with a bunch of friends, then pick up MW3. If you want to play a strategic, war-style game, pick up Battlefield 3. I picked up both, and they are both brilliant games, though i've yet to seriously play much BF3 as yet. I am fortunate enough to have both, but if you can save a bit of lunch money for a week, trade in another old game or 2, you can pick up both of them.
 
But I don't really want both of them because they are both FPS and I won't have the time to be able play both of them.

P.S I think BF3 is waiting under the Christmas tree for me.
 
I have gone from MW3 to BF3.

So far, I have not regretted it.

But you do need a friends list, and for some of those friends to be online in order for BF3 to really shine.

It's a lot of fun when you are flanking by yourself and taking objectives and winning for the team, but it is even more gratifying when you get taken out, and someone revives you, or you threw that many RPG's down a corridor that you ran out, but then someone drops an ammo crate at your feet, so you can continue the fight.

When the teamwork is taking place, the game steps out of MW3's shadow, and proves to be a more intelligent, adult kind of shooter.

IMO.

:irked:👍
 
Been playing Battlefield 3 I am quite enjoying it at the moment, so seems like a good choice. I am quite bad and not getting too many kills, but I'm sure that will change. The graphics though are awesome.

BTW does anyone want to add me as a friend, because I have no friends who play Battlefield and I think it would be better to play with others. PSN: Smilenator
 
I finally got chance to get stuck into BF3 last night, just working my way through the SP to get a feel for things before I dive into the MP. I was blown away.

To me it feels like BF3 is made entirely of the bits I liked from MW1.

I did keep dying repeatedly in some places which I put down to my lack of skill, but once I got a feel for how the game should be played, my performance improved and I made decent progress.
 
Also should I get the DLC or not?

Yes, i know i am, eventually

Also I think BF3 is alot better, me and my mate where on conquest on Operation Metro, and we where pretty much defending a flag from the entire enemy team. Needless to say we didnt last long, but it was so fun, RPGs whistling past your head, supressing fire blurring your vision, and in that situation, I find that every kill, be it only a few, is immensly satisfying.
MW3, just doesnt have that in my opinion.
Also, you can blow up buildings full of campers on BF3 which causes many lol moments.
 
BF3 hands down. MW3 I found just doesn't feel new or fresh and that there are no amazing features that make me drawn to it. While with BF3 well that's another story altogether, the vehicles, the destruction, the massive gunfights on Metro and Grand Bazaar but the good thing is that if I don't feel like participating in that sort of thing I can jump onto Caspian Border or Op Firestorm and blaze hell with a jet, the possibilities are endless! And MW3? I can get an AC-130 which you have directional control of and it goes away after 30 seconds :/
 
I've played bf3 yesterday, was a bit upset by EA lack of patch for the voip thing.
Gawd it was fun, was a bit rusty after my month long strike but getting in vehicles is a blast.
The game at conquest were so freaking close like 6/0, 14/0.
Thats a totally new experience with the mics working.
Everyone is responding as a group so much faster.
Its hard to overcome for a lone wolf like me but i did manage to wipe 10 in a row..
camping... using mav... with frag round...( I know I know) lololol but i was shaking life a leaf.
 
MW3 for simple fast paced action
BF3 for medium paced action with some strategy involved

ARMA II for the best of everything (if you have a PC that is)
 
I cant stand all the cheaters, glitchers, and modders in the COD series. Plus they put a COD out EVERY single year thats pretty much the same thing. Just way beyond boree of that series. The last COD I enjoyed was WAW because it had a 4 player co-op campaign, death cards for really fun co-op modes, introduction of 4 player co-op zombies, and still had vehicles you could control. Now the series focuses way too much on perks and its loaded with too many cheaters.

So I prefer BF3 by a longshot. I like the ability to control land and air vehicles. Seeing tanks, hummers, buggies, hovercrafts, helicopters, and jets all on the same map all being controlled by real people is just epic. BF3 is truly one of the best multiplayers I have played in in a long time. It requres a lot of teamwork and usually the team that works the best together, wins. Plus I have not seen any cheaters yet even after playing the mp for at least 60 hours. 👍
 
Battlefield 3 is way funnier then modern warfare 3 because the enemies can sometimes not shoot you as they should do they can play around and pretend they are your allies that's so funny.
 
I voted for Battlefield 3, because I've always been a wheel man.

I also like a little more strategy and team-work in my game, and CoD seems like a run and gun mercilessly type of game.
 
Last edited:
Both games are horrible, atrocious and utterly useless. The BF franchise is no longer about teamwork, and the CoD franchise has been abysemal since MW2.

If you have any sense of quality, you'll keep away from both.
 
Jawehawk
Both games are horrible, atrocious and utterly useless. The BF franchise is no longer about teamwork, and the CoD franchise has been abysemal since MW2.

If you have any sense of quality, you'll keep away from both.

The 10s of millions of people who play these games disagree. Your in a forum dedicated to a game that came out admittedly half finished and with only a fraction of cars with interior views and your talking about quality? :lol:

They are incredibly well made games and while it's debated over and over if COD is recycled they are still well made. And if you don't think Battlefield needs teamwork then come play a game with a random squad against some of us in the Battlefield thread and you'll quickly learn otherwise.
 
Bf3, I had mw3 before I got my bf3 game. I've played almost every single cod and the only difference online is maps, guns and perks. They tried making a big change this year it worked well but got boring like every other cod game. Now the first battlefield game for me was bad company 1 and then I bought 2, 2 was better than mw2 and BO.
 
The 10s of millions of people who play these games disagree.

Then those 10 million people have zero idea of what quality is.

I've discussed this with a ton of people, both friends, as well as random people on the internet. Not a single person has ever been able to give a single valid arguement as to why CoD is a good game.

CoD's graphics are horribly out dated, which wouldn't matter if the game delivered a compelling story and characters. Problem is that it doesn't. The characters all have the depth of rain puddle, with nothing distinctive about any of them. The main character is basically whatever gun you see on screen, as the player character never utters a word, or even gives a hint on where he stands on the current situation. There's just no character development to speak of in any of the games, it's friggin embarresing.

It doesn't get any better when you look at the story arch, which is filled to the top with plot holes, and the occasional plot convient tool/character. How it's even possible to create such pathetic crap is beyond me. The story makes no sense, and fails to make any kind of emotional impact, despite the fact that millions of people are dying.

So is the gameplay anything special? Hell no. The same recycled crap, with the worst AI arround, and no innovative features to speak of. The sound design is atrocious, making no use of Surround Sound, and failing to produce a single memorable sountrack. I don't get why the great Hans Zimmer has any involvement with the game, though it should be noted that he's only responsible for 2-3 scores for the MW games(not including MW1).

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


So is BF3 any better? I used to love the BF franchise because of the teamwork required to suceed. However, BF3 completely removes any aspect of teamwork. Remember the great commander and squad system of BF2?

You will never see a team made up with people who don't know each other, act as a team in the new BF games. And that's only partially the games fault. The options for communicating with your team is just horrible, and it's impossible to coordinate the entire team. So what it comes down to is everyone running around by them selves, just like CoD.

Other simple things to encourage teamwork is to make classes less jack of all trades, and to require more than one person to capture falgs and the like. Actually have objectives that require more than 1 person to complete.

And don't even get me started on the atrocious new server system on the PC. Who the hell wants to use an internet browser to select servers? What was wrong with the way BF2142, and all the BF games before that, was setup? Gameplay wise, it has moved closer to the CoD style, with ridicules amounts of EXP awarded for just about everything.

Sound design is something Dice has always done well. Problem is that both Bad Company 2 and BF3 suffered from audio lag, and occasionally, the sound for reloading wouldn't play at all. Then there's the rubbish hit ditection, and poor ideas, such as flashlights that blind everyone. Not to mention seeing the flash from sniper scopes, despite being under ground!

These are just a fraction of complaints about the two most overrated franchises on earth. I won't even get into how CoD has practically ruined the gaming industry, with a lot of developers trying to copy/paste their game formula. And the increase in DLC cost, brought on by Activision.
 
Last edited:
Then those 10 million people have zero idea of what quality is.

Ahh, this old argument. The majority doesn't know. I alone know the good stuff. Snobbery at its finest.

I like both games. Play MW3 when I want to get my kill spree on, BF3 when I want to be part of something bigger.

Sure both have aspects that could have been done better, but to claim they lack quality is quite the stretch.
 
Sure both have aspects that could have been done better, but to claim they lack quality is quite the stretch.

And I say ignorance at its finest. You fail to even bring a single arguement. I, on the other hand, brought plenty.
 
You have to admit that when you find a squad/team that work together (rare I know), then BF3 is awesome, but in most games you can team up as a pair with someone else on your team and its still pretty good.
 
Plus all the new dlc for bf3 this summer. Ive had many games in bf3 when i played with people i didnt know and we worked as a team.
 
Jawehawk
And I say ignorance at its finest. You fail to even bring a single arguement. I, on the other hand, brought plenty.

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...
 
Back