BF3 or MW3

  • Thread starter Thread starter DDD4175
  • 72 comments
  • 4,557 views

What should I get?

  • BF3

    Votes: 42 79.2%

  • MW3

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Total voters
    53
MindlessRiff
I don't know what makes battlefield popular really I'll be honest, as I haven't played it much, but whenever I hear someone mention it graphics always pops up as an argument, which to me doesn't matter. Also I didn't necessarily say BF was slow exactly, or super realistic, I just said it was slower and more realistic in comparison to CoD.

IMO, battlefield is much more of a PC than a console game. You get more players and better graphics on PC (if it's good!).

Tbh I don't get all the 'CoD requires no teamwork' comment either. Sure you don't have to cooperate and can just run around. But if you come up against a good team, you WILL get stomped, no matter how good you are as an individual. CoD only gets a bad rep for this I guess because it's more popular and alot of 'kids' play it who run about trying to get a 360 quad headshot noscope game winner in S&D lol.
Click to expand...

It depends, BF games have been since 2002 with the release of BF1942, and that game didn't had graphics as impressive as its date COD 1, the thing with that game was the scale of the battle and the structure of the battle itself.

This is much harder to archive on consoles due to the limited technical characteristics of consoles, the lack of online gaming back at the day and the advantages that a large scale battle offered.

The thing about both BF and COD series is how the different elements and how the battle works. In COD for example you depend on your skills and the skills of others to keep the game balanced(which differs from cooperative play) but in battlefield you depend on the different assets and how these assets are used as a team(cooperative play).

BF on consoles has(and had) to be scaled down due to technical limitations(even the game design was scaled down in BFBC2 to fit better console players), however the same basic rules and same cooperative play applies to the game mechanics, something that works equally for both console and PC gamers.
 
If you want a war atmosphere, destructable environments and huge maps with vehicles: BF3. If you want a pick up and play arcade shooter: MW3.
 
poolhaas
Why so narrow minded? I had great games with MW2 (when playing with the right people).
Click to expand...

Narrow minded?

Comparing the maps with BF3 or BC2 it is just that. A knife fight in a phone booth.
You can take that as you like (which you have) but for me that is a great way to explain the game layout.

Flying a chopper in your living room is also a good one :)
 
poolhaas
Why so narrow minded? I had great games with MW2 (when playing with the right people).
Click to expand...

Yeah and those right people are so few and far between...

I used to be a die hard COD fan but not I can really appreciate what BF is doing and in my opinion it's a far superior game. COD is a a run and gun game which is fine and it has it's place in gaming.
 
CMvan46
Yeah and those right people are so few and far between...

I used to be a die hard COD fan but not I can really appreciate what BF is doing and in my opinion it's a far superior game. COD is a a run and gun game which is fine and it has it's place in gaming.
Click to expand...

^ I agree with this post 100% 👍
 
Both games has their own strenghts and I will probably buy both games. If only BF series had 60fps on ps3 then I would have played it alot more, COD have done this for many years now, why cant BF series learn?
 
mr_VOLCANO
Both games has their own strenghts and I will probably buy both games. If only BF series had 60fps on ps3 then I would have played it alot more, COD have done this for many years now, why cant BF series learn?
Click to expand...

Maybe because Battlefield has better graphics and isint just about guns?
 
24 players (console, 64 on PC), way bigger maps, vehicles, destructable environments, far more advanced game engine, more advanced sound engine. Not quite sure which series has to learn.
 
G.T.Ace
24 players (console, 64 on PC), way bigger maps, vehicles, destructable environments, far more advanced game engine, more advanced sound engine. Not quite sure which series has to learn.
Click to expand...

Im not a fanboy, I know that BF do many things very good. Its just that 30fps with screen tearing is very annoying to me.. I know this is not a problem to most people, but it really destroys the experience for me. It feels like BF is too advanced for ps3..
 
MW2 was a great game espesially online which is what im looking for and imma have to play the BF3 beta a littile more to decide and its a little early to tell yet how much of an inprovment MW3 is . but imma get both MW3 has my #1 spot though im not to happy yet with the cotroller mapping on the beta but its features are really good.
 
mr_VOLCANO
Both games has their own strenghts and I will probably buy both games. If only BF series had 60fps on ps3 then I would have played it alot more, COD have done this for many years now, why cant BF series learn?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think anyone would know the difference if it wasn't advertised as 30 fps and 60 fps. It's the same as people fighting over, so and so game only runs at 720p on the ps3 and then someone else says no it's running at 1080p when the company never actually says what it's running at, no one can tell the difference for sure.

There proably is a little noticable difference if the same game was being played side by side at 30 fps and 60 fps, but I don't think anyone could play a game and tell you what FPS it's running at unless they knew first. There are way to many other factors that determine how smooth a game looks and runs besides the FPS. That's just another spec to get hung up on when reading about games.

When I'm playing a game on the pc, the only way I notice frame rate drops is if they get below 30 fps. I have BF3 on vsync so it never goes over 60 and haven't noticed a framerate drop in play yet visually, after about 6 hours of play. The only reason I know it goes under 60 and sometimes into the low 30s is because fraps and msi afterburner tell me so. Not because the game has any issues while playing it.

With that said, it would be nice to have all games run at 60 fps, but if I was a game maker I wouldn't tell anyone what my game ran at, because the only people who care what it runs at, are people who are stuck on spec sheets. 95% of people who play games have no idea what the games run at, and couldn't care less as long as it's fun and looks good. The other 5% are us who get caught up in forums reading way ahead about games and their stats, and get our minds made up that 30 fps is just not good, when in reality we probably couldn't tell the difference if we didn't know before playing it.
 
I noticed that Battlefield runs a beta, glitches get fixed, no game breaking glitches, with COD, no open beta, only developers and other people will play it, game comes out, bunch of game breaking glitches found, glitches then have to get fixed, other glitches found.
 
Thats your opinion bevo, I have not heard any advert what fps BF use, but I could see it was 30fps straight away. And screen tearing is not very hard to see.. So you really dont see any difference in flow on BF and COD?

If it is screen tearing or low framerate that make BF have bad flow that i dont know, but it really feels choppy compared to COD.
 
Last edited:
bevo
I honestly don't think anyone would know the difference if it wasn't advertised as 30 fps and 60 fps. It's the same as people fighting over, so and so game only runs at 720p on the ps3 and then someone else says no it's running at 1080p when the company never actually says what it's running at, no one can tell the difference for sure.

There proably is a little noticable difference if the same game was being played side by side at 30 fps and 60 fps, but I don't think anyone could play a game and tell you what FPS it's running at unless they knew first. There are way to many other factors that determine how smooth a game looks and runs besides the FPS. That's just another spec to get hung up on when reading about games.

When I'm playing a game on the pc, the only way I notice frame rate drops is if they get below 30 fps. I have BF3 on vsync so it never goes over 60 and haven't noticed a framerate drop in play yet visually, after about 6 hours of play. The only reason I know it goes under 60 and sometimes into the low 30s is because fraps and msi afterburner tell me so. Not because the game has any issues while playing it.

With that said, it would be nice to have all games run at 60 fps, but if I was a game maker I wouldn't tell anyone what my game ran at, because the only people who care what it runs at, are people who are stuck on spec sheets. 95% of people who play games have no idea what the games run at, and couldn't care less as long as it's fun and looks good. The other 5% are us who get caught up in forums reading way ahead about games and their stats, and get our minds made up that 30 fps is just not good, when in reality we probably couldn't tell the difference if we didn't know before playing it.
Click to expand...

Placebo effect?
 
Cowboys965
I noticed that Battlefield runs a beta, glitches get fixed, no game breaking glitches, with COD, no open beta, only developers and other people will play it, game comes out, bunch of game breaking glitches found, glitches then have to get fixed, other glitches found.
Click to expand...
So BF3 won't have any bugs to fix after it comes out? I'm sure it's not the only game to beta test.
 
I still play on an SD TV so graphics aren't an issue to me. Just been playing the BF3 beta and I feel like the guns act more sluggishly than CoD, and also there's a noticeable pause between killing someone and seeing them go down. Same goes for being killed as well. Also the UI really annoys me in this game as well, I can't pause the game when I'm dead to change settings or whatever, instead I'm forced to stare into someones face until the game says otherwise. Connection seems kinda crummy at the moment too. That being said it goes give you a nice immersion which no other game really does, and the Frostbite 2 engine is pretty impressive too. I'll give it another go later, haven't written it off yet! :)

IMO CoD is so good because it's been refined alot. Yeah sure they're all pretty similar, but they all build off eachother to create a game with a tight feel and tight controls. It just feels more fluent somehow to me!

Oh and on the beta thing, CoD XP acted as a kind of beta for it.
 
mr_VOLCANO
Im not a fanboy, I know that BF do many things very good. Its just that 30fps with screen tearing is very annoying to me.. I know this is not a problem to most people, but it really destroys the experience for me. It feels like BF is too advanced for ps3..
Click to expand...

I had no idea BF3 already was out :S

I´m just playing a 4 month old BETA..
 
mr_VOLCANO
Both games has their own strenghts and I will probably buy both games. If only BF series had 60fps on ps3 then I would have played it alot more, COD have done this for many years now, why cant BF series learn?
Click to expand...

They clearly explained why already. You can't run a game at 60 fps with vehicles, higher resolution graphics, and destruction. Something had to give and in BF it's fps, in COD it's vehicles, graphics, and destruction.

Oh and yes they said what resolution it runs at... 706p. Quite nearly HD. Want to guess what COD does? Just a bit over 500p.
 
re: graphics - better graphics does not make a game instantly "better" than another.

If you want a game where you can just pick up and play for 10, 20, 30 minutes at a time then COD. If you want a game that has (arguably) a lot more depth in strategies and tactics then get BF3, although Battlefield games typically last anywhere from 20 minutes to 45 so it's not exactly a game that you can play for a quick blast.
 
poolhaas
So BF3 won't have any bugs to fix after it comes out? I'm sure it's not the only game to beta test.
Click to expand...

I mean sure it will probably have glitches, but it seems not as much as the number of glitches COD games get on release IMO.
 
Cowboys965
I noticed that Battlefield runs a beta, glitches get fixed, no game breaking glitches, with COD, no open beta, only developers and other people will play it, game comes out, bunch of game breaking glitches found, glitches then have to get fixed, other glitches found.
Click to expand...

"Other people" being professional testers.

The beta is here as selling material and brownie points, not for debugging. Open beta's are a long way from being the be all and end all.
 
Sureboss
"Other people" being professional testers.

The beta is here as selling material and brownie points, not for debugging. Open beta's are a long way from being the be all and end all.
Click to expand...

When I said "other people" I mean people at shows and stuff, like COD XP, but I guess that works too :p I'm not hating on COD as I have MW3 preordered also :p
 

Latest Posts

Back