Battlefield 3 or MW3

[Jadler]

I was watching BF3 trailers and realized you can switch the M4 from full auto to semi, that alone is enough to be the deciding factor. Good bye COD, nuking people was too easy.

[Malth]

Neither. TF2 for PC. It's free.

[Apathy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91BIBgU-ao

[redblooded]

They look like the same game to me, honestly. BF3 has better graphics, but really other then that what is different?

 

as far as the servers PC games have been able to have 64 player servers since quakeworld in 1997, they don't do it because (usually) the maps are too small and it feels cramped and just generally sucks. It's also really hard to organize teams that big even in persistent world MMOs, so you won't see anything but crappy pug FFA servers using that many players in a common fps. The one and only FPS game I've seen actually handle more then that "well" was planetside and when I say "well" I mean even though it was a FPS dropping nightmare being in a 450+ player battle there was enough room to spread to another area of a continent and create smaller fights if you weren't feeling it at the main zerg battle.

 

There's a reason even team games like counterstrike and cs:source (which is capable of 30+ players also with a good enough server) used 5v5 for professional competitions. Now I haven't followed professional fps gaming for years, but I doubt that's changed. It's a pita to run teams full of teenage egomaniacal gamers in the first place.

 

It's relevant, since how the pro tournaments go, so to do most of the default team server settings.

[Landlord]

They look like the same game to me, honestly. BF3 has better graphics, but really other then that what is different?

 

 

 

They are very, very different. Modern Warfare made it's success off of over-dramatized, twitch-style, absurdly fast paced action and gameplay, whereas Battlefield has always been focused on more 'simulation' style gameplay. Requires people to be much more patient and selfless, particularly in multiplayer.

[redblooded]

They look like the same game to me, honestly. BF3 has better graphics, but really other then that what is different?

 

 

 

They are very, very different. Modern Warfare made it's success off of over-dramatized, twitch-style, absurdly fast paced action and gameplay, whereas Battlefield has always been focused on more 'simulation' style gameplay. Requires people to be much more patient and selfless, particularly in multiplayer.

 

So its for baddies, gotcha.

 

Wait, kidding, kidding!

 

Well sort of, quake1/quakeworld is still my all time favorite multiplayer game because the gameplay was the fastest I've ever played, the weapon switching was instant, you could bunnyhop, use explosions strategically and 4v4 teamplay was a blast. It was the best purely player vs player game I've ever seen because of that. It wasn't full of lame software restrictions to slow game-play down to give people that cant think or move fast a chance (disguised as 'realism'). It's why I hated counterstrike since even with bunny-hopping in that game it only ever felt like you were running through molasses. Same with pretty much ever other game to come out since then. The only one that got it somewhat right in that the speed regard is CoD, but they screwed it up with their server system (or lack there of).

 

Give me this:

 

 

or this

 

 

Over slowed down "it feels like I am fighting the game software more then other people" multi-player any day. I'll deal with less eyecandy. Of course I don't play fps on consoles so maybe it feels fine on there, since its much less of fine tuned way to move and aim.

[Enhance]

They look like the same game to me, honestly. BF3 has better graphics, but really other then that what is different?

I think there are many significant differences.

 

For starters, BF3 is not using the exact same engine for the previous installments, unlike MW3. MW3 is still banking off the same engine from four years ago. Props to them, I guess.

 

Second, BF3 prides itself on the fact that it's about as realistic as warfare can get, and destructible environments go a long way in producing this effect. In MW3, a player can sit in a corner with a sniper rifle, get mad amounts of kills, call in ridiculous killstreaks and finish with a score of 40-3 or something like that. In BF3, and to quote Lee Corso, not so fast. That same sniper, when he focuses in on you, can be spotted by the reflection of the sun on said snipers lens, so you already know where he is. Furthermore, if he's decided to make a second story window his camping ground, he's pretty much sealed his fate. You can either introduce him to the tank that was waiting at the main base and destroy his building, or you can plant C4 on the wall behind him and blow him to smithereens.

 

BF3 is truly unique in that the maps are gigantic, the flanking opportunities are realistic, and you truly have the capability to completely change the way the map looks from beginning to end.

[redblooded]

They look like the same game to me, honestly. BF3 has better graphics, but really other then that what is different?

I think there are many significant differences.

 

For starters, BF3 is not using the exact same engine for the previous installments, unlike MW3. MW3 is still banking off the same engine from four years ago. Props to them, I guess.

 

Second, BF3 prides itself on the fact that it's about as realistic as warfare can get, and destructible environments go a long way in producing this effect. In MW3, a player can sit in a corner with a sniper rifle, get mad amounts of kills, call in ridiculous killstreaks and finish with a score of 40-3 or something like that. In BF3, and to quote Lee Corso, not so fast. That same sniper, when he focuses in on you, can be spotted by the reflection of the sun on said snipers lens, so you already know where he is. Furthermore, if he's decided to make a second story window his camping ground, he's pretty much sealed his fate. You can either introduce him to the tank that was waiting at the main base and destroy his building, or you can plant C4 on the wall behind him and blow him to smithereens.

 

BF3 is truly unique in that the maps are gigantic, the flanking opportunities are realistic, and you truly have the capability to completely change the way the map looks from beginning to end.

 

Every game is going to have ways players can go 40-3 in pubs. That's not a function of engine, or killstreak rewards (which were easily avoidable, besides maybe the human drivable ones at least in MW) or "sitting in a corner" with a sniper rifle (which if that's how someone is going 40-3 in a game you are in, I'd suggest getting a lot better). That's simply a function of players getting a lot better then 99% of the casuals that log into these games. I've played games with much larger battlefields then bf(#whatever) 10 years ago and that was true then as well. I've played games with smaller levels too. That has no impact on scores. People just get really really good at these games. If you've never played fps's with professional level players it's easy to blame this or that game mechanic and yes CoD killstreaks make it easy for good players to "pile it on" quicker. They are not the reason people get ridiculous scores in those games though. The "matchmaking" system is more to blame then anything IMO. It's easy to avoid servers where you are getting slaughtered if you have a choice. It's easy in games like CS for server administrators and their paid admin posies to clear out the people the rest of the server crys "hacks" on because they can pull off 15-1 kdrs but in games like modern warfare you just magically get sent to whatever host.

 

I played the beta of bf3 and I agree there are differences... I've never played the bf games before since ww2 shooters have never interested me so I had no reference point. The difference isn't really in engine which "new" is really just a marketing point for the gullible. They are updated for every new release of a game franchise and really aren't making leaps and bounds anymore because every large game is targeting old console hardware. The "engines" are mostly just window dressing anyways. The difference is in vehicle combat and map size. Both of which don't interest me personally in non-persistent worlds or games that try to do too many things, since I prefer my shooters to be bare even ground to out-skill people rather then trying to out rock-paper-scissors them, but to each their own.

[Enhance]

Every game is going to have ways players can go 40-3 in pubs. That's not a function of engine, or killstreak rewards (which were easily avoidable, besides maybe the human drivable ones at least in MW) or "sitting in a corner" with a sniper rifle (which if that's how someone is going 40-3 in a game you are in, I'd suggest getting a lot better). That's simply a function of players getting a lot better then 99% of the casuals that log into these games. I've played games with much larger battlefields then bf(#whatever) 10 years ago and that was true then as well. I've played games with smaller levels too. That has no impact on scores. People just get really really good at these games. If you've never played fps's with professional level players it's easy to blame this or that game mechanic and yes CoD killstreaks make it easy for good players to "pile it on" quicker. They are not the reason people get ridiculous scores in those games though. The "matchmaking" system is more to blame then anything IMO. It's easy to avoid servers where you are getting slaughtered if you have a choice. It's easy in games like CS for server administrators and their paid admin posies to clear out the people the rest of the server crys "hacks" on because they can pull off 15-1 kdrs but in games like modern warfare you just magically get sent to whatever host.

 

I played the beta of bf3 and I agree there are differences... I've never played the bf games before since ww2 shooters have never interested me so I had no reference point. The difference isn't really in engine which "new" is really just a marketing point for the gullible. They are updated for every new release of a game franchise and really aren't making leaps and bounds anymore because every large game is targeting old console hardware. The "engines" are mostly just window dressing anyways. The difference is in vehicle combat and map size. Both of which don't interest me personally in non-persistent worlds or games that try to do too many things, since I prefer my shooters to be bare even ground to out-skill people rather then trying to out rock-paper-scissors them, but to each their own.

I guess to this extent there are many things we disagree upon, then. I deeply disagree with the idea that a game's engine, design, flow and structure don't yield players to do better than others. Skill comes into play, without question. I have played professionally, Counter-Strike 1.6 to be specific, so I'm well aware of the differences between pub matches and skilled games. The issue is I do believe Modern Warfare lends itself to give players a better chance of being better than they actually are. I've played against players I would call "good", and I've also played against players that I would call "game manipulators."

 

For example, I was never great at Modern Warfare 2. I had a k/d of 1.77, accuracy of about 20%, etc. Some maps I would generally average about as many kills as deaths. There were other maps, however, where I had learned exactly where I could go and exactly what to do in order to get easy kills, hike up my score, get a lot of killstreaks, and dominate the game. Didn't matter who was on the other team - I'd play really well. Certain rooms that were near impenetrable, areas where people never looked, etc. I don't disagree with the idea that people just get better at the game, but to say that a game's design has absolutely "no" effect on a score is drastically incorrect. It has an effect to a certain extent, as I have mentioned in this paragraph.

 

Lastly, there are significant differences between the graphics for both of these games. It doesn't matter how many times you update an engine for each new installment, because there will always be a new engine that performs better than the previous old and updated engine. There will always be limitations with an engine, just like there are always limitations with certain computers. BF3 is using a new engine that outperforms and outclasses MW3. If I can find the article that talks about it, I will link it in this page.

 

MW2 came out years after BF2 did, but the performance and detail of the engine used to create BF3 puts the MW3 game to shame, and I think saying the only difference between these games is vehicle and map size only scratches the surface of how these games are different. Overall, both of these games offer different multiplayer experiences, so it really comes down to personal preference. I believe Battlefield just does a better job, and that they put more effort into their games.

[Stu]

I'm beginning to doubt BF3 and am getting more curious about MW3. My roommate so far has not enjoyed the BF3 experience so far after buying it tuesday. We usually have similar taste in games, I haven't played it yet, but I'm definitely going to wait for MW3 now and compare various reviews.

[redblooded]

By no means was I implying MW whatever was a game of skill... It's completely dumbed down for a multiplayer shooter, I agree. MW2 was a game of run around and blast crap with a semi auto shotty at close range or ump snipe. If you were lucky enough to not get a hacked host or a string of ragequitters. The one thing I did like was the gameplay was fairly fast paced, if you went for the speed increase perks.

 

Those were the main differences to me I guess I should have said. Graphics engine is completely irrelevant in my evaluation of game play. I turn all settings down to the lowest possible in any fps anyways since smooth is better then pretty 100% of the time. Frankly I'd be happy if all online competitive multiplayer games had full-bright skins and mat walls.

[VectorVictor]

By no means was I implying MW whatever was a game of skill... It's completely dumbed down for a multiplayer shooter, I agree. MW2 was a game of run around and blast crap with a semi auto shotty at close range or ump snipe. If you were lucky enough to not get a hacked host or a string of ragequitters. The one thing I did like was the gameplay was fairly fast paced, if you went for the speed increase perks.

 

Those were the main differences to me I guess I should have said. Graphics engine is completely irrelevant in my evaluation of game play. I turn all settings down to the lowest possible in any fps anyways since smooth is better then pretty 100% of the time. Frankly I'd be happy if all online competitive multiplayer games had full-bright skins and mat walls.

 

It's not just hacked hosts--if you're a console gamer, they have hacked controllers that, among other things, auto-aim (read: no-scope sniper kills or half-the-map-away kills), let you see through buildings, and make single-shot pistols/rifles into automatics. They've infected both MW2/Black Ops and BF2/BF2BC.

 

And as a fan that's moved on from MW, Battlefield has more opportunities to make friends and the squad-based multiplayer rewards even the n00biest of n00bs progress and get better by being a good teammate (e.g. team heals, enemy spotting, ride-alongs in vehicles).

 

You have your hackers, griefers, rage-quitters, and all-around douchebags in both games, but only one game emphasizes team/squad play, while the other is a free-for-all.

 

I started with MW, but graduated to Battlefield. And despite the shortcomings of the single-player campaign and EA's infrastructure, the game is a beauty to behold in multiplayer.

[redblooded]

If I played fps games online via a console after being a pc gamer since the doom days I wouldn't have a tv from controllers flying at it out of frustration. Single player halo was bad enough movement wise for me that I've never actually played through it. FPS games are completely different when you're not thumb fumbling around in them. There's a reason joysticks haven't been used in PC gaming since the early 90s.

[BIG ERN]

MW3. Period. This shouldn't even be a topic because it isn't close.

[Apathy]

MW3. Period. This shouldn't even be a topic because it isn't close.

LOL