Battlefield 3 or MW3

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

it's an absolute rip-off paying $60 for something that's simply not worth it buy any means. If people find MW2 MW3 fun that's fine - that's the whole point of the game anyways. But to say it's better without a doubt? Seems like an unreasonable opinion.

 

Which is why the new price of 28 bucks is reasonable for BF3.

It's my opinion, I've played both, MW3 nailed it, seems like BF3 tried to hard and forgot to make it a fun game, figure in paying extra for EA's online if buying it used and according to myself, it's not an unreasonable opinion in any aspect. Especially when I really really really wanted BF3 to be better than MW3, I'm also disappointed in my conclusion, but I'd say for most it's an accurate one.

How did they forget to make the game fun? Realism is fun. You actually have to use your brain to play BF3. MW3 is the same game as the previous 2. But I will agree that EA and their online pass is some bs.

[sd'sker]

there's a TON of recoil on BF3 and I couldn't stand it. I'm 30 mins into the campaign, i've already tore up a few blocks blazing away, used a remote drone to drop bombs, shot a helicopter down from another helicopter, now i'm scuba diving using one of those underwater propulsion things.

This is where it becomes somewhat each-to-his own. Modern Warfare wows with the visuals, but I've played both and in my not-so-expert opinion, BF3 is much more realistic which is why it drives me. MW has and always will be visually appealing, but the mechanics of BF3 are still better than any Modern Warfare game I've ever played. Just because you can't rambo in BF3 like you can in COD doesn't mean it's a bad game.

 

MW3 > BF3 without a doubt. Graphics are great, sound is great, fun factor is through the roof.

The graphics? Really? BF3 puts MW3 to absolute shame, and I haven't seen an argument trying to prove otherwise. The lighting is definitely what grabs me in BF3. It's so realistic it's just mind-boggling.

 

I won't deny that MW2 MW3 has that fun factor going for it. The reason I'm not going to buy it at full price, or probably get it at all, is because of it's foundation. MW3 is MW2 with a couple tweaks, and it's an absolute rip-off paying $60 for something that's simply not worth it buy any means. If people find MW2 MW3 fun that's fine - that's the whole point of the game anyways. But to say it's better without a doubt? Seems like an unreasonable opinion.

it is crazy the two games that operate of essential the same premise could be so different. good for bf3 to find a way to make their game unique and not ignore a whole set of fps war game fans. glad to see the competition gaming so often lacks.

[Hammerhead]

If realism's your main criterion, look at Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad.

[Blaze1up]

Does either of them use 3rd person ? Right now I'm all Elder scrolls.

[Apathy]

My only problem with BF3 is the freaking recoil. Supposedly by burst firing it's going to more accurate but with more recoil and full auto with have less recoil but less accurate.

 

Wouldn't burst fire have less recoil than full auto? I could burst fire all day on Bad Company 2 and get kills with ease when the enemy was half the map away but in BF3 its a whole different story and very frustrating.

 

If there was any reason why I would pack up this game and move on is because of the recoil when burst firing.

Thats what MW3 is for. BF3 is meant to be realistic. If you want to kill enemies 5 miles across the map youre playing the wrong game.

How is holding down on the trigger until you run out of ammo with any to very little recoil realistic? Burst fire should have less recoil than full auto and that's where this game has it backwards.

[Enhance]

My only problem with BF3 is the freaking recoil. Supposedly by burst firing it's going to more accurate but with more recoil and full auto with have less recoil but less accurate.

 

Wouldn't burst fire have less recoil than full auto? I could burst fire all day on Bad Company 2 and get kills with ease when the enemy was half the map away but in BF3 its a whole different story and very frustrating.

 

If there was any reason why I would pack up this game and move on is because of the recoil when burst firing.

Thats what MW3 is for. BF3 is meant to be realistic. If you want to kill enemies 5 miles across the map youre playing the wrong game.

How is holding down on the trigger until you run out of ammo with any to very little recoil realistic? Burst fire should have less recoil than full auto and that's where this game has it backwards.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the recoil in the game, that said I've personally found it easier to kill enemies at a long distance with the burst fire M4 than I have the auto M4A1. However, both are pretty close. When I use an auto weapon I still burst fire anyways at distances.

[Husker Richard]

I just played my brother's copy of MW3 and I am very disappointed. It's the exact same game as MW2 with a few new online modes/maps and a different unlock system/kill streak modifications/etc. It gets old real fast. They honestly could have released the online portion as some downloadable content.

 

I'm was a huge fan of BF2 and I'll be picking up BF3 for $28 at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

[Stu]

I just played my brother's copy of MW3 and I am very disappointed. It's the exact same game as MW2 with a few new online modes/maps and a different unlock system/kill streak modifications/etc. It gets old real fast. They honestly could have released the online portion as some downloadable content.

 

I'm was a huge fan of BF2 and I'll be picking up BF3 for $28 at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

 

If I can get it for 28 new, and not have to pay EA's fee for online, I'll gladly give it a shot again just for the multiplayer, I have yet to get a chance to compare it.

But right now I'm so nerding out on AC: Revelations that I haven't even played MW3 online yet.

[redblooded]

MW3 was fine. Pretty much exactly what I expected, dunno about online because after MW2 and having to deal with tons mic spamming morons and their horrible server system I won't play another one multiplayer. I liked the game play more then BF3 and at least they sort of dialed back the cut-scene crap-fest that was black ops, but every part that is scripted unplayable, video cut-scene, or RIGHT MOUSE - LEFT MOUSE - HIT BUTTON makes me want to punch a developer. Honestly quake (world/3/live) and counterstrike kick the crap out of those games for online play and they are 10+ years old. In single player I want to play games, not feel like I'm being led around by the nose in a bad movie script.

 

That's one reason portal(1&2) were so good, the cut-scenes story was almost all voice acting while you are still playing the game, with only a few scripted unplayable moments otherwise it's pretty much just "hey, here's a level, go figure it out." Not dot's with "follow," directional arrows, and characters telling you "you're going the wrong way" all the way though a game. It's insulting how dumbed down most things are now.

[redblooded]

I just played my brother's copy of MW3 and I am very disappointed. It's the exact same game as MW2 with a few new online modes/maps and a different unlock system/kill streak modifications/etc. It gets old real fast. They honestly could have released the online portion as some downloadable content.

 

I'm was a huge fan of BF2 and I'll be picking up BF3 for $28 at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

 

It's a franchise, of course they aren't going to massively change the game play, especially for multiplayer. For every one person that complains that they didn't they'd have to deal with a massive crapstorm from tons more if they did and they'd sell less every time they changed as people would stick with whatever they liked. See steam and CS&CS:S numbers where it's a fairly even split even with source being prettier but with different physics, recoil and hit registration... or quake where quake1 had much more of a diehard following then q2 which had less of a following then quake3 yet quake1 is still slightly active today and almost-quake3 is still apparently making money as quake live. It is what it is, business, MW found their nitch. I assume it's people with an IQ sub 80 that dream about being in bad 80s esque action movies, or 10-16 year old boys, but whatever. It works for them.

[dubsker]

I enjoy that the Battlefield games have always felt more team oriented. I have owned more CoD games in the past on my PC. I did not pick up MW3 so I can't really comment on it, but I will say that I enjoy the level of cooperation that can be achieved on BF3. It also can have a very cinematic feel. The sound is top notch and there are many ways to be useful if you're not really into run 'n' gun. A small change that I really like is that there is a glare now on sniper scopes. I'm sure console game play is pretty good. My experience has left me with the impression that even when a team is winning it will keep pressing. That does mean spending time locked in spawn getting beat down occasionally, but it does confirm my belief that most people don't play the game to camp. They play the game to shoot a lot of bullets.

 

 

Cons: I don't like origin or being forced to have battlelog online to play anything (PC). What I mean is in case of nuclear war, even if you have power and computer survives the EMP, you won't be playing single player battlefield to pass the time. DICE also thought the mod tools were too hard for gamers, so they didn't release them. They really did say that and I think they are lying about why. If you don't have a decent GPU you might have some performance issues.

 

It's going to depend on you whether this is a pro or con but there is a lot of tech in the game. There's a few spammy maps but most are open.

[Stu]

it's an absolute rip-off paying $60 for something that's simply not worth it buy any means. If people find MW2 MW3 fun that's fine - that's the whole point of the game anyways. But to say it's better without a doubt? Seems like an unreasonable opinion.

 

Which is why the new price of 28 bucks is reasonable for BF3.

It's my opinion, I've played both, MW3 nailed it, seems like BF3 tried to hard and forgot to make it a fun game, figure in paying extra for EA's online if buying it used and according to myself, it's not an unreasonable opinion in any aspect. Especially when I really really really wanted BF3 to be better than MW3, I'm also disappointed in my conclusion, but I'd say for most it's an accurate one.

How did they forget to make the game fun? Realism is fun. You actually have to use your brain to play BF3. MW3 is the same game as the previous 2. But I will agree that EA and their online pass is some bs.

 

Ok. In real life I'm an expert in M16 and 9mm. in video game world according to BF3, I can't hit anything.

Video games are made for fun.

That is all.

No other argument is valid.

[Enhance]

Ok. In real life I'm an expert in M16 and 9mm. in video game world according to BF3, I can't hit anything.

Video games are made for fun.

That is all.

No other argument is valid.

There's a difference between realism and reality, something I preach about all the time especially when it comes to video games. Realism is life-like, reality is life. What you're criticizing is reality, but he's talking about realism and the life-like qualities.

 

Battlefield 3 is the most realistic warfare game available for next-gen systems right now, but we must also not forget that it's a game and a multiplayer game. Things have to be balanced in order for players to have fun and in order for certain weapons to not be more powerful than others. BF3 isn't life, but it portrays reality in a realism form much better than MW3 in my opinion.

 

Again, though, this comes back down to preference. You say they spent too much time trying to make it realistic and thus sucked the fun out of it, but it's the realism that makes it so much more interesting for a player like me. I have no problem with people liking MW3 - all those games have been fun. But we must remember that they're games and they come down to preference.

[BigRedPowerWagon]

I find these types of arguements interesting. For me the 1st time i ever got into 1st person shooters was when MW2 came out. I have talked with a friend of mine for the last few years and he speaks end over end on how BF3 is the greatest game in a while. Then he bought MW3 and he loves that to. Now heres where the difference is. He plays BF3 on PC and MW3 on PS3. Everyone get that. So heres my conribution, what if you dont have a great TV. What if you still have a crappy 27 inch tube tv, does that change your decision. What if playing on P.C. is much better then on console, does that change your decision. I wanted to get BF3 to try something new but i was told by him that if you have a console you will enjoy MW3 over BF3. Realism or not, its still a game. Alot of people want to play with there friends but dont have the ability for them to join teams which is highly recomended with BF3. Working as a team, together. If you just join someone elses team it might not work out as well. With MW3 you can team up or run and gun. I havent played BF3 but i did play MW3 at my brothers house and it is better visually. Much better then Black Ops. I think it depends on what you want to do. But if i need to pay another EA online fee to play a game i wont do it. If its cheap enough i might buy it for the campane but who knows.

[redblooded]

Generally if you actually enjoy a game it doesn't really matter if you get onto a bad random team you can still find away to amuse yourself even if you cant carry a team (plus it's a game, you can always turn it off and ditch out). However if I were trying to figure out which one to buy using that criteria the first thing I'd do is see what my friends were playing most, on what hardware, and just go with that... assuming I thought I could stand the game. If I didn't know, I'd buy it from somewhere I could return it. It just kinda depends on your preference, and the preferences of people you want to play with.

 

I don't really know much more about TVs and specific games. I'd imagine at 480p or whatever resolution tube TVs are you probably wouldn't notice that much difference between graphics, but that probably depends on the TV. Plus I haven't used a console for a fps since halo one, and haven't used one for anything but a htpc to play videos/stream over the network in over a year.