I'm interested to know more about why allot of people are saying Battlefield 3 is some ultra new awesome game that is not only going to destroy the popularity of Call of Duty but it's somehow going to 'revolutionize' multi-player FPS's. In my opinion it looks like every other modern FPS, with it's 'Geo Mod' mechanic which was new in Red Faction. Am I missing something? Can someone please tell me why Battlefield 3 is going to be the second coming of Christ?
MW3 vs Battlefield 3
- Thread starter Attack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Err, no one said it was going to 'revolutionize' fps's, they just said it is going to be considerably better than COD's eighth or whatever annual installment we get this year.
Well, I prefer some change every now and then and cod has been exactly the same since cod:4 with a little tweaking here and there. BF3 holds some hope that even though you will be an American running around the middle east you might have some fun and surprise every now and again.
When I buy Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3, i will laugh at all the fanboys because I have a lot of variety, sometimes I don't want a serious 1 hour long game of Battlefield, maybe I'll team up with a friend in spec ops or survival (multiplayer can go to hell), I can safley say that Modern Warfare 3 isn't going feel any different than Modern Warfare 2 but Battlefield 3 looks like it actually improves on it's predecessor, ie. adding surpressive fire mechanics, prone, balenced classes.
Mw3 is just going to be a few new guns, game modes and maps, and we're all going to buy it.
Mw3 is just going to be a few new guns, game modes and maps, and we're all going to buy it.
Does anyone else remember when versus threads were frowned upon?
That said, Battlefield 3 is what I'm really looking forward to.
That said, Battlefield 3 is what I'm really looking forward to.
I think comparing BF3 to MW3 is a little like comparing Green Bay Packers [http://www.fcbarcelona.com][footnote]I'm hoping most other people have heard from them. I hadn't, but apparently they're pretty good at American football.[/footnote]. It depends on what kind of football you're talking about in order to determine which is the better team.
BF3 has vehicles and much bigger maps, which changes the dynamics of the game significantly compared to MW3. There are both FPSs so there are obviously some similarities, but I think that the games are different enough that they cannot just steal each others' fans, because it isn't just about quality, but also about what kind of game you prefer.
BF3 has vehicles and much bigger maps, which changes the dynamics of the game significantly compared to MW3. There are both FPSs so there are obviously some similarities, but I think that the games are different enough that they cannot just steal each others' fans, because it isn't just about quality, but also about what kind of game you prefer.
I think that Battlefield 3 is going to kikk in the PC department, I am looking forward to BF3 the most because im a fan of the series and the multiplayer, whats more fun then running over your enemies then cheaping them out using a killstreak, but I feel like the Call Of Duty Series has been going down since Call Of Duty 4: The gameplay isnt changing, the story is the buying point for me, and the community sucks unlike Battlefield's community, my friend was playing a battlefield game and asked another player what headset he was using, the guy got off his computer and found the box and told him, I think that a CoD fanboy would just say GTFO.
Im not wasting my money anymore on Call Of Duty I may rent it though.
and im not trolling I just prefer teamwork over getting killstreaks and running around a map, also bigger maps and more players in BF3 cant wait to bombard some buildings!
Im not wasting my money anymore on Call Of Duty I may rent it though.
and im not trolling I just prefer teamwork over getting killstreaks and running around a map, also bigger maps and more players in BF3 cant wait to bombard some buildings!
oh, Im actually suprised that there is very little lit fanboyism on this thread so far, since it is such a hot and tragically debated topic on most networking sites, well, you have missed alot, for you and anyone like you who is new to the whole 'Battlefield' series, it's quite different to Call of Duty, it pretty much goes back to Battlefield 2, which of course, as you can tell is not the first in the series lol, this was the first game to take shooters into the modern age, until then they were stuck on World War II with the exception of Counterstrike, which in its own way was a tremendous trailblazer, Battlefield uses a variety of weapons and infantry based combat like CoD, however, unlike CoD Battlefield also features a variety of Air, Sea and land vehicles including APC's Tanks, Blackhawks and Fighter jets such as the F-35. its much more intense than CoD and the maps are tremendously larger than a CoD map, its a classed based shooter with abilities assighned to each class, Such as the ability to revive people with the medic (Rifleman Class in Battlefiled 3). The claim that Battlefield 3 will 'revolutioize' the FPS genre is a little exagerated, however many abilities and game mechanics will be added to the game, such as further development in Geo Modelling and realistic dammage, as you say, and the ability to drag fallen teammates into cover so as to revive them and a Suppresive fire system for Light Machine Guns that will alter the accuracy of the hostiles in your cone of fire in coordination of a sustained stream of shots. who do you think is going to win, well that all comes down to your opinion.
If you want a fast paced, action packed shooter, based on thinking on your feet and being able to 'lone wolf' your way through kills and objectives. Pick Modern Warfare 3. despite it being a copy and paste, the game shoot feature an Improved MW2 multiplayer which should be considerabley more balanced, whilst still blending in with the modern FPS combat we all know and love. So long as activision doesn't screw the fans over, the game should still have alot of gameplay value. That is your casual FPS gaming society and extremly competative players.
If you want a game with Tactical Skill, teamwork and Heart Poundingly Intense firefights that couple vehicle warfare and objective based combat whilst providing an immersive atmosphere of depth choose Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 brings alot to the game and orientates itself with the more frequent gamer, whilst still catering for the casual gamer as long as they are prepared to be on their toes and think tactical. The Campaign will be alot like MW3's and should feature location in the middle east and even rumored to feature european locations in the story. Combat zones such as Europe, The Middle East and Even north America will be recreated for the multiplayer featuring real time epic distruction with the new and improved frosbite 2.0 engine, Thats Right! Grab your T-90 Tank and scream Ride of the Valkarie! We are going hot in paris and that Effiel tower is going down! XD Battlefield will be fun and will require much skill and dedication to master both infantry and vehicle combat - truly it will provide an immersive experience, dont expect to have a quick 10 Min game like CoD though, expect to sit through a 20 Min + match, biting your finger nails the whole way through.
In all both games should be good and will feature polished and overall fun gameplay. Which one you prefer depends on how you like your combat, lightheated quick and fun, or strongly intense and immersive. Of course, a smart gamer with a bit of money will buy both, mixing these two very different games. If we can get over are 'fanboyism' we can see a future of great gaming with many prosperous hours of FPS ahead. Don't expect genre revolutionising mechanics though, if you want that go play half life, lol, happy gaming
There you have it
If you want a fast paced, action packed shooter, based on thinking on your feet and being able to 'lone wolf' your way through kills and objectives. Pick Modern Warfare 3. despite it being a copy and paste, the game shoot feature an Improved MW2 multiplayer which should be considerabley more balanced, whilst still blending in with the modern FPS combat we all know and love. So long as activision doesn't screw the fans over, the game should still have alot of gameplay value. That is your casual FPS gaming society and extremly competative players.
If you want a game with Tactical Skill, teamwork and Heart Poundingly Intense firefights that couple vehicle warfare and objective based combat whilst providing an immersive atmosphere of depth choose Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 brings alot to the game and orientates itself with the more frequent gamer, whilst still catering for the casual gamer as long as they are prepared to be on their toes and think tactical. The Campaign will be alot like MW3's and should feature location in the middle east and even rumored to feature european locations in the story. Combat zones such as Europe, The Middle East and Even north America will be recreated for the multiplayer featuring real time epic distruction with the new and improved frosbite 2.0 engine, Thats Right! Grab your T-90 Tank and scream Ride of the Valkarie! We are going hot in paris and that Effiel tower is going down! XD Battlefield will be fun and will require much skill and dedication to master both infantry and vehicle combat - truly it will provide an immersive experience, dont expect to have a quick 10 Min game like CoD though, expect to sit through a 20 Min + match, biting your finger nails the whole way through.
In all both games should be good and will feature polished and overall fun gameplay. Which one you prefer depends on how you like your combat, lightheated quick and fun, or strongly intense and immersive. Of course, a smart gamer with a bit of money will buy both, mixing these two very different games. If we can get over are 'fanboyism' we can see a future of great gaming with many prosperous hours of FPS ahead. Don't expect genre revolutionising mechanics though, if you want that go play half life, lol, happy gaming
There you have it
One of the main differences is the size. Battlefield games make MW games look like indoor paintball arenas.
Battlefield matches can be epic, multi-front assaults, with dozens of people fighting dozens of other people, with tanks, jets & helicopters thrown in for good measure. It's just on a much larger scale, and that appeals to a lot of people.
Myself included.
Battlefield matches can be epic, multi-front assaults, with dozens of people fighting dozens of other people, with tanks, jets & helicopters thrown in for good measure. It's just on a much larger scale, and that appeals to a lot of people.
Myself included.
I've preordered BF3 while I'll probably just give MW3 a rent to run through the campaign.
Since I've switched from MW2 to BF:BC2 I've not looked back, It just jives with the way I like to play and with its sweeping maps,Tanks, Destruction 2.0, Objective based combat, Tanks, Teamwork and finally Tanks really makes it my go to multiplayer game. So much so its rare that I don't play it at least once a day.
(Ok, Whats up with the adverts in the captchas now?)
Since I've switched from MW2 to BF:BC2 I've not looked back, It just jives with the way I like to play and with its sweeping maps,Tanks, Destruction 2.0, Objective based combat, Tanks, Teamwork and finally Tanks really makes it my go to multiplayer game. So much so its rare that I don't play it at least once a day.
(Ok, Whats up with the adverts in the captchas now?)
I suppose the main reason is the fact that it's a break from Call of Duty. People will do anything to alienate themselves from the "hot new game". That being said, I still think BF3 is going to be better because of what it brings to the table in terms of realism, graphics, and gameplay. As previously stated a few times in this thread, it's sales won't come to close to that of MW3.
