my opinion on this whole MW3 vs BF3 crap (not a lot of discussion value and more or less a rant )

[Eclectic Dreck]

I love Battlefield and I love COD, they're two completely different styles of FPS I wouldn't even bother comparing them.

I am in a similar boat except I'd say that I want to love CoD but thanks to countless bad experiences (largely the players) in CoD, I stopped playing.

The games are similar in their perspective and basic conceit but are quite different in pace and style.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Here's my view on it:

They're first person shooters. They're not going to vary dramatically from one game to another, one generation back, or one generation ahead.

 

[J_Monsterface]

I have no idea why people keep comparing them.

They're completely different.

One is a military shooter, and the other is a military shooter.

finally, someone whos eyes are open!

most people could never understand such subtle differences

 

[Torrasque]

The best thing to come out from the "MW3 vs BF3" mess is the pissing contest between EA and Activision. It's absolutely hilarious.

Amen to that, its like two 10 year olds poking each other saying "no u!"

I'll be getting MW3 cuz it looks like CoD4 and MW2, and definitely looks like it plays like it too.
I never enjoyed the Battlefield games, even the most recent one.

 

[AngryMongoose]

battlefield:
Bad company 1 & 2
1943 (XBLA)
Free to play (which if i am correct is just BF2 only free)
Now i'm sure some BF fans will be like "Well you haven't played all of the BF games so you opinion is invalid!!!!1!"

You haven't played ANY battlefield games! None of those are on the main series. 1943 is probably closest but it's still severely lacking.

 

[cryogeist]

battlefield:
Bad company 1 & 2
1943 (XBLA)
Free to play (which if i am correct is just BF2 only free)
Now i'm sure some BF fans will be like "Well you haven't played all of the BF games so you opinion is invalid!!!!1!"

You haven't played ANY battlefield games! None of those are on the main series. 1943 is probably closest but it's still severely lacking.

they're battlefield games...they have battlefield in the name...so they're par of the series

 

[Rednog]

I have no idea why people keep comparing them.

They're completely different.

One is a military shooter, and the other is a military shooter.

And yet they play completely differently. Hell just because they are military shooters doesn't mean they need to be compared, you don't see people comparing MW vs BF vs Arma vs CS vs SOCOM etc...
The only reason they are being compared is because EA for some reason think that it needs to compete with Activision in order to get people to play their game. Unless EA is making a game that is in the same playstyle as Modern Ware fare the whole vs thing is just plain stupid. People are going to play whatever suits their playstyles/interests more. I'm not a fan of vehicle/squad/class combat, even if EA executes all of these aspects well people who aren't fans of that gamestyle just won't play it.

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

People are calling MW3 a re-skin because, so far, I can't see much difference between it and MW3 besides graphics and a couple of features like hot-swappable scopes.

Generally if you compare a game to itself there is very little difference.

 

[Castian Blake]

In my 2 cents i prefer BF series, yes nothing has been added, tanks were there, choppers,MGemplaecements,cool class system,gravity,destroyable.. everything and no quickscope shit or autoaimer assist.
but if u really played 1941,BC and BC2 and still say, nothing new or improvements were made?
my friend you're wrong.

Cod are great games, CoD waw & MW 1&2 only actually, black ops its crap.
but, yes, its only re-skin on the works, and these have really added anything new.

 

[AssassinFisH]

PC - BF 3 wins (64 players)..... Consoles - MW3 wins (BF with 24 players just isn't BF)

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Well, both the companies are doing reaaally stupid things as they are producing the games (mudslinging, etc.) that makes me want to punch their respective CEO's in the balls.
SHUT UP. Stop trash talking. Work on making YOUR game good, and for someone sticking to such a ridiculously safe premise (sequel to a shooter), you keep taking idiotic leaps of faith in everything else (having to turn the game off to change servers is just amazingly terrible).
Personally, if I had to make a choice, BF3 seems a bit better, but I'd rather have something else *checks Deus Ex download*

 

[teh_Canape]

Well you ought to play the first Call of Duty, it's great!

also, United Offensive expansion pack

 

[Zipa]

...And you didn't even read about how the PC version of Battlefield 3 requires you to use EA's Origin (which was clearly designed by someone who wanted to test how many of Orwell's bits they could put in before people started complaining), won't have dedicated servers or even a server browser (which the other consoles will), and all this AFTER saying that the PC was the focus of the game?

The whole origin argument is bull because you can uninstall it right after installing BF3 and it will play fine.

Actually its not, EA said you need Origins to run the game just like you need steam to run a steamworks game, doesn't matter if you buy it at retail or as a direct download.

 

[mateushac]

I'm actually all hyped up for red orchestra! F*ck CoD and BF, they've had their time already!

 

[Alexnader]

...And you didn't even read about how the PC version of Battlefield 3 requires you to use EA's Origin (which was clearly designed by someone who wanted to test how many of Orwell's bits they could put in before people started complaining), won't have dedicated servers or even a server browser (which the other consoles will), and all this AFTER saying that the PC was the focus of the game?

...it will have dedicated servers, just no IG server browser. I'd like to see anyone work out a system that could host 63 other players clientside on a game like BF3. That is all thank you.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

Well I recently made a comment about how I was going to buy five copies of Modern Warfare 3 and then I was going to pirate Battlefield 3 five times just to spite EA. I made it as a "response" to EA's CEO saying that he hopes Call Of Duty "Rots from the core".

Now I know that Activision isn't exactly a perfect little angel and that at this point, Call Of Duty feels more like a yearly update than a franchise with actual sequels. However that doesn't really matter to me because at the end of the day, they are still solid games and I've had a lot of fun with them.

I've never really been a big Battlefield fan. I played the first game as well as the Vietnam one and then a little bit of 2142, but overall I feel no real connection to that particular franchise. In that regard, I've always preferred EA's other big shoooter franchise: Medal Of Honor.

I don't hate the franchise or the people who like it, even though I have to admit that these days, certain Battlefield fans really piss me off. It mostly has to do with with how they seem to think they are superior to everyone else (especially CoD players) or how their community is "more mature". News flash! Being a pretentious snob is not any better than being a loudmouth prick!

Now personally, im probably going to go for Modern Warfare 3 first, because its the franchise that I am most familiar with, BUT I will also say that Battlefield 3 really has gotten my attention and that at some point or antoher, Im gonna have to check it out.

I don't know if that makes me a "CoD fanboy", since I don't really feel any emotional connection to the franchise beyond that its "fun". I just want people to accept other peoples tastes and opinons.

And as for my "response". No, im not actually going to buy five copies of MW3. Christ, with how expensive games are here in Denmark, I can hardly afford one copy, let alone five! And im not going to pirate Battlefield 3 either, since for the most part, im pretty much against piracy.

It just saddens me when it turns out that not even big companies can't properly comptete without resorting to name calling and cheap pot shots. I mean these are companies run by grown men. I would expect this kind of behaviour from the communities, but not the companies themselves.

 

[Da Orky Man]

People are calling MW3 a re-skin because, so far, I can't see much difference between it and MW3 besides graphics and a couple of features like hot-swappable scopes.

Generally if you compare a game to itself there is very little difference.

Apologies for that typo. I'll edit the original, but keep this one the same so it makes sense.

 

[josemlopes]

Ive played Battlefield Bad Companies and 1943 that means I know BF! Oh wait I didnt play the best Battlefields so I cant even form a real opinion about the series...nvm...

apparently you didn't read the (i think) part...
beside technically I've played 2 if free to play is BF2...

The F2P isnt that much like BF2, it just uses the maps, the gameplay is more close to Bad Company.

Either way BF2 isnt a more realistic or tactical game then Bad Company, its just diferent.
The things that make me love BF2 are the mods, Forgotten Hope 2 (WW2) and Project Reality (REALLY wants to be realistic), those mods are more about tactic and realism.

BF2 is most certainly fun but it isnt all that realistic, and the tactical aspect of it is the same as Bad Company.

 

[Jaffinnegan]

...And you didn't even read about how the PC version of Battlefield 3 requires you to use EA's Origin (which was clearly designed by someone who wanted to test how many of Orwell's bits they could put in before people started complaining), won't have dedicated servers or even a server browser (which the other consoles will), and all this AFTER saying that the PC was the focus of the game?

That's false. BF3 on PC does have dedicated servers and the server browser is accessible through Battlelog, I honestly don't know if that's a good or a bad thing but it's worth noting that the majority of the Alpha testers didn't have a problem with it.

OT: Fanboys will be fanboys. Ignore the screaming idiots and just enjoy your games. I'll be picking both BF3 and MW3 and have a blast with both games.

The best thing to come out from the "MW3 vs BF3" mess is the pissing contest between EA and Activision. It's absolutely hilarious.

Server Browser through BattleLog is Brilliant, it works faster than an Ingame Browser, and puts less presure on the Servers, it is a MUCH better system than BC2 had.

OT: No, your Opinion is NOT Valid because this is Battlefield 3, NOT Bad Company 3. If you didnt play BF2, then you literally DONT KNOW. I was Also in the Alpha for BF3, and I can tell you they have Advanced so much since BF2, and the Graphics are 3 times better at least than BC2 (and thats in Alpha), and the Gameplay has Improved Dramatically, and it was Already amazing Gameplay to start with. Meanwhile, MW3 is a £45 Expantion Pack.