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

[Javarino]

...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.

But you haven't played MW3 and thus your opinion is invalid/

 

[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.

But you haven't played MW3 and thus your opinion is invalid/

But I have played MW1 and 2, and Seen all the MW3 trailers, So my Opinion is 3x more Valid.

 

[Superior Mind]

I'm pretty tired of the MW3 vs BF3 debate but I'm not above weighing in. For my money I do see BF3 doing more than simply churning out the next game in a series like MW3 is doing, probably because BF3 is the spiritual successor to BF2 more than BF:BC2. The debate is pointless though, both games do what they do well and I'm sure both will be very successful.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

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 not entirely true. There are dedicated servers, you just can only rent from DICE. There is a server browser, you're just required the exit the game to change servers (they claim it's fast to do so, but only time will tell, hardly a game destroyer either way) which so long as it has working favourites unlike BC2 I can live with.

 

[Eveonline100]

i didnt even know there was a debate

theyre such similar games in the same genre of very similar production value

i think if youre someone who loves one of them youd be missing out not to play the other

its like pizza enthusiasts arguing cheese vs pepperoni (vegetarianism not withstanding)

its either a genre you dont like, or more of that sweet fps action you love

be glad there doesnt have to be a best

yeah this COD V BF war is promoted by 3 things which are:
A) Trolls on boths sides going on to each others forum/ news post relateing to their games and trolling.
B) The fact that neither developers/publishers would just STFU and make their own games prompting the (lame) Flamewar to go on.
C) Fan beings entiled, twated mongers or otherwise douche bags.
While you are right in your post make no mistake this is the internet so this does sink to lowest common denomnatior very.(Unless moderated)

 

[stabbymcstabs]

BF3, MW3, MF3, MW3 GAH!


oh fuck it, im just going to go get Skyrim and leave this all behind me.
Life will be just that much better.










On the main opinion, they are both modern games in the same genre but with different aspects, MW3 as the run n' gun, and BF3 as the tactical-like shooter. It all just depends on what you want to play more. Bragging on going 'MW3 Iz teh l33t sheet" or 'BF3 MLG S0 Pr0" isnt going to get you anywhere but the bottom of someones boot.

 

[Warforger]

Actually, BF3 has the AK74M in it as the russian Assault rifle. So there is that. Also, its been said before, Battlefield IS trying something new. They have been using and perfecting a new engine, while CoD has been using the same engine since release, which is now at breaking point in possibly every way.

Erm what? It's just the same deal with same concepts just better graphics, that's not trying something new that's updating.

 

[loc978]

Hmm... a modern military shooter with regenerating health and a focus on multiplayer run'n'gun fragfest gameplay versus a modern military shooter with regenerating health and a focus on multiplayer tactical gameplay, huh?

Makes me glad I still have Battlefield: Vietnam. The new fancy graphics would be nice, but the rest of it has been backpedaling for years...

Spoiler: Also, did someone mention realism in a thread about military shooters?

 

[F4LL3N]

I'll probably get both and play them on my non-HD TV. Although I don't think BF feels as good as CoD, but the destructable terrain certainly tickles my pickle.

Xbox 360 of course.

 

[Michael Ochoa]

I'm buying Battlefield 3 for 2 reasons.

1) Bobby Kotick. I'm one of the few people that said,"I'm done with Activision until they get rid of him." and I'm actually sticking to my guns on this one. Sure, I might miss out on a great narrative, but I'm getting the feeling I won't. Please note though, that I've made one exception, and yes I am aware of the hypocrisy, but I will be getting Diablo 3 when it comes out. I was a fan before and Blizzard has taken care not to whore-out their half of the company.

2) I have fond memories of Battlefield 2 and hope that DICE will bring those back.

 

[Javarino]

...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.

But you haven't played MW3 and thus your opinion is invalid/

But I have played MW1 and 2, and Seen all the MW3 trailers, So my Opinion is 3x more Valid.

MW3 looks solid, and will probably hold its own against Battlefield 3, despite BF snobs crying "Expansion pack! Old engine! 12 year old crybaby's!!!" Honestly, the new lighting and explosive effects look good, it's a sequel so it should obviously look a lot like the previous games (plus graphics on consoles have maxed out to the point that improvements to gameplay, streamlined animations, and updated effects are the only things you can look for anymore. No more huge graphical leaps!) and there seems to be a lot of game for what I pay for. SP, MP, spec-ops missions and survival, I'd say MW3 can stand up to a lot of pre-emptive criticism its gathered.

As for Battlefield 3, it looks awesome. Frostbyte 2 and all that, hope it still performs well on the consoles, and I'd love to see it have an interesting campaign. I have to say I enjoy Battlefield games, just not on the same level as COD ones. Have to congratulate it for giving COD a rival,even if they play differently, hopefully should make some innovation necessary for survival of the franchise(space race anyone?). Anyways, I hope they both do well, I'm looking forward to playing them come November.

 

[KennardKId5]

Um... can I just buy both?
I mean,is that too bad?

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

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.

^this. You don't hear anyone comparing Madden 11 to Madden 12, do you? Apples and oranges, man.

 

[Awexsome]

They both look pretty good but if I only get one I'm leaning MW3 right now. The high paced action packed multiplayer is a lot of fun (assuming adequate post-launch support. I'm looking at you MW2.) and the campaign is like a summer action popcorn movie even with its flaws.

BF3 will likely have better online balance but I've always been much more bored of the BF series because of the design for massive player counts but only making it work on PC. Hell, 16 v 16 would severely help the game but 12 v 12? Snoozer.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I don't like either franchise any more, it's just absolutely boring isn't it?

Spawn here, run here, shoot, die, repeat. And the single player is much the same too, just with a script which kills the replay value.

So yeah, to me Modern day 'realistic' FPS' are dead.

 

[CATS FTW]

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.

Hey I see what you did there. Stop trying to make him look stupid by quoting him and editing the post. You butt.

 

[McNoobin]

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.

^this. You don't hear anyone comparing Madden 11 to Madden 12, do you? Apples and oranges, man.

Ironically though, things aren't exactly the same in the Fifa department. Fifa 12 is going to be better than Fifa 11, there are changes in core game play mechanics to improve it. But when it comes to FPS games like CoD and Battlefield, Call of Duty haven't really made many changes to their game play mechanics like Battlefield, example being destructive terrain. Anybody could go on and on about this stuff and silly details about this, but it all comes down to preference. I'll play both, but buying Battlefield 3 on PC just because it's more my cup of tea, and will be playing MW3 on teh consoles with me friend dat is buying it.

 

[Dexiro]

To anyone arguing that BF3 is better, you're doing it wrong.

You're meant to tell people that MW3 is better because most of MW3's audience is semi-retarded 12 year olds. You don't want that crowd ruining your BF3.

 

[K9unittp]

Honestly I think anyone who has the balls to say one is better than the other needs to actually try both. Battlefield feels much heavier (which is not in any way a bad thing) and when played properly with no griefers can really feel like a, well, a battlefield. While the CoD games feel extremely light (the reason why you'll find people who like to try to kill strictly with a knife, again, not a bad thing) and isn't quite on the scale that battlefield is but when played properly is a ton of fun feeling like a special forces operation. Neither is really better than the other, I do prefer Battlefield myself but the children who are completely against one and just hate on them if anyone ever mentions them are F***king retarded, both games are very good in their own merits.

and also

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

^THIS GUY!!

 

[Suicida1 Midget]

Since i have yet to play either i am not trolling them. I just troll ppl who say they suck. Mostly they both (the series of games) have done things right where the other did wrong. Theres no way to say one is gonna be better than the other... unless you cant stand or use orgin. Cant wait to see them both and then see which is crap or good. Yes i am getting both, just to put this qustion to rest.