Poll: Is it just me or does MW3 look like a hell of a lot more fun then BF3?

[Still Life]

[HEADING=2]Counter Strike: Global Offensive.[/HEADING]

I also played quite a lot of BF2 back in its day. 64 player Conquest is a win, supplemented by Rush mode

 

[Vigormortis]

Quite frankly, OP, BF3 looks far more entertaining to me than MW3 could ever hope to be. The constant, Michael Bay inspired "non-stop explosion" style action you were talking about gets exceedingly boring to me. It's just loud for the sake of being loud and gets "old hat" quite quickly. Especially as we've had four straight games like it and having a single pace of "go, go, go!" just gets tiresome.

Besides, if I want a fast paced (and I use that term jokingly in reference to COD) twitch shooter, I'll just go play some Quake, Counter-Strike, or some such similar title. At least in those games you don't get aim-assist, "perks", kill-streak bonuses, or some such thing to give you an unnecessary advantage.

at least MW3 doesn't have as many elitest assholes associated with it
"oh, battlefield requires teamwork"
no it fucking doesn't, sit down and play your crappy FPS

I think you need to consider what it is you're saying and how you're saying it. Then revel in the sweet, sweet irony.

I've played several Call of Duty and Battlefield games over the years. Neither game has a particularly pleasant community. That said, Call of Duty's is much, much worse. In a single match of, say, MW2 or BlOps, I'll hear more expletives, racial slurs, and sexist remarks than I'll hear in any other game over a months of play time. From adults and kids far too young to be playing. It's gotten so bad in the COD community that I'd go so far as to say Dota's community is more accepting and forgiving.

That said, Battlefield's community is still quite annoying. But then, it's often the nature of these types of games that attract the jerks of the world. It's hard to avoid. Well, unless you just avoid these types of games.

Oh, and if you'd ever played Battlefield 2 (not Bad Company 2, people really need to stop confusing the two) then you'd realize that to win at Battlefield, especially against a decent team, you really do need a healthy level of teamwork and strategy. Mindlessly running about the map, crashing jets or helicopters into mountains and spamming tank shells everywhere does little to help your team.

 

[Ralphfromdk]

But... but.... Why can't I just have both D:

.........Oh wait. I can.

OT: They are two different kinds of fun. As much as they have in common, they are very different games.

 

[Randomperson9999999]

pretty sure battlefield will be better but it doesnt mean i will buy those stupid games

 

[zehydra]

I'll just continue playing BFBC2. It is great, and was great, and I'm not planning on purchasing a new Battlefield mainly because of money and dealing with Origin. Not getting MW3 either.

 

[Vigormortis]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq9acmUU2u1r1j61so1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1316466983&Signature=p9wHVkYbmH1Fbr651d7x%2B95zec4%3D
Nuff' said.

Seriously though, I will get both, and enjoy both. They will both be great games, no doubt.

You know, that pic pretty much sums up much of what makes BF3 more appealing to me than COD8. It's not just a "run-and-gun" shooter. If you need to bomb a site, air drop troops somewhere, form a defensive line, or take out an enemy installation (i.e. SAM site, UAV control, etc) you actually have to pick the right weapon loadout and/or hop in the correct vehicle to do it. You don't just rack up a couple of kills then press a single button so the game does it for you.

 

[Stealthygamer]

BF3 because there isn't enough vehicle combat

 

[pspman45]

Quite frankly, OP, BF3 looks far more entertaining to me than MW3 could ever hope to be. The constant, Michael Bay inspired "non-stop explosion" style action you were talking about gets exceedingly boring to me. It's just loud for the sake of being loud and gets "old hat" quite quickly. Especially as we've had four straight games like it and having a single pace of "go, go, go!" just gets tiresome.

Besides, if I want a fast paced (and I use that term jokingly in reference to COD) twitch shooter, I'll just go play some Quake, Counter-Strike, or some such similar title. At least in those games you don't get aim-assist, "perks", kill-streak bonuses, or some such thing to give you an unnecessary advantage.

at least MW3 doesn't have as many elitest assholes associated with it
"oh, battlefield requires teamwork"
no it fucking doesn't, sit down and play your crappy FPS

I think you need to consider what it is you're saying and how you're saying it. Then revel in the sweet, sweet irony.

I've played several Call of Duty and Battlefield games over the years. Neither game has a particularly pleasant community. That said, Call of Duty's is much, much worse. In a single match of, say, MW2 or BlOps, I'll hear more expletives, racial slurs, and sexist remarks than I'll hear in any other game over a months of play time. From adults and kids far too young to be playing. It's gotten so bad in the COD community that I'd go so far as to say Dota's community is more accepting and forgiving.

That said, Battlefield's community is still quite annoying. But then, it's often the nature of these types of games that attract the jerks of the world. It's hard to avoid. Well, unless you just avoid these types of games.

Oh, and if you'd ever played Battlefield 2 (not Bad Company 2, people really need to stop confusing the two) then you'd realize that to win at Battlefield, especially against a decent team, you really do need a healthy level of teamwork and strategy. Mindlessly running about the map, crashing jets or helicopters into mountains and spamming tank shells everywhere does little to help your team.

the person above me is a battlefield fanboy
all of my friends who play battlefield act the following way
"battlefield is superior to every game, you are stupid for not playing Battlefield, go play Battlefield"
so I bought the stupid game and everyone just runs around to go get XP and kills
it is no different to Call of Duty, it just has tanks that make it less fun for those who are not piloting them
I'll just stick with League of Legends thank you very much

 

[CD-R]

If you were looking for more faster paced action in Battlefield the new rush mode does just that. You only fight over small sections of the map at a time so theres none of that taking half an hour to get anywhere thing. The Cold War rush map in Bad Company 2 has got some of the most intense fire fights ever. I'd say it's even faster paced than Call of Duty's. Since there is a clear set of objectives there is still a decent amount of strategy involved. Also jets, including this one apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

 

[Fidelias]

I'm not getting any of them until a few months after release. I'm going to check forums and reviews, and if I see even a hint of lag issues, that game's going to be off my buying list.

Besides, I'm sick of the same old modern combat story. Take unit of military, fight through enemies. (Enemies are easily located by their random abuse of civilians. Women and children especially.)
Surprise! Commander turns out to be working for the enemy all along! Fight more battles against forces that appeared out of nowhere. Win.

I want something else. Maybe have it so you're some random civilian. You get caught up in the conflict somehow. Parent/friend/significant other dies. Full of rage, you see a chance to slip into the ranks of forces fighting against people you want revenge of. Fight on their side til you see your chance to slip away and fight on your own to exact revenge.

Not as realistic, but different. WE NEED DIFFERENT!!!

 

[longboardfan]

I'm sure MW3 *looks* more fun. But Activision always had a great marketing department. MW2 looked awesome as well. It looked as it was going to be the best thing since sliced bread (I don't get that expression). But in the end, MW2 was extremely frustrating to play. That's why I won't give MW3 the benefit of the doubt. I'm not even going to do that for BF3. Both games can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. In the infinite sea of gaming, do we really need another modern military shooter? No is the answer you're looking for. But I'll definitely try the new Red Orchestra game. I have a thing for WW2 shooters. And it has some very innovative features.

Go make a loaf of bread (have fun), then try to slice it without using special knives or tools. Depending on the density of the bread, you'll either rip it apart or it'll crumble. Bread slicing machines are wonderful for large scale operations. When I go to the bakery, I get my bread sliced for me.

 

[Mandalore_15]

snip

I hate to say it, but for once, I think it is just you!

 

[ChickenZombie]

The only shooter I have ever played where vehicles were even close to properly balanced was Halo 2. Every other FPS I've ever played with vehicles, they have been grossly overpowered and ruined the experience. I have a feeling that's what BF3 is going to be like. I have no interest in playing a game like that.

DICE has been doing battlefield with vehicles for a long time, they know how to balance it. Heck, play Bad Company 2, the vehicles are very well balanced in that game.

Plus there is infantry only mode, if you do not wish to play with vehicles.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Considering that my computer is shit and if I wanted to play BF3 I'd have to settle for the half-assed version, then yeah, MW3 it is.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Quite frankly, OP, BF3 looks far more entertaining to me than MW3 could ever hope to be. The constant, Michael Bay inspired "non-stop explosion" style action you were talking about gets exceedingly boring to me. It's just loud for the sake of being loud and gets "old hat" quite quickly. Especially as we've had four straight games like it and having a single pace of "go, go, go!" just gets tiresome.

Besides, if I want a fast paced (and I use that term jokingly in reference to COD) twitch shooter, I'll just go play some Quake, Counter-Strike, or some such similar title. At least in those games you don't get aim-assist, "perks", kill-streak bonuses, or some such thing to give you an unnecessary advantage.

at least MW3 doesn't have as many elitest assholes associated with it
"oh, battlefield requires teamwork"
no it fucking doesn't, sit down and play your crappy FPS

I think you need to consider what it is you're saying and how you're saying it. Then revel in the sweet, sweet irony.

I've played several Call of Duty and Battlefield games over the years. Neither game has a particularly pleasant community. That said, Call of Duty's is much, much worse. In a single match of, say, MW2 or BlOps, I'll hear more expletives, racial slurs, and sexist remarks than I'll hear in any other game over a months of play time. From adults and kids far too young to be playing. It's gotten so bad in the COD community that I'd go so far as to say Dota's community is more accepting and forgiving.

That said, Battlefield's community is still quite annoying. But then, it's often the nature of these types of games that attract the jerks of the world. It's hard to avoid. Well, unless you just avoid these types of games.

Oh, and if you'd ever played Battlefield 2 (not Bad Company 2, people really need to stop confusing the two) then you'd realize that to win at Battlefield, especially against a decent team, you really do need a healthy level of teamwork and strategy. Mindlessly running about the map, crashing jets or helicopters into mountains and spamming tank shells everywhere does little to help your team.

the person above me is a battlefield fanboy
all of my friends who play battlefield act the following way
"battlefield is superior to every game, you are stupid for not playing Battlefield, go play Battlefield"
so I bought the stupid game and everyone just runs around to go get XP and kills
it is no different to Call of Duty, it just has tanks that make it less fun for those who are not piloting them
I'll just stick with League of Legends thank you very much

I must point out again, there is a big difference between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. People who run and gun on the former do nothing but lose tickets for their team. It's really tactical, and heavily team based. There may also be an element of console gamers' attitude towards online vs. PC gamers' attitude towards online; on pretty much every team based game I've ever played on the PC, I find that the majority of players (at least on the right servers) actually work as a team, whereas the console games that I've played online are full of rambos. I think it may be a difference of age; when I was a kid and a young teen, I always avoided team based modes in the shooters I played, sticking to standard deathmatch. I was 19 or 20 before I learned the joys of really working with a team (in videogames, obviously; I had done team based things in real life before.) In my experience, PC gamers skew a bit older than console gamers. For example, on the BF2 server I frequent, the average age is probably somewhere around 30, with some regulars being over 50.

 

[Cridhe]

I couldn't give a crap less, they're both the same game in my opinion. Neither one is realistic, which is why I prefer my guns to come from outer space when playing an FPS.

 

[PolarBearClub]

Battlefield 3 for me.

I've got a good group of friends online that I play regularly with, and Battlefield, out of the two games, actually requires teamwork and co-ordination. I could play MW3 and just run around by myself killing everyone and still win, regardless of how the majority of my team plays.

But Battlefield will rarely, if never, be won by a lone-ranger. I also think Battlefield has more 'fuck me, did you see that!' moments, especially with the vehicles. There's nothing like manning the machine guns in a chopper and swooping around, and the introduction of fighter jets promises will just add to the hilarity and carnage.