Stick with BF3 or GoW3/Move on to MW3?

[Imper1um]

Disclaimer: This is not intended to cause a "BF3 versus MW3 versus GoW3" flame war. If you're here to just say "Battlefield 3 sucks", "Gears of War 3" or "Modern Warfare 3 sucks", I suggest you read the Escapist Forums Code of Conduct [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct].

So, now that we got that out of the way, we all know that you're probably not going to have enough time to dedicate to both Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3. I see all the time around forums, blogs, twitter, and even Battlefield 3 in-game and battlelog: "I'm just waiting till MW3." or "I turned in BF3 for credit towards MW3."

TL;DR: The question is, are you moving on to Modern Warfare 3, or sticking around with Battlefield 3/GoW3?

-----------------

Personally, While I do not like MW3, it is because its just not my "cup of tea." I have fun with the FPS Genre, I just don't like how the CoD series has gone, both on the Single-player and Multi-player front. I have a roommate which will be playing Modern Warfare 3 religiously when it comes out, but even he has said that it may be the last CoD game he purchases if the quality did not improve, and balance issues are not fixed. My best friend has moved from a collectors edition (MW2, BLoPS) to a standard edition because he is afraid the game will be the same as last year.

I will not be joining the CoD group this year. I stopped in Modern Warfare 2, although I played MW1 and MW2 very religiously. I liked the "better" CoD games (CoD1, CoD2, CoD4:MW, COD:MW2), and I've completed the Singleplayer on every single CoD game. I've tried the multiplayer on BLoPS and WaW, and I just didn't find anything different than MW1 and MW2, except for more people under puberty yelling into the mic that I had to subsequently mute and report, and more people immediately getting into the best camping spots. It wasn't fun for me. Even in Capture the Flag and HQ, people were more aiming for kills, rather than objective capping.

Now, I'm not saying that people on BF3 don't try to pad their kill count with camping. I see all the time people sitting back in nice comfy positions, camping spawn points, and sitting in tanks or the Tungaska (Mobile AA), just getting kills. However, I'm starting to see more people attacking points, defending correctly, putting down mines, and effectively using tanks to attack and defend (rather than using them as powerful sniping tools). Despite the annoying tactics that people pull off in the game, I'm having lots of fun in BF3. When half the servers get deserted from people probably moving on to MW3, I'll still be capping those bases.

 

[xDarc]

I think I'm passing on the whole "3" generation until they change the formula. The formula right now only encourages camping in all of these games, aside from the game modes and vehicles, they all pretty much play the same. I'm not too familiar with GoW3, but both Cod and BF now encourage you to stand still to aim down sights, there's tons of ways to get radar to also discourage movement- BF3 has that awful BFBC2 spotting system.

CoD also has kill streak rewards which actually plays the game for you by giving you mortars, napalm, heli's, etc. Kill streak rewards also encourage camping.

I dunno- i just miss the days of corridor shooters where anyone who stopped moving had an average lifespan of ten seconds.

The reason for this is lay-down FPS games with prone are just boring. They've been predominant since around 2006 and it's really time for them to go.

I blame the poor translation console controllers.

The whole aim down sight thing is really just a gimmick because it's very difficult to MOVE and SHOOT while awkwardly shoving thumbsticks around. So they just "fixed" it by taking moving out of the equation almost entirely.

Aim down sights stops you, managing your CoF requires you to take a knee or go prone for hip fire that throws bullets in a 10 foot radius- it's just so silly and obvious if you've been playing these games since they pretty much existed.

As soon as consoles move away from thumb sticks run n' gun will come back and people will act like it's a brand new idea.

 

[Handbag1992]

Honestly? None of the above.
The best multiplayer shooter action in the history of video games is Team Fortress 2, and it's free.

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

My question is: Why stick with one when you can just buy and play them all?

That's what I'm planning on doing with BF3 and MW3 at least. No reason in just tossing out one of them and staying with the other if I know I shall enjoy both.

 

[Imper1um]

In the meantime, I have to ask how Gears of War 3 really fits into this here equation. MW3 and BF3 are quite comparable, despite what fanboys may say, but Gears of War 3 just isn't anything like those and it seems like you completely forgot its inclusion when you first pushed the enter button.

While MW3/BF3 is alike, I see many people agreeing that they can only fit one game into their "game slots" per genre, if they play a lot on one game. People continue to get achievements in GoW3 (trying, ever so hard for that Seriously 3.0 achievement), and teams play Gears3 exclusively. I would be playing Gears3 if I wasn't ranking up so well in BF3.

Then, we have Skyrim in less than 4 (!) days. Or, 3 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes, 29 seconds [http://skyrim2011.info/]. Damn it, I swear these gaming companies want us to not have lives.

 

[V TheSystem V]

Stick with Gears of War 3. Not keen on trying Battlefield 3, seeing as I don't have a PC (and would only consider playing it on PC), and I won't be getting Modern Warfare 3 until Christmas at least.

Anyway, who needs first person shooters when Skyrim is out in 4 days? Maybe I should do a Cartman and freeze myself for 4 days. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Zhukov]

I'm sticking with BF3.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the best game in the world. In fact, I kinda regret buying it. But it's alright, and I really don't think I can take dealing with the the players of two online shooters at once. Those people are poisonous.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Neither. I have yet to play a Battlefield game, and honestly can't see the point of buying another Call of Duty game.

 

[TPiddy]

Gears of War 3 provides more fun than BF3 or MW3 combined.... at least that's my stance... I'll be sticking with Gears, adding Skyrim and Saints Row... and MAYBE get to Assassin's Creed before the end of the year....

 

[everythingbeeps]

Not interested in BF3. I have GoW3 but I've heard it's a nightmare for noobs.

I'm sure I'll eventually end up playing MW3. I put a ton of hours into Black Ops (my first CoD multiplayer experience), though I had a much harder time getting into MW2 after that.

The main thing keeping me from getting right on board is the simple fact that even after over 100 hours in BO, I'm still not very good. So it'd just be more of the same. And a lot of times I'd play BO for an hour, and then immediately regret it because it felt like an hour completely wasted.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I fully intend to play both. If, when I go online, I have friends playing B3 I'll play B3. If, when I go online, I have friends playing MW3 I'll play MW3.

And if, when I go online, I have friends playing both B3 and MW3, I'll play Skyrim.

But seriously if I'm looking for a MP game, I'll load up whichever one my friends are currently playing. Like most people do, I would imagine.

 

[Thatguyky]

I'll probably stay with BF3 or GoW3. I may pick up MW3 when it lowers in price(that could take forever), but I wouldn't spend full retail on it. I'm not anti-Call of Duty or anything, but it just doesn't appeared to have changed much in years. I just prefer the Battlefield game play over CoD's game play.

 

[TheSmokingFox]

Wait, I was gonna buy all of them. But I am tired of thi sactually being an issue. Which is best? THAT IS ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY YOUR DECISION.

Fuck this, i'm just gonna go play Online Poker.

 

[Vrach]

Sticking with Battlefield 3.

I've nothing against CoD and I in fact like where both the singleplayer and the multiplayer have gone to since the MW franchise (with the exception of Black Ops, which had a terribad singleplayer). I loved CoD4/MW for the story, I loved MW2 a bit for the action and a lot for the Special Ops and I think MW3 is gonna do great.

That said, Modern Warfare is a multiplayer title. It's not something that's gonna be worth buying (at least for me) for the singleplayer alone, even if it's as amazing as CoD4/MW. As far as singleplayer goes, a quick rental does the job even for those with relatively little time to play games (and I'm not one of those people).

And CoD multiplayer - well I've said it, haven't I, I like where it has gone. But that's only because it had really no other place to go to. It's an advanced model of Counter Strike and that's all fine and dandy. "Problem" is, I've always been a Battlefield man. I've gotten into FPS multiplayers via CS, sure, but once I've discovered Battlefield, it instantly became my preferred FPS. I love everything that goes with it, team work, vehicles, more dynamic gameplay, it's all a lot more me than a quick trigger happy shooter like CS or CoD is.

Now, to clarify again, I don't hate CS or CoD. They're just not my thing. I can play both and I can have fun with them, especially when playing with friends, but I can also have a lot more fun doing the same with Battlefield, so given the choice, I'm definitely picking the latter.

 

[Suicida1 Midget]

I was gonna jugle the three of them, but then origin happened. Now ill mostly play Gears of War 3, with MW3 for the cooldown period. Only reason why i got MW3 mostly was for the founder status i am getting so my CoD friends get a boost. Cause I can afford to spend more than they can. Also to stop them from spamming five cod invites at once, killing my internet connection in the process.

 

[xDarc]

Those who cant move and shoot at the same time are just terrible players. Running and gunning is actually a tactic best used by people who dont know how to aim. None of your points even make much sense and some of them even contridict each other.

Running and gunning is for people who don't know how to aim?

Wow, I guess this is what xbawks360 has done to an entire generation of kids. They forget the million or so shooters made prior to 2005, of which 90% did not have this mechanic.

I don't even know how to talk or relate to people like you.

Are you saying that no one had to aim before iron sights became a standard gimmick to make up for thumb sticks not measuring up to a mouse? Because I'm pretty sure the biggest names in FPS gaming, which have made a living off winning tournaments before xbox360 existed, would disagree with you there. Vehemently.

Trying to execute actions on a controller pad while both thumbs are occupied does not work fluidly. It's that simple.

When you toggle iron sights and your character moves like he's walking through wet cement, or in some games not at all- AND couple this with the horrific cone of fire penalties which discourage hip fire, you've made a game where you encourage people to stop to shoot.

SEPARATING MOVING AND SHOOTING.

Thus, making FPS bearable on a gaming platform for which it was never intended.

I don't know how much more clear it can be.
Xbox kids don't know what FPS gaming is, and I don't know how to travel through time to show them.

 

[ShockValue]

I'll be mainly playing MW3 though I'll still play BF3 and Gears 3.

 

[godofallu]

Didn't enjoy BF3's demo so I skipped that, I loved GOW3 but the multiplayer got old since there was no challenge and I played each map a few hundred times.

MW3 will at least have new maps, and new things to unlock. So yeah i'll move on to the next warzone. The next hotbed of action and adrenaline. In time a new multiplayer game will take its place, but that's ok with me.