The MW3-BF3 debate

[omega_peaches]

It seems that anywhere I go, I see a bunch of people saying why BC3 will blow MW3 out of the water, or vice versa, and that anyone that thinks anywise must have some kind of mental disease. Who else feels that they are kind of in the middle, and you might buy both, or one, but in general you are open-minded? Yes, they are both FPS, yes, they are both modern and pseudo-realistic, but they have some very different things. Call of Duty is a lost more fast paced (usually,) and is focused on smaller teams. Battlefield is more slower and tactical. I prefer both, but I feel like people should be more open-minded to other's (inb4 It's the internet, get over it) (inb4 OMG OP CAN'T BE INB4).
What are the Escapist's thoughts on this (I imagine it will be more BF3-Centric here, as CoD seems to be the number one hated game here (Please explain to me why.)
Off-topic: Who here listens to pomplamoose?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, I do not think that anyone who likes one game over the other is silly or stupid. That mindset is immature and childish. So, I would say that I am open-minded. Though, I probably won't buy either because a) I do not play multiplayer focused titles most of the time, b) I am not a big fan of either series, and c) I am not fond of military based shooters. So yeah, take from that what you will...

 

[freaper]

This debate has been going on for ages, and not only for the BF-CoD franchise.

I own a copy of MW2, but I honestly can't be bothered trying MW3, since I purposely left CoD:BlOps out, seeing how of little interest the singleplayer was to me. Haven't played BF2 though, so if anything, I'll check out BF3.

 

[Canid117]

Pretty sure its BF not BC. I don't think this is another installment in the Bad Company series.

 

[kortin]

This debate has been going on for ages, and not only for the BF-CoD franchise.

I own a copy of MW2, but I honestly can't be bothered trying MW3, since I purposely left CoD:BlOps out, seeing how of little interest the singleplayer was to me. Haven't played BF2 though, so if anything, I'll check out BF3.

Black ops isn't worth it because Treyarch touched it with their filthy hands.

I don't see why people can't like both of them. I'm planning on getting both of them. I play Battlefield for the realism thats ingrained into the games, and I play cod for the less realism in it.

 

[diggy140892]

Black Ops wasn't bad simply because of treyarch. It was bad because all Call of Duty games since Modern Warfare have sucked no matter who develops it. Infinity Ward are just as bad.

 

[Radeonx]

I'll get both of them. Just because Battlefield 3 will hopefully be much better then the sack of terribleness that was Bad Company, and that Modern Warfare 3 will have a fun campaign.

 

[Andrew Disley]

personally, I will probably buy BF3 on the basis that it is a lot more tactical. I also feel cod games lately have turned into lazy,samey shooters which only sell well because it says "call of duty" on the box

 

[omega_peaches]

I currently think that BF3 will be of a higher quality than MW3 but I think MW3 will dominate in the sales. As more information becomes available i'll be open to changing my mind but, as it stands, thats what I think.

I think that they will both be high-quality, but MW3 will ultimately dominate, become most-selling game of all time, etc. I think CoD will stay king until the next consoles.
I think MW3 will be more high-effor than before ecause they want to "redeem" themselves I guess.

 

[warthoggunner]

I'll probably buy both games.

Completely different games.
MW3: a "Michael Bay" game = big, loud, entertaining, expensive, wow-factor
but shallow/dumb with some annoying parts

BF3: Like a good war movie? A little bit of Black Hawk Down etc.?

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

I'll probably end up buying both, although it depends how much BF3 feels like BC2 or BF2.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

I hate the viewpoint that Battlefield is a man's game because it's tactical, and COD is for the kids, I see that everywhere. I personally prefer the Battlefield series because they're a lot more enjoyable with friends, base bombing the shit out of people in a helicopter you're all in for example is fucking hilarious. I don't get that kind of enjoyment on COD, plus Battlefield knows what it's doing, COD feels like a twitch shooter that's trying not to be a twitch shooter by throwing in random farts of realism such as ADS and regenerating health. It isn't unrealistic enough to be as fast paced and skill based as Quake or Unreal, but it isn't realistic enough (and designed) to be as tactical as Battlefield either, it's in some fucked up middleground that just isn't enjoyable for me.

I'll get Battlefield probably if it looks good, if not I'll get Skyrim or something. I'm not expecting COD to change any time soon.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

They both are fighting for 8th place in the FPS tournament. They both subscribe to cheesy stories with boring characters and stiff controlling and boring gun fighting with the same myriad of SMGs ARs and Snipers with the useless shotgun thrown in to pander. They both feature split resources between a terrible 6 hour campaign with an absurd story about a squad fighting Russians/Muslims and a multi-player that panders to the twitchfest of boring rifles and grey guns that made them so popular. Both can go to hell, as they both are trying so hard to one-up each other that they lost sight of what actually makes playing games fun. So choose your side, "No question now, what had happened to the faces of [EA]. The creatures outside looked from [EA] to [Activision], and from [Activision] to [EA], and from [EA] to [Activision] again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Getting both. There is no debate for me. Both games are good in their own ways. They don't need people defending them, they can stand on their own legs.

 

[teh_Canape]

I find said debate to be fucking pointless

what's the need for such thing? they're similar games with different focuses

new age gamers are mostly idiots

 

[Iwata]

I will be getting both, and I like both series. That said, I do think the BF series is superior, and I've been a die-hard fan since the original Battlefield 1942. I have many fond memories of that game.

 

[Worgen]

well I already know the multiplayer of bf3 will be awesome because dice does awesome multi, the multi in medal of honor was pretty decent even tho the fundamental gameplay was kinda flawed. Im hoping it will also have a really good single player but Im expecting it to at least have a pretty good one, bad company 2 had a pretty good single player with fucken awesome multi

as for cod, I care not for cod, cod 4 was pretty awesome but I havent felt the need to buy any other ones, I played waw and was very unimpressed altho that might have been because I played bad company 2 before it and the weapons in waw sounded like toys compared to bc2 and I couldnt get over that

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

I'll probably get both.
Huzzah for not giving a damn.

Not touching MW3's multiplayer with a barge-pole though.
And I'll be getting BF3 for PC rather than Xbox.