The MW3-BF3 debate

[DoubleFlip]

can somebody actually point out to me what is wrong with the modern warfare games, other than it being "cool" to hate them because they are popular?

I have played more of the single player than i have multiplayer and still think the story is good, characters are memorable and the gameplay, pacing and mechanics are top notch. In fact I would say that the modern warfare single player campaigns have been some of the best linear FPSs since the first MW. each game brings something new and great set pieces, and really the only criticism i have of infinity ward is that they have kept the multiplayer relatively the same since the first call of duty, changing only the weapons and settings.

so yeh, why the hate?

ED: to be clear though i definitely will be getting BF3 because i loved BF2, vietnam and 1942

 

[DaHero]

Battlefield 3 will have constant vehicle whores and everyone will roll anti-tank, or if Infantry Only, snipers.

Modern Warfare 3 will have noob tubing, mindless rushing, and snipers.

Both are multiplayer based, both have snipers in them, both are arcadey, both will be loaded with hacks within a week, both will have some cheap thing overly abused, and both will forget to make a co-op campaign system that appeals to the vast amount of people that actually give two shits about something besides comparing egos to someone. Neither of them will require actual thinking, neither of them will add anything new, and did I mention they're multiplayer based?

In other words: They both suck, so why the debate? If it's based solely for multiplayer, it's a lazy cash-grab for teens with ego issues. I won't be wasting my money on either of them.

 

[kortin]

Battlefield 3 will have constant vehicle whores and everyone will roll anti-tank, or if Infantry Only, snipers.

Modern Warfare 3 will have noob tubing, mindless rushing, and snipers.

Both are multiplayer based, both have snipers in them, both are arcadey, both will be loaded with hacks within a week, both will have some cheap thing overly abused, and both will forget to make a co-op campaign system that appeals to the vast amount of people that actually give two shits about something besides comparing egos to someone. Neither of them will require actual thinking, neither of them will add anything new, and did I mention they're multiplayer based?

In other words: They both suck, so why the debate? If it's based solely for multiplayer, it's a lazy cash-grab for teens with ego issues. I won't be wasting my money on either of them.

You sound like someone who hates snipers. *grin* I need to go snipe some people now.

 

[park92]

why not feed both my fanboy instincts and buy both of them

 

[diggy140892]

can somebody actually point out to me what is wrong with the modern warfare games, other than it being "cool" to hate them because they are popular?

I have played more of the single player than i have multiplayer and still think the story is good, characters are memorable and the gameplay, pacing and mechanics are top notch. In fact I would say that the modern warfare single player campaigns have been some of the best linear FPSs since the first MW. each game brings something new and great set pieces, and really the only criticism i have of infinity ward is that they have kept the multiplayer relatively the same since the first call of duty, changing only the weapons and settings.

so yeh, why the hate?

ED: to be clear though i definitely will be getting BF3 because i loved BF2, vietnam and 1942

Well the main reason's that spring to mind are how scripted every campaign is, you say the pacing is top notch? There is no pacing, its all just battle after battle with no down time. Each game does not bring something new and often recycles set pieces. They are ridiculously short and I personally find them repetitive. Now the multiplayer is unbalanced due to certain perks and at its worst flat out broken thanks to these perks and other problems being exploited. Plus the online community is made up of some of the most annoying people on this earth.

I could probably list more reasons but I feel I've made my point.

 

[DaHero]

Battlefield 3 will have constant vehicle whores and everyone will roll anti-tank, or if Infantry Only, snipers.

Modern Warfare 3 will have noob tubing, mindless rushing, and snipers.

Both are multiplayer based, both have snipers in them, both are arcadey, both will be loaded with hacks within a week, both will have some cheap thing overly abused, and both will forget to make a co-op campaign system that appeals to the vast amount of people that actually give two shits about something besides comparing egos to someone. Neither of them will require actual thinking, neither of them will add anything new, and did I mention they're multiplayer based?

In other words: They both suck, so why the debate? If it's based solely for multiplayer, it's a lazy cash-grab for teens with ego issues. I won't be wasting my money on either of them.

You sound like someone who hates snipers. *grin* I need to go snipe some people now.

In an arcade shooter where you never have to factor wind, distance, lethality, or even decent cover? Some sniper...

 

[kortin]

Battlefield 3 will have constant vehicle whores and everyone will roll anti-tank, or if Infantry Only, snipers.

Modern Warfare 3 will have noob tubing, mindless rushing, and snipers.

Both are multiplayer based, both have snipers in them, both are arcadey, both will be loaded with hacks within a week, both will have some cheap thing overly abused, and both will forget to make a co-op campaign system that appeals to the vast amount of people that actually give two shits about something besides comparing egos to someone. Neither of them will require actual thinking, neither of them will add anything new, and did I mention they're multiplayer based?

In other words: They both suck, so why the debate? If it's based solely for multiplayer, it's a lazy cash-grab for teens with ego issues. I won't be wasting my money on either of them.

You sound like someone who hates snipers. *grin* I need to go snipe some people now.

In an arcade shooter where you never have to factor wind, distance, lethality, or even decent cover? Some sniper...

Battlefield Bad Company 2 you have to factor distance, lethality and cover in, and in Battlefield 3 they will be adding wind to the equation as well.

 

[Zabriskie Point]

Battlefield 3 will be better, MW3 will sell more.

BF3's 64 player games are going to be insane.

 

[ezeroast]

Well i play BF and COD, COD for the arcade fast pace few quick games to kill some time. And BF for team play and strategy.
I expect MW3 to be the same old as is always is with very little new to bring to the table where as BF should be a vast difference from the last, as they have a new engine and destructability never before seen. Its changes like this that make me a BF fanboy.

I'll be buying both but i'm MUCH more excited about BF3

 

[kortin]

Well i play BF and COD, COD for the arcade fast pace few quick games to kill some time. And BF for team play and strategy.
I expect MW3 to be the same old as is always is with very little new to bring to the table where as BF should be a vast difference from the last, as they have a new engine and destructability never before seen. Its changes like this that make me a BF fanboy.

I'll be buying both but i'm MUCH more excited about BF3

Now this is a post I like. Someone else who will buy, and actually like, both of them! I was so lonely.

 

[Laser Priest]

Neither will be objectively better than the other. It all depends on your preference. Personally, I try to play in a slower, more tactical style, which Battlefield generally seems to fit to.

I've never been the biggest fan of Call of Duty, anyway.

 

[T8B95]

Can I wield my well-used "Oh, for fuck's sake!" stamp again?

We haven't seen gameplay of Modern Warfare 3, and very little of Battlefield 3 gameplay yet. Choosing the game based on the series is just wrong. Choose each game on its own merits.

Ignoring the fact that whichever game you choose, your experience will be eerily similar.

 

[firefly000]

Battlefield 3 will be better, MW3 will sell more.

BF3's 64 player games are going to be insane.

^ This sums it up for me

 

[TFielding]

They are fundamentally different games. Battlefield is a large scale 64 player multiplayer game. Call of Duty is a more small scale game with Single Player and 32 player or less Multiplayer. Battlefield has jets, tanks, jeeps, helicopters, etc. Call of Duty UO tried that but then abandoned it.

Note: I have played BF1942, BFVietnam, BF2, BF2142, CoD, CoD UO, CoD 2, CoD MW, CoD WaW and a small amount of CoD MW2.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

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?

I would get both games, and play both of them for different reasons and they will appeal to me for different reasons too.

 

[thelonewolf266]

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.

In your opinion.

Modern warfare 2 was the biggest entertainment launch ever and Black ops was the game that took its title off it so I'm fairly sure quite a lot of people don't share your opinion.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Buying both. Probably going to love both.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

I will probably get battlefield first only because I have been watching and getting excited for it for a while, but my friend has seen the mw3 trailer and won't stop telling me that its gonna kick battlefield's ass
also I'm kinda ticked off that MW3 is comming out 4 days (i think) after battlefield that was kind of a dick move

 

[omega_peaches]

I will probably get battlefield first only because I have been watching and getting excited for it for a while, but my friend has seen the mw3 trailer and won't stop telling me that its gonna kick battlefield's ass
also I'm kinda ticked off that MW3 is comming out 4 days (i think) after battlefield that was kind of a dick move

Well CoD has always come out around the same time I think...TO THE WIKIPEDIA!
Call of Duty-October 29th, 2003
2-October 25th, 2005
3-November 7th, 2006
4-November 5th, 2007
World at War-November 11th, 2008
Modern Warfare 2-November 10th, 2009
Black Ops-November 9th, 2010
Modern Warfare 3-November 8th, 2011
So since the third one, they have been coming out around the first 2 weeks of November, so I think that Battlefield kind of did the dick move.

Also: I forgot what I was going to say: I will definitely be getting MW3, because I like Call of Duty, and most of my friends will be getting it, and I will probably be getting BF3, because I like BF2, and liked BC2.