[POLL]Battlefield 3 VS MW3 - The best?

[Caltson]

Neither. Both games have their pros and cons, and they're just not comparable.

Either you'll like Battlefield, Call of Duty or both, but never compare them.

[Trey_Johnson]

Either you'll like Battlefield, Call of Duty or both, but never compare them.

That kinda is what the topic is about. Everyone will vote for their opinion.

Although I'm disappointed in BF3s campaign, seen MW3s campaign and I've to admit I'm impressed and would like to have MW3s instead of BF3s. I'm still impressed over the graphic and the various enviorments in Battlefield 3 (especielly in mission 4 going hunting), but as the story continuing and ends in Modern Warfare 3 I'm curious what's happening.
But as it's a multiplayer game I prefer Battlefield 3 over Modern Warfare 3 due to the reasons stated above.

I dont think there was never realy any doubt that mw3 will be beaten by bf campaign. BF was always known for it's superior multi-player.

[Ratko Gavrilovic]

Let's state it like this.
MW3 requires no skill and consists of fag techniques like quick scoping.
BF3 is more realistic, better engine, better graphics.

[Trey_Johnson]

Let's state it like this.
MW3 requires no skill and consists of fag techniques like quick scoping.
BF3 is more realistic, better engine, better graphics.

Everything requiers skills to be good at, tho it is easier to master mw3.

[Aldo]

BF3 is more realistic, better engine, better graphics.

BF3 requires a powerful PC as well
That's why BF3 sold 5million copies its first week and MW3 sold Over 9 Million its first day

MW3 requires no skill and consists of fag techniques like quick scoping.

*le quick scope*
mad?

COD does take still just like BF, you just suck so you wont admit it

Everything requiers skills to be good at, tho it is easier to master mw3.

Naw bro BF is way easier to master then COD

As said before you just can't compare two games that are so different in many ways

[Trey_Johnson]

BF3 requires a powerful PC as well
That's why BF3 sold 5million copies its first week and MW3 sold Over 9 Million its first day
*le quick scope*
mad?

COD does take still just like BF, you just suck so you wont admit it

Naw bro BF is way easier to master then COD

As said before you just can't compare two games that are so different in many ways

I still thinks mw3 is so much easier to master, beacuse there's only gun to gun in it, that's what the game is about, in bf3 you got so much going on it will take you way more time to master it. atleast that's how it worked out for me.

BF3 requires a powerful PC as well
That's why BF3 sold 5million copies its first week and MW3 sold Over 9 Million its first day
*le quick scope*
mad?

COD does take still just like BF, you just suck so you wont admit it

Naw bro BF is way easier to master then COD

As said before you just can't compare two games that are so different in many ways

Bf3 sold way over 5milliion copies in the first week, and it was no shock mw3 will beat that, as the cod series were superior, until now. If you'd look at the numbers of people who prefer mw3, and numbers of people who prefer bf3 ( aka who is better ), it's clearly on the bf3. IGN made a bf3 vs mw3, and bf3 with more than a 100k votes difference. I'm waiting to see the next game, that one have a chance to out-sell cod.

[Ratko Gavrilovic]

COD does take still just like BF, you just suck so you wont admit it

And you are basing that on what?

[duffman]

LE BATTLEFIELD ITS A MUST  :hoor:

[8793574]

I still occasionally quickscope people in Battlefield 3.
MW is always great with the campaign storyline.

Battlefield should stick to multiplayer and focus more on the MP. Other than that the campaign was boring.
The multiplayer could've been alot better if they didn't concentrate much on the campaign.

[Salmonella]

I am sick and tired of those lame ''Modern Warfare'' storylines.. The storylines were always so bad and random in MW2 and CoD4. MW3 is a bit different because it actually has some sort of plot now. I don't know a lot of details about either one of the storylines ( BF or MW3 ), but at least this storyline has something the other Modern Warfares didn't have : a reason. I guess the singleplayer storyline in MW3 is alright for what kind of game it is ( Another one of these over-commercialised games that almost every ''gamer'' on earth plays. ).

The multiplayer however is -really- disappointing in MW3. This is just the worst kind of excuse for a FPS multiplayer that I've ever seen. It's exactly the same as the CoD 1 and CoD 2 copying, but this time they did it when CoD had a lot more global interest. The HUD in MW3's multiplayer is exactly the same as in MW2, so are many killstreaks, weapons and the engine overal is just the same. It is just an expansionpack for MW2, and everyone secretly knows that.

Apart from that, they introduced some really shitty stuff into this new game, ''kill confirmed'', ''kill denied''. Are you serious? I want to be able to shoot people and just play the game, not ''confirm'' my kill by walking over his dead body.. This just ruins the freeroam-like thing Call of Duty once had, because now you have to walk to a dead body to grab a dogtag, and then get killed yourself. Oh, and what if you were sniping someone at 100 metres distance? You'd have to walk all over to grab a stupid dogtag? That's not gonna happen because one of his teammates ruins it for you by ''denying'' the kill and making you lose points.

MW2 is just the superior MW3 when you're talking about multiplayer shooters. No bullshit, simple and usually a lot of fun too ( depends on where you play ).

To all those who plan to buy MW3 or already have it : Enjoy MW2.1, the shitty expansionpack.

BF3 instead, is being very revolutionairy, bringing first person shooters to a new level. As I said before, I'm not very concerned with either of the games in detail, but it can be said that Battlefield 3 is definately superior to Modern Warfare 3. As soon as you do the first mission in BF3 you get a glimpse of the new engine, asthonishing graphics and you just know this game is gonna be all that you expected.

Strangely enough, I find that the shooters that take place after 2000 / 2011 aren't worth making anymore, World War III really seems like a last resort for Call of Duty to finish the subject of today's terrorists and shit. I have seen too much russian terrorists, corrupt US soldiers and heard too many brittish voice-overs of ''special'' soldiers. WWII just seems to offer a lot more unused oppertunities, but producers like the ones of Call of duty would just fuck that up too Luckily there's alternatives.

So if you want something new, get Battlefield 3. If you want an expansionpack of Modern Warfare 2... Get Battlefield 3, MW3 doesn't get close to MW2's good things and Battefield's nothing like it either, but if you want some kind of expansionpack, get an independent modification or something.

[KhornateMonkey]

Felt like posting this. :3

Katha | Suspension of Disbelief

I like both games, If I want to play with friends I go on COD, but If I want some real action, I play battlefield.

[Aldo]

I am sick and tired of those lame ''Modern Warfare'' storylines.. The storylines were always so bad and random in MW2 and CoD4. MW3 is a bit different because it actually has some sort of plot now. I don't know a lot of details about either one of the storylines ( BF or MW3 ), but at least this storyline has something the other Modern Warfares didn't have : a reason. I guess the singleplayer storyline in MW3 is alright for what kind of game it is ( Another one of these over-commercialised games that almost every ''gamer'' on earth plays. ).

The multiplayer however is -really- disappointing in MW3. This is just the worst kind of excuse for a FPS multiplayer that I've ever seen. It's exactly the same as the CoD 1 and CoD 2 copying, but this time they did it when CoD had a lot more global interest. The HUD in MW3's multiplayer is exactly the same as in MW2, so are many killstreaks, weapons and the engine overal is just the same. It is just an expansionpack for MW2, and everyone secretly knows that.

Apart from that, they introduced some really shitty stuff into this new game, ''kill confirmed'', ''kill denied''. Are you serious? I want to be able to shoot people and just play the game, not ''confirm'' my kill by walking over his dead body.. This just ruins the freeroam-like thing Call of Duty once had, because now you have to walk to a dead body to grab a dogtag, and then get killed yourself. Oh, and what if you were sniping someone at 100 metres distance? You'd have to walk all over to grab a stupid dogtag? That's not gonna happen because one of his teammates ruins it for you by ''denying'' the kill and making you lose points.

MW2 is just the superior MW3 when you're talking about multiplayer shooters. No bullshit, simple and usually a lot of fun too ( depends on where you play ).

To all those who plan to buy MW3 or already have it : Enjoy MW2.1, the shitty expansionpack.

BF3 instead, is being very revolutionairy, bringing first person shooters to a new level. As I said before, I'm not very concerned with either of the games in detail, but it can be said that Battlefield 3 is definately superior to Modern Warfare 3. As soon as you do the first mission in BF3 you get a glimpse of the new engine, asthonishing graphics and you just know this game is gonna be all that you expected.

Strangely enough, I find that the shooters that take place after 2000 / 2011 aren't worth making anymore, World War III really seems like a last resort for Call of Duty to finish the subject of today's terrorists and shit. I have seen too much russian terrorists, corrupt US soldiers and heard too many brittish voice-overs of ''special'' soldiers. WWII just seems to offer a lot more unused oppertunities, but producers like the ones of Call of duty would just f**k that up too Luckily there's alternatives.

So if you want something new, get Battlefield 3. If you want an expansionpack of Modern Warfare 2... Get Battlefield 3, MW3 doesn't get close to MW2's good things and Battefield's nothing like it either, but if you want some kind of expansionpack, get an independent modification or something.

MW3 is the Third Chapter in the MW series for a reason

MW2 Engine - IW 4.0
MW3 Engine - MW3

MW3 is mainly designed for Console mainly = Not zomg god l33t 1337 holy graphics
BF3 is mainly designed for PC mainly = zomg god l33t 1337 holy graphics

COD 1, 2, 3, WaW are all based off of WWII

BF3 is very realistic
*le realistic*

If you like realism I suggest you sign up for The Royal Netherlands Army

I still thinks mw3 is so much easier to master, beacuse there's only gun to gun in it, that's what the game is about, in bf3 you got so much going on it will take you way more time to master it. atleast that's how it worked out for me.

Bf3 sold way over 5milliion copies in the first week, and it was no shock mw3 will beat that, as the cod series were superior, until now. If you'd look at the numbers of people who prefer mw3, and numbers of people who prefer bf3 ( aka who is better ), it's clearly on the bf3. IGN made a bf3 vs mw3, and bf3 with more than a 100k votes difference. I'm waiting to see the next game, that one have a chance to out-sell cod.

My first time playing BF I racked up so many kills it was funny but I was probably playing wit noobs
You were most likely playing with noobs

EA has even released its first week sales which are 5million

*le serious face on*

In all respects, I don't think you can compare the two games. You're basically comparing an arcade game (MW series) vs. a simulation (BF). They're both so different. The majority like playing simple arcade style games, because its simple and easy to play. And at this point visuals isn't a major factor, it's all about gameplay. Sure BF3, has the best visuals, but its not an arcade, it's more of a simulation and that just makes it a whole lot harder. In all honesty, BF3 takes a while to get good at and the majority just don't have the time to. I guess my point is, these sales figures were expected already and this information shouldn't surprise you. BF3 and MW3 are both amazing games, but it's really all about preference. Just have fun and play what you love.

[shitix]

You simply cant compare these two games, as they are created for two diffrent types of gamers. From my point of view i see it this way:

Modern Warfare series has an amazing storyline that took 3 games to finish. Have a nice co-op mode. But for me the MP is not my style anymore, i'm more of a patient guy and stick to squads.

Battlefield 3 has the storyline wich is meeh.. They shouldent have focused on it at all if you ask me, they are buggy as shit. The co-op, as i have experienced with my friends, it is completley useless... I need to replay missions from 2-10 times in order to finnish a map because of those darn bugs. Their MP is more like my style, supporting the squads and teammates as they advance through enemy lines.

As for these great graphics you all whine about, "real gamers" doesent care much about the grapgics, its the accual gameplay we're out for. Realism? Join the army, best way to achiev your realism needs.

To my mainpoint here. If you want to accualy rate the game, you need to stay neutral to both games, and even those find it hard to rate.
Tha majority here aims for graphics and realism it seems. Well lets get things straigt, MW3 cost me 60$. For BF3 i had to buy new PC, cost me about 1160$

I cant decide wich one that is best because i do enjoy both games and hate to sit and whine about why one game is better then other

[Alessandro]

Battlefield 4: Co-op

[steveday50]

For my opinion, Battlefield 3 is much better, looks more realistic, allows alot of teamwork, many weapons and many game modes.
A game you can enjoy playing it for a long long time