Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Battlefield 3 "VS" Modern Warfare 3
armsman
Member Posts: 2
Post your opinions on each game here (No flaming)
"So far I've only seen Battlefield 3 on PC, I havn't seen it on a console where the bulk of the buiness is. If it's just a PC title as it looks like today, that's just a small audience to participate." - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick
"We're going to have a clash of the titans this spring. The very fact that Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is trying to cast doubt on our game is a perfect example of how we got his goat. In tearms of where this goes, we think our PS3 game is better than their Xbox game and our PC game is better that their PC game. If thats all he's got to say, it's obiously going to evaporate as we launch all three. If you went to our press conference, you saw the PS3 footage and the Xbox footage. If bobby thinks that is PC footage, he's in real trouble." - EA CEO John Riccitiello
"Battlefield 3 is designed to take COD down." - EA CEO John Riccitiello
Comments
I find COD really boring, especially Black OPS. There is no real sense of teamwork anywhere in the game and that's what I enjoy the most. Even in capture the flag or domination I feel like a lone wolf. However the new game mode they're bringing into MW3 looks slightly more team-oriented, but only just.
Plus I will actually be able to use a sniper in BF3, because they have large maps whereas COD doesn't.
Friend of mine played BF3 for 3 days straight with 3 hours sleep overall in pre-alpha.
I'd put my money down on BF3, but personally I wont fall for any shooter after the years of competitive and International Events ride I had with counter strike 1.6.
GO will change everything about shooters tho(will be released for consoles too), if companies think that a game moves forward and becomes a trully good shooter with DLC's and early sequels(thinking COD here) they are seriously wrong.
Just release the dev tools like CS, and CS:S has done and you'll see what a shooter community can really be about.
CS:GO is the only shooter in the future(while not releasing at the same time as BF3 and COD3) that I see with potential to sweep everything.
If history is anything, CS is probably the most played FPS ever
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
BF all the way, if there is anything i like more than a normal shooter... its the same but with vehicles and big maps its just the sensation of a real Battlefield, i just cant stand the closed maps are so... standart...
MW3 will the first CoD I will skip since CoD4.
BF3 plays no small part in my decision.
Neither ill be waiting for CS:GO
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
The BF series, I think, has more of a dedicated following from the purest PC FPS community, second only to CS.
I will be playing BF3 myself and not be bothering with MW3.
Unless I am mistaken BF3 is the successor to BF2 which was the successor to BF1942. The Bad Company series (which has BC2 out now which is massive in its own right) has a different heritage. This makes BF3 even more desirable cos it has been a long time coming.
Pre-ordered BF3 myself, my son loves MW3 so looks like ill be getting both. But me peraonally im a fan of battlefield series.
CoD just seems like to much like an arcade shooter to me.
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
bf has all ways been the stronger now they added planes back in i get back to doing a 360 and crashing .i loved the old ww2 bf tank battles only play cod 4 now wont touch the new ones unless it on xbox when im round a m8s house
In COD PVP enemies randomly spawn all over the place after death, regularly spawning behind you right after you killed them, so you tell me which game is better.
It won't be so much Clash of the Titans as 'lives up to reputation of the franchise' Vs 'more of the same generic...'.
BF all the way. I've had so much fun playing CoD Mw back in the day, but ever since then, it's been regurgitation. Mw2 has to be among the most overhyped games of all time, just a gangbang of perks and kill streak rewards, CoD:Mw is still much more fun. Then you add in the fact that bf2 blew away Mw2, imo, it's just a no brainer for me. Everything about it feels better, and with larger maps, ect.
COD- theres a? camper behind that wall.
BF3 - what wall.
~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~
http://youtu.be/eeN9ZZgGIkI
~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~
BF 1942(Deset Combat Mod) wiped the floor with the original Call of Duty in my mind. I honestly didn't even really like Call of Duty when it first showed up and played very little of the multiplayer.
Modern Warfare was just as restrictive compared to Battlefield but It was extremely polished and probably the first console multiplayer game I felt was worth playing. Not having to worry about my hardware and being able to play from my home theater chair within just one or two minutes of turning on the console really sold it for me. At the time, the Battlefield series had nothing to offer(especially the crappy console version).
Now that CoD is becoming as stale as the Madden series I'm really putting a lot of faith in BF3. BF2 just didn't have the same magic 1942 had, and certainly all the other BF games up until Bad Company 2 weren't very good. Even Bad Company 2 seems small and restrictive compared to the sandbox feel of 1942. Not being able to prone, rarely ever getting a chance to fly a chopper, and something about the maps feeling artificially small really hold it back.
Unfortunately, it seems like these are all intentional decisions to keep the fighting focused, which is all done in an effort to appeal to CoD gamers. When they were designing BF3 I'm fairly certain they were just adding vehicles to CoD gameplay instead of building the gameplay around the vehicles like they did with 1942. Unfortunately focused gameplay and vehicles don't mix too well and if you try to force them together you get the worst of both.
Between BF3 straying from the sandbox feel of 1942 in an effort to capture the CoD market, and modern planes being just too damn fast to be any fun (nothing like 1942 dogfights) I just don't see this game being much different than Bad Company 2. I'm still looking forward to it more than I am MW3, but I doubt it will be any great step forward.
Seriously though, 1942 had Air Craft Carriers, Submarines, Destroyers, Battleships, Massive Bomber Planes, Dogfights, 360 degree sniping (compared to the carefully planned sniping in modern shooters), and everything in between. Why are our shooters so far behind nearly 10 years later?
I Loved Call of Duty 4, I didn't mind Modern Warfare 2 (It was too much of the same old, and just a little bit improved), and I think I enjoyed the maps and quirkiness of Black Ops more than most.
For me though, Modern Warfare 3 just looks like baby steps from COD 4, where Battlefield 3 looks fresh, new, and technically impressive. I normally don't care about how technically impressive something is (ex: I only think Crysis 2 is decent), but so far Battlefield 3 has really really got me interested.
For what it's worth, and it aint worth anything, but BF3 has me much more interested.
BF3 all the way.
+ Play variety with the inclusion of vehicles (both air and ground) alongside infantry combat on the same maps. BF series doesn't have a monopoly on this, but vehicles in an FPS is very rare.
+ Large Maps with a variety of terrain features on the same maps. You can have open areas as well as confined areas within these large maps. Gives different play styles a chance to shine, and it's always been a nice challenge for me to make gameplay that shouldn't work well in a specific area, work well. Like making a shotgun work well in an area with big open areas
This has been a staple in the BF games. There's joy to be had once you figure out how your vehicles work (ground is easy, helos need more practice) and you can become effective with them. Then again, there's a certain joy to be had in ambushing and killing a tank, APC full of players, swatting down aircraft, or better yet, an air transport full of players. Or machinegunning them as they pour out of their transports.
+ Good number of players to play with. The PC BF games have usually been about 64 players. Not no lame 18, 24 players floating around the FPS genre lately. Oh, MW2, nice of you to show up with lame player counts. I couldn't believe people were excited about 18 players on MW2. I mean... really?
+ Emphasis on team play and squad play. You can earn points for progression for supporting your team and squad that didn't involve capping someone in the face. A rarity in the FPS genre. It's not about your killstreak or whatever: It's all about team support.
This is why I've been a fan of the BF series, which began for me with BF2, then BF2142. There's far more dimensions to the gameplay than a majority of the FPS titles.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
This!
Larger maps, Squad Play , vehicles are the things that matter the most.
Currently playing BF Bad Company because im burned out on mmorpg's. Its fun.
to avoid getting yet another temp ban from QQers...
ill just say. COD is boring now days BF3 does look better but which one is better will ultimately be left up to the gameplay. if BF3 is just a graphic update for BF2 it will fail.. if it actually brings more to the table then just graphics and another yank vs the world war great.
cod sadly repeats the same style of DM their battles are all repeated in other shooters and BF maps.
it too can fail just as easily as bf3 if it doesnt rework how it plays..
as for CSgo... i would rather valve grow some balls and fix my mother hubber DODS before making more stupid CS.. while i enjoy CS 1.6 and cs zero and some CSs... i would rather have my game finally finished and not just vaporwared >>"
MW3 Pc version will work on Win Xp as it's first a console game scaled up to the Pc, which makes the Pc version always suffer and pale compared to what it could have been Pc only. BF will not work on Win Xp, it's a true next gen DX10.1. Dx11 game that's going to be scaled down a hell of a lot to fit consoles, enough said. I've played in the Alpha of BF3 and its going to be a much better all round true next gen Pc gaming experience we've all been waiting for, not more of the same same dx9 and game engine tech we've seen the last 5 years.
I find the remarks that there is no money in the Pc gaming audience laughable. I guess somebody forget to tell him about the MMO genre, or the community numbers of Steam easily matching that of the PS3 or Xbox360. Has he also ignored the huge success of The Witcher and The Witcher 2? It's done that company just fine selling to Pc only quality superior games to the console. I guess the 3 millions pre orders thus so far for The Old Republic are all those xbox360 and PS3 gamers huh?
dont even need to go that far, look back to 1960s what was the first system.. PC. consoles only took off in the 90s. long after PCs were still popular.
i always chuckle when people say consoles are better then PCs when its not the case. consoles are ment for one use where as a PC is multi-platformed
the day pc is discontinued is the day everyone walks around with computers in their glasses or shades
i used to be a COD fan when MW was out but with mw2 and bo it sucked like hell, nothing new for 60dollars and the multiplayer system got worse only. but bf3 on the other hand looks really good and competitive.
Its not just because of the system really for me its trully the controls that make pc beat consoles. A mouse and keyboard gives you so much more control and you can move better. While you have to take your thumb off your look joystick to bash me with circle or b, ps3 and xbox respectivly, all i have to do is right click and look at that i can still sprint and look around while bashing you. i click my ctrl key my guy stays crouched no need to hold down on a joystick. You will never have the smooth and crisp control of a mouse and keyboard on console controllers. Now when it comes to gameplay features and graphics pc will always win. the only downfall to a pc is keeping up with new parts but even that is getting easier and easier.
In conclusion Consoles suck.
There's no doubt which game is a "better" game considering the gameplay depth and all that, but we've seen in mmorpg business too the fact that a very dumbed down and as simple as possible product can pull insane amounts of people to it, and when those people demand their friends to try it, they are hooked quickly to the easy access and success and are bound by the "because my friends play it too" - and quickly the community becomes a huge gravitation field from where you cant escape.
I hope this circle gets cut this spring. I'm not even going to bother with either of these games but it annoys me from the observer point of view how simple frag farm B-grade crap gets titled as the king of any genre.