Call Of Duty Mw3 Vs Battlefield 3

[Al Despo]

Big discussion as of late between the two, Battlefield is supposedly "better" because of the game engine being more interactive eg blowing walls apart, but MW2 left an itch unscratched.... Which will you guys be looking at?

[Madaz]

BF3 for me, having just played the alpha it is very good some balancing issues with with a good team and mix of classes it works well the first map, there is a whole buch of tweak to gameplay mechanics too where you now get more points for suppression fire and bunch of other cool stuff

sprinting may be unrealistic but who in real life in a battle zone only sprints for 30secs

http://au.pc.gamespy.com/pc/battlefield-3/1184679p1.html

[Al Despo]

Id have to say im leaning towards BF3 after all the reviews, but id buy MW3 anyway mainly because all my psn friends will buy it and i love nothing more than dusting them online lol

[.:: GimpS-R34 ::.]

Both...

[friction_point]

I'm pretty stoked about Bf3 atm, it seems that the environments are larger and more interactive/dynamic, mw3 seems to be more confined to smaller environments IMHO

[Damit]

Battlefield all the way

[BigDirtyJase]

I'm leaning towards Battlefield 3..

I'm going to "demo" these two when they come out (for the single player experience) but I will pay my hard earned money on Battlefield 3 for multiplayer. BF3 will have dedicated server support from the word go and that's the big thing leaning me towards this

DICE have said that BF3's lead platform is the PC then Consoles where as Infinity Ward (Most likely pushed by Activision) will go the other way round (console first, PC second)...also MW3 has no dedicated server support so expect finding local games a bit more difficult (and deal with bad ping rates)

Edited August 3, 2011 by BigDirtyJase

[babyskyline]

I will more than likely be buying both but no point in saying this is better or that is better blah blah blah

Until you have played both in their finished states it doesnt matter...in the end its all about which one is a fun experience for you and anyone with a narrow mindset will miss out on the fun in the other

[doyl]

Definitely both, but BF3 will get most of my attention. Goes without saying really what with BC2 still getting a massive amount of playtime by me.

[Bronx]

BF3, anyday, i cant play COD no more after the whole destruction ability in BFBC2, wish battlefield had zombies tho, zombies go good with anything, especially a cup of tea and a hot cross bun. also this whole 32vs32 on PC will be EPIC, but the poor consoles will only support 12v12 players, haha

[Madaz]

the alpha only supported 16v16 but also it was only a bit of a stress test

[EeLeYe]

I'm gonna go against most here and take the mw3 route.

I prefer the quick action "arcade style" gameplay.

[Bronx]

I'm gonna go against most here and take the mw3 route.

I prefer the quick action "arcade style" gameplay.

where is the thumbs down button.........

[EeLeYe]

where is the thumbs down button.........

[bozodos]

going for the one that's not based on Quake 3 games technology.

Hoping that MW3 will be the one that FINALLY kills off a stale cash cow franchise.

[Al Despo]

going for the one that's not based on Quake 3 games technology.

Hoping that MW3 will be the one that FINALLY kills off a stale cash cow franchise.

Its getting that way isnt it! I remember playing the first CoD on pc when it was up against medal of honor and everyone just blew out how much better it was but apart from going to modern warfare its the same setup ever since then.

[EeLeYe]

going for the one that's not based on Quake 3 games technology.

Hoping that MW3 will be the one that FINALLY kills off a stale cash cow franchise.

I read that they're using a tweaked mw2 engine...

[bozodos]

I admit, the single player in MW1 and 2 was cool, and the story interested me.

The multi however, has been exactly the same since COD2.

I dislike intensely how the video game industry has become not only dumbed down console focused, but the whole thing of having to release a franchise update every year at around the same time. How can a quality game be made or innovation had when everything is pandering to a tight schedule and lowest common denominator?!

BTW BLOPS single player sucked because of the ridiculous historical inaccuracies (like having M16's with 30 round mags and fancy scopes in 1960), and the multi was lag central on PC!

[Spicky]

BF3 for sure.

The Call Of Duty series seems to be focused on churning out very similar games on a yearly schedule, without new technology or major changes to the gameplay.

I'm very disappointed about how little the series has progressed since MW1. Call Of Duty was groundbreaking up until that point, i think that point is where consoles became the priority and gameplay started to be dumbed down.

Look at the tech Dice are using these days, the physics are just amazing not to mention the graphics.

Dice are pushing the envelope, trying to make their game the best experience. Whereas Call Of Duty developers seem content to keep churning out mediocre games with old tech and bland gameplay because they still make money.

[vspecIInur]

BF3 but definitely buying both. Can't f*kin wait!