Originally posted by the420kid

this is a silly and quite over asked question BF3 vs MW3 omg which to buy...

The awsner is simple buy both.

They are very very different games from 1 another, bf3 is a massive game full of vechiles and uber huge maps with destructible envirorments and graphics that make you forget its a game.  MW3 is an arena style (small map) shooter with an incredibly fast pace much faster than bf3 less about tactics more about pwning people.  BF3 has a huge team system and really needs you to play with your team / squad if you want to do well, mw3 is a game where you can be that lone ranger talk to no1 go out there and dominate the scoreboard..

Basicaly I believe if you are a fps fan there is room in your life for both games, sometimes you may want a large scale slower pace beautiful battle full of teamwork and vechiles, sometimes you may want to just log in talk to noone and get out there and be the super hero 1 man army you want to be that day in a super fast paced small map arcade style action shooter..

 

I really do believe both games are 2 far different to compare and that they are both awsome in there own ways and if you are a true fan buy both if you can only afford 1 of the games then decide what do you want large scale teamwork epicness or fast paced headshooting non stop action..

I dont think they are too far off.  They are both FPS with progression.  I'll even go as far to say that during beta there was one map that was fast paced and required teamwork in BF3 but you could easily go lone ranger and rampage.  

BF3 has everything CoD does and more (minus the singeplayer, but CoD's singler player only lasts about 6 hours normally, so I wouldnt buy that game just for that anyway).

Originally posted by grunt187

THIS

Nice vid.  I actually saw someone comment that you had to "pay to play online" in bf3.  Some people just post first and read facts later...

Im a big fps fan but not of the newer generation of "COD clones" like the mmo genre

the fps genre has suffered over the past 5 years imo, there all campfests with airstikes

& other noob friendly functions.

The long & short is BF3 is a " COD clone" like the newer medal of honor its pathetic,

with no nieche of its own, this is a poor game & in no way an improvement of BF2,

its got the graphics of BFBC but with the same poor playability & stupid loadtimes.

You cant even configure your keys unless your in game, you cant do anything whilst

dead & awaiting spawn, you have no free look whilst in vehicles, this is a pure console

port & a pretty bad one, pure lazy EA crap as per usual.

Ontop of it all theres a load of problems with origin & the server browser, which is a webpage

& not an in-game browser, like all EA games theres 500 steps to install & when you finally get to

play its seriously not worth the wait.

...bring back the classic shooters

Originally posted by drel

I'm not sure which is the better game , CoD or Battlefield 3?

And which has the best platform to play on?

Any help?

Neither is "better" since they are different in gameplay.

BF3 = more ot a total war experience. Fight on foot in armor and in the air on large maps where teamwork and working with your squad makes a lot of difference. Vanilla rules BF3 to me strikes the perfect balance of realism vs fun however I also like playing Hardcore.

MW3 = as with the other COD titles the game is all about infantry combat on smaller maps, organised teams can still be picked apart by a handfull of really good players operating on their own. Vanilla CoD always feels too arcadey for me, it shouldnt take 2/3 of an assault rifle magazine to kill someone, that said Hardcore mode in Black Ops was perfect IMHO and I played the majority of my time on Blops in HC.

So it really depends what you want from the game as to which one is "better" for you.

If you want to get the best experience on the PC, get BF3.

If you want to get the best experience on the Consoles, get MW3.

MW3 is built with consoles in mind using dated technology that can still work well on 360 and PS3, which are very dated. Not a lot of innovation and the general feeling has not changed at all, besides a few addicting modes. If you don't plan on swapping from the analog stick, stay with this.

BF3 is built with top of the line technology that can look amazing on the PC, and scale decently to 360 and PS3, but it is obviously not as good of a game on the consoles. For instance, on consoles BF3's frame rate is locked to 30, and the graphics seem to be below (low) setting on PC.

Originally posted by Khealler

I only have played BF3 (and Bad Company 2).

BF3 is an arcade game. Okay some "hardcore"servers allow you to spawn only on the commander (or a sniper device), but still arcade means zerg.

The grenade and rpg spam is still present at certain maps. Add the mortars of the support class and you can create a killing zone on an open map.

Snipers "only" have their sniper guns. No other kill from a safe distance. They do have some nice devices for group and team uses.

 

Overall BF3 is a polished fps. They tried to make it a team-based game and iin my opinion they have succeeded. Every class brings something usefull to the table. Although the engineer with the fast closequarters machineguns and the rpg is the most seen class on the field. (okay I have to admit, they do have a lot of nice other goodies; mines, repairtools, eod robot and aa-rockets) (I love to read chat when I "snipe" a sniper with my aks-74u, they are acurate and with infrared you can see everything)

COD is no less of an arcade game. Which is fine since nobody is looking for realism. Battlefield and Call of Duty games would have no players if everybody who plays them right now looked for realism.

In terms of destructability and physics however, BF3 does a pretty good jobs at providing more realism, but not in pace and setup.

BF3 is hailed as a Strategy shooter first. This is what I consider it and I think it fits the niche pretty well.

Originally posted by denshing

If you want to get the best experience on the PC, get BF3.

If you want to get the best experience on the Consoles, get MW3.

 

MW3 is built with consoles in mind using dated technology that can still work well on 360 and PS3, which are very dated. Not a lot of innovation and the general feeling has not changed at all, besides a few addicting modes. If you don't plan on swapping from the analog stick, stay with this.

BF3 is built with top of the line technology that can look amazing on the PC, and scale decently to 360 and PS3, but it is obviously not as good of a game on the consoles. For instance, on consoles BF3's frame rate is locked to 30, and the graphics seem to be below (low) setting on PC.

If you install the HD Texture pack on the consoles, it look's great. BF3 also run's really well on the consoles. It was  "switched" to consoles in mid-production.

But to the OP on the COD or Battlefield 3, I have BF3 and have pre-ordered MW3 also. Nothing say's you can't get both.

I like big and well designed maps; so BF3 is where I went.

I'm expecting some decent action in COD and the story looks far superior in the 1 player campaign.

That's just not enough to give up having 64 players on maps with jets, tanks, jeeps, sniping.. 

This is a case of more being more. 

My biggest gripe is progression and it'll be similar in both games.

Both games are entertaining, but I prefer Modern Warfare. I believe Battlefield is often times too chaotic with everything blowing up everywhere and that can seem exciting at first, but it gets annoying really quickly. It becomes hard to gauge where enemy fire is coming from, stealth gameplay is not nearly as effective, and it lacks any form of organization with people grabbing vehicles and just blowing everything on sight. Also, being able to spawn next to one of your squadmates makes it extremely annoying as entire squads spawn behind enemy lines, further making things hectic and confusing. Overall, the sense of scale, impact, and action are hindered by the absurd amounts of pandemonium.

BF3 for me,  COD after a great start as a series sold its soul with MW and apeasing the console crowd and then further slapped PC users that gave it its start with MW2 and no dedicated servers.

I would never buy a COD ever again after that debacle and the more I see of the arcade tripe "KILL CONFIRMED" coming with MW3 the more I stand by my decision.

BF3 whilst not quite BF2's spiritual successor more like Battlefield 2.5 and Bad Company 2.5 had a baby and BF3 was it but IMO it has taken the best of what each game had and succesfully merged them into what IMO is the greatest FPS since Kingpin in the late 90s.

Each game is unique. I just downloaded and am playing BOF 3. What I like about the game is the large map to play on. You can choose to be infantry with 4 subsections, support, medic, engineer, or recon. You can enter and play in tanks, helicopters, jets, APC's, etc.  This is something COD doesn't have and I think its a major drawback to COD.

Each to their own. They're both great games. See you on the battlefield!

COD: MW3 reportedly has a fantastic campaign/story mode

BF3 reportedly has amazing multiplayer experience

---

Personally, I'm not interested in MW3 as I dislike the COD series all together.   Black Ops was obnoxious to me and felt unreasonably frantic.     I recently bought BF3 and it is everything I've read and better.     It has huge maps and intense and indepth vehicle utilizations, as well as a nice class-progression approach to infantry.     

In terms of pure technical quality i.e. graphics, sound, animations, engine:  I would say BF3 is FARRRR "better" than COD, but, it still depends on what you're looking for when it comes to "fun" or "enjoyment" --

I've heard from BF3 finatics that the story in COD is unmatched.      so... that's what I have to say about it

hope you find what you're looking for :)

My Vote is Battlefield 3.

CoD Modern Warfare was great, but every CoD game that followed has slowly gotten worse. No progression, just pumping out the games to get your Money. The Battlefield series has done nothing but make advances to thier Series.

CoD Modern Warfare made the standard but failed to go beyond that.  I hope Modern Warfare 3 does, but given the way the last 3 were, I doubt it. The crap they passed off as Black Ops was the last straw for me. to me it was a Cartoonie Cookie Cutter game. Such a disappointment.

I pre-ordered BF3..beat the compaign in like 3 hours, then played online for like 10 hours.....then took it to Gamestop. I was so thrilled about the game but it was actually quite boring, including the multiplayer. I get my copy of MW3 in about 5 hours or so (midnight release) and I am REALLY looking forward to that story. I still have the first 2 MW titles and play them regularily. That story series is amazing. I can't wait to see how it ends.

BF3 campaign was uninspired. It's Muliplayer is unmatched on PC, but if you are buying for a console, COD will probably entertain you more. I'm sure it's campaign will also be short, but it will probably cause you to feel more. The multiplayer is fast and juvenile, but you already knew that.

Originally posted by huskie77

BF3 campaign was uninspired. It's Muliplayer is unmatched on PC, but if you are buying for a console, COD will probably entertain you more. I'm sure it's campaign will also be short, but it will probably cause you to feel more. The multiplayer is fast and juvenile, but you already knew that.

A very good point brought up here....     Whether you're playing on PC or console is another variable you might want to consider when deciding which of the two games you get.

On console, I wouldn't be surprised if COD was more satisfying than BF3, simply because of the demographic that plays consoles.     For the PC, however, i strongly suggest BF3 hands down.

Originally posted by megabuu

I pre-ordered BF3..beat the compaign in like 3 hours, then played online for like 10 hours.....then took it to Gamestop. I was so thrilled about the game but it was actually quite boring, including the multiplayer. I get my copy of MW3 in about 5 hours or so (midnight release) and I am REALLY looking forward to that story. I still have the first 2 MW titles and play them regularily. That story series is amazing. I can't wait to see how it ends.

Your kidding right.  The MW SP campaigns may not be 3 hours long but they are only about 6 hours long.  I never found the multiplayer to be boring when I played BF3 in beta and that was even only on one single map. I dont understand how you can love the MW story as its the most generic story I've ever played in a game (and I have not played BF3's single player, but thats not the reason I want the game).  

But whatever floats your boat.

I don't see the big let down of the BF3 SP mode btw...    I mean, it's obvious that the multiplayer is it's shining point, but, the single player mode was still intense imo.      The animations, voice work, emotional touches, and pace seemed pretty damn good to me.     I'm not saying the BF3 SP is "better" than MW3's, but I don't think it deserves that bad of an assessment.

BF3 for sure..

COD series is really boring when it comes to MP..  Just a kiddies arcade game really.. headshot headshot.. popping up on the screen all the time haha...

BF3 is more tactical and in depth and so much more fun in MP.. cant comment on the SP game as i have not started it and probally wont unless one day i find myself with nothing to do... BF games are not about the SP side of things and never have been.

BF3 is by far the better game... wont sell as much but the amount of sales has nothing to do with quality.

It depends on what you want out of a game.  I only like FPS style games with vehicle combat, so its BF3 for me.  Others I know like the fast paced of COD series.  Neither are better or superior to the other.  I would say you'll spend less on BF series as they do not release a whole new game each year.