Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3

[PCgamer81]

In the last month, Battlefield 3 has already sold over 5 million copies, becoming DICE's most successful project to date. On the other side, we have Modern Warfare 3, which is the crown jewel of the gaming juggernaut, Infinity Ward. Modern Warfare 3 is breaking records, having already sold nearly 7 million copies in under two weeks, far surpassing Battlefield 3 - having sold approximately 2 million more copies in half the time. But that is by no means an indicator of superior quality. In fact, press and fans alike have been raving about the multiplayer aspect of BF3, and already the general consensus is that it is a far better multiplayer experience then Infinity Ward's effort.

But what do you think?

All things considered, which is the better game?

 

[Mid-highgfx]

Team Fortress 2.

 

[bdizzle11]

Team Fortress 2.

Good enough for a minor chuckle.

Battlefield 3 hands down. Ive always been more of a cod player but the graphics mixed with the just better gameplay in general is a win. I love the sounds of the game in my headset and sniping is super fun. Ive played both, sure MW3 is good for some short fun but it always ends up leaving you more frustrated than battlefield

 

[yasir siddiqui]

Modern Warfare 3 is much better then from battlefield 3, mw3 has powerful story, awesome game play, wonderful guns and Graphics. I played both games and i like mw3 as compare to bf3.

 

[Hawkeye22]

The single player campaign is about the same. The only difference is MW3 has a story continuation from MW2 where as BF3 has no story to continue from.

In multiplayer, BF3 is better than MW3. I've always liked the battlefield series better. How can you have a battle without vehicles?

 

[robwright]

I'm still a big single player campaign guy, so take this for what it's worth....

I have to go with MW3 on this one, if only because it was what I expected. I really, really wanted to like BF3, and I thought DICE had a great opportunity to go in a different direction than CoD -- but it just ended up being a better looking version of MW. The single player campaign was fumbled badly. The environments are gorgeous, but you can't flank enemies because...the "combat area" is too narrow? Poor design decision. Plus, I didn't care for how BF3 ripped off some of MW's hallmark's like "Death From Above" and the xecution scene. Sure, the MP is a lot of fun (vehicles!!!) and I'll spend plenty of hours on it.....but the SP was a big disappointment, and it's been hard to get that awful taste out of my mouth.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm still a big single player campaign guy, so take this for what it's worth....

I have to go with MW3 on this one, if only because it was what I expected. I really, really wanted to like BF3, and I thought DICE had a great opportunity to go in a different direction than CoD -- but it just ended up being a better looking version of MW. The single player campaign was fumbled badly. The environments are gorgeous, but you can't flank enemies because...the "combat area" is too narrow? Poor design decision. Plus, I didn't care for how BF3 ripped off some of MW's hallmark's like "Death From Above" and the xecution scene. Sure, the MP is a lot of fun (vehicles!!!) and I'll spend plenty of hours on it.....but the SP was a big disappointment, and it's been hard to get that awful taste out of my mouth.

Ouch...

 

[bdizzle11]

Yeah Ill agree that the single play sucked on BF3, but neither game is made for the single player. People will end up putting 5-10 hours in single player then 200+ into multiplayer. And that is where BF3 takes the cake.

 

[steimy]

Man, this have to be about the 10th BF3 VS MW3 thread since their release.

Frankly it is a matter of taste, neither game is "better" than the other.
If i had to break it down:

Single player goes to MW3 hands down. I found the SP in BF3 fairly boring.

Co-Op is about the same, both fun

Graphics would go to BF3 without question

Multi-player is a matter of taste. I think BF3 has a more team oriented tactical aspect. But personally I am not a fan of the huge maps and all the vehicles. But again this is personal preference because i still play both. The vehicles are one of the main drawing factors for a lot of people.

COD is what it has always been. A more run and gun sort of shooter. I think it is a lot easier to just pick up, play, and get good at than Battlefield which is a reason it is wildly popular. Also the fact that even though they really don't seem to release anything that i would call revolutionary, they do release consistently solid games tat stick to what their fans like.

 

[PCgamer81]

Man, this have to be about the 10th BF3 VS MW3 thread since their release.

Frankly it is a matter of taste, neither game is "better" than the other.
If i had to break it down:

Single player goes to MW3 hands down. I found the SP in BF3 fairly boring.

Co-Op is about the same, both fun

Graphics would go to BF3 without question

Multi-player is a matter of taste. I think BF3 has a more team oriented tactical aspect. But personally I am not a fan of the huge maps and all the vehicles. But again this is personal preference because i still play both. The vehicles are one of the main drawing factors for a lot of people.

COD is what it has always been. A more run and gun sort of shooter. I think it is a lot easier to just pick up, play, and get good at than Battlefield which is a reason it is wildly popular. Also the fact that even though they really don't seem to release anything that i would call revolutionary, they do release consistently solid games tat stick to what their fans like.

I own Battlefield 3, but not Modern Warfare 3. I do own Modern Warfare 2, and I still play it. I plan to get Modern Warfare 3 at some point.

But, I will say this...

If Modern Warfare 3 is anything like Modern Warfare 2, than Battlefield 3 dispatches it with extreme prejudice, and it's not even close.

 

[steimy]

I own Battlefield 3, but not Modern Warfare 3. I do own Modern Warfare 2, and I still play it. I plan to get Modern Warfare 3 at some point.

But, I will say this...

If Modern Warfare 3 is anything like Modern Warfare 2, than Battlefield 3 dispatches it with extreme prejudice, and it's not even close.

It pretty simple. If your liked MW2 then you will like MW3. COD doesn't really change up their recipe all that much.
But as far as comparisons between BF3 and MW3 they are really two different animals. Which is why comparing them is fairly pointless IMHO.

 

[casualcolors]

Concerning multiplayer (which is the only thing anyone can really be concerned with in either game, the single player campaigns are 4-6 hour minor ordeals), Battlefield 3 hands down provided everything that was promised in terms of a very strong and well rounded game engine and did a nice job of merging aspects of Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2 into a very fun gaming experience.

I have no personal beef with the COD series, and I just like games in general, but I think the combination of a very outdated game engine being sold at an incredibly high retail price as well as BF3's TDM multiplayer match mode essentially beating COD at its own game (for now) should all be considered pretty insulting on Infinity Ward's part from COD players' perspectives. It is unfortunate that anything even remotely associated with Activision immediately reflects penny-pinching corporate garbage (and don't think EA is any different. the fact they haven't ruined Battlefield's series yet is literally a miracle and probably an accident).

I think instead of trying to compare which game is better, which is completely suggestive, gamers who are fans of all FPS genre games should start looking to the publishers to provide the necessary time and resources to development teams to keep getting games that we can all mutually agree are revolutionary. It would certainly make the argument over BF3 vs. MW3 a moot point if both games blew the hinges off the gaming world's doors.

 

[PCgamer81]

Concerning multiplayer (which is the only thing anyone can really be concerned with in either game, the single player campaigns are 4-6 hour minor ordeals), Battlefield 3 hands down provided everything that was promised in terms of a very strong and well rounded game engine and did a nice job of merging aspects of Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2 into a very fun gaming experience.

I have no personal beef with the COD series, and I just like games in general, but I think the combination of a very outdated game engine being sold at an incredibly high retail price as well as BF3's TDM multiplayer match mode essentially beating COD at its own game (for now) should all be considered pretty insulting on Infinity Ward's part from COD players' perspectives. It is unfortunate that anything even remotely associated with Activision immediately reflects penny-pinching corporate garbage (and don't think EA is any different. the fact they haven't ruined Battlefield's series yet is literally a miracle and probably an accident).

I think instead of trying to compare which game is better, which is completely suggestive, gamers who are fans of all FPS genre games should start looking to the publishers to provide the necessary time and resources to development teams to keep getting games that we can all mutually agree are revolutionary. It would certainly make the argument over BF3 vs. MW3 a moot point if both games blew the hinges off the gaming world's doors.

True.

But, games like that don't come around but once in a generation. Games like Half Life, or the original Call of Duty, for example.

 

[casualcolors]

True.

But, games like that don't come around but once in a generation. Games like Half Life, or the original Call of Duty, for example.

Games that could be considered worth getting excited for and somewhat revolutionary used to come out all the time. Basically every time a new wave of games was released lol. I consider call of duty and half life to be very modern games and part of the era of declining publisher effort and hamstrung dev teams. Then again, I'm old =/.

 

[PCgamer81]

It pretty simple. If your liked MW2 then you will like MW3. COD doesn't really change up their recipe all that much.
But as far as comparisons between BF3 and MW3 they are really two different animals. Which is why comparing them is fairly pointless IMHO.

I not only liked MW2, I loved it.

I would even go as far to say that I prefer the ballistics engine in MW over BF's. To me, Infinity Ward's engine is a lot of fun.

But BF3 just has to much "oomph", and MW just can't hang in the long run.

 

[PCgamer81]

Games that could be considered worth getting excited for and somewhat revolutionary used to come out all the time. Basically every time a new wave of games was released lol. I consider call of duty and half life to be very modern games and part of the era of declining publisher effort and hamstrung dev teams. Then again, I'm old =/.

I'm old too, and I loved the original Half Life and CoD. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and Counter-Strike are some other good ones.

I bet you are more of a Doom/SWTF/Warcraft era kind of guy...

 

[casualcolors]

Don't get me wrong though, Half-Life and Deus Ex are sick games, and were great for their time. We should expect that to be the standard though, when the retail price of DIGITAL games is regularly exceeding 59.99.

 

[yimmi]

Both are great games but MW3 is the same game actually,I bought BF3 because I like it's multiplayer,it is in a more strategy mood.I could say bf3 better graphics and mw3 much faster you decide

 

[PCgamer81]

Don't get me wrong though, Half-Life and Deus Ex are sick games, and were great for their time. We should expect that to be the standard though, when the retail price of DIGITAL games is regularly exceeding 59.99.

Well, I threw down about 67$ when BF3 hit, and I feel like I got my $ worth.

Most games aren't worth it, though.

The worst mistake I remember making was when I threw down a small fortune on Fallout 3 SE and a separate guide. I didn't even get halfway through it, the game tanked bad - I basically shelled out big time on another Oblivion.

I was sick.

 

[casualcolors]

Well, I threw down about 67$ when BF3 hit, and I feel like I got my $ worth.

Most games aren't worth it, though.

The worst mistake I remember making was when I threw down a small fortune on Fallout 3 SE and a separate guide. I didn't even get halfway through it, the game tanked bad - I basically shelled out big time on another Oblivion.

I was sick.

Man I could not agree more.

 

[AbdullahG]

Not much of a fan of warfare shooters, but I'll give you my input:

BF3: Great game in terms of multiplayer. Vehicles, large maps, aerial battles, destruction and much more. It's single player falls a bit short IMO. Somewhat linear to me. Is it worth the $60? Sure, but being a guy who plays single player first, and wants a great, new story, I would say it's worth $45 or $50 at most. It deserved the great reviews it received, but it's not perfect.

MW3: I'll say it's a good game. Not much has been improved from MW2 (or should I say MW1). Just a few add-ons and a different story. However, it's multiplayer is somewhat more fast-paced that BF3's. It's story is debatable. It's story was fun IMO, but it wasn't something I would play over and over again. Is it worth $60? No. It's just a modified version of MW2. I'd say it's worth $30 at most. I'll admit it's a fun game, but it does not deserve the high ratings it received.

 

[PCgamer81]

Man I could not agree more.

What did you think of Half Life 2, just out of curiosity?

 

[casualcolors]

What did you think of Half Life 2, just out of curiosity?

Great game. Sick of seeing its 2d ladders in modern games though lol.

 

[PCgamer81]

Great game. Sick of seeing its 2d ladders in modern games though lol.

I don't think that we can expect much improvement from PC development. Games that aren't "consolized" are still held back on, as they want the game accessible to more people - sales won't be so hot if only 1% of PC owners can play it well.

Makes me wonder, just what are we capable of today?

 

[yogoboy]

COD has more highs but that comes with more lows, and the moments of frustration always seemed to overtake whatever good time I had. While BF felt awkward at first I eventually got a hang of the controls. I also enjoyed the slow casual like pace of it. Best of all the shotguns were awesome, only thing I ended up using on BF. Slap on slugs for big maps and buckshot for close quarters. And the lack of kill streaks made no difference for when I died. In COD I would get so annoyed when something stupid ended my streak.