Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 19, 2011 11:59:50 PM

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?
November 20, 2011 2:57:32 PM

Team Fortress 2.
November 20, 2011 4:29:54 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
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
Related resources
November 21, 2011 8:49:50 AM

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.
November 21, 2011 11:47:49 AM

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? ;) 
November 21, 2011 6:16:24 PM

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.
November 21, 2011 9:48:39 PM

robwright said:
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...
November 22, 2011 12:42:46 AM

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.
November 22, 2011 3:56:59 PM

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.
November 22, 2011 5:22:40 PM

steimy said:
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.
November 22, 2011 6:22:20 PM

PCgamer81 said:
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.
November 22, 2011 8:15:05 PM

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.
November 22, 2011 8:46:35 PM

casualcolors said:
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.
November 22, 2011 8:48:59 PM

PCgamer81 said:
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 =/.
November 22, 2011 8:49:05 PM

steimy said:
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.
November 22, 2011 8:54:09 PM

casualcolors said:
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...
November 22, 2011 9:03:24 PM

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.
November 22, 2011 9:06:14 PM

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:p 
November 22, 2011 9:19:16 PM

casualcolors said:
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.
November 22, 2011 9:21:48 PM

PCgamer81 said:
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.
November 22, 2011 9:36:00 PM

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.

November 22, 2011 10:10:38 PM

casualcolors said:
Man I could not agree more.


What did you think of Half Life 2, just out of curiosity?
November 22, 2011 10:17:49 PM

PCgamer81 said:
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.
November 23, 2011 12:05:50 AM

casualcolors said:
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?
November 23, 2011 12:22:01 AM

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.
November 23, 2011 1:03:46 AM

yogoboy said:
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.


...the few times you had a streak.
November 23, 2011 4:15:43 PM

Well... depends on what you are looking for.
This is from what I have seen during playing the games on my PC, and briefly, on a friends console.

GRAPHICS:

Battlefield 3 has the new Frostbite 2 Engine for graphics. You can get really good results with this, but depends on your system. With a console, its just another FPS with no big difference from other high quality graphics games. On PC, this is different. You can get amazing results with it, but it will require an amazing system. In my case, the graphics are great, but just not amazing. To get amazing, you spend tons of $. Frostbite 2 is claimed to have a completely destructible landscape, but it isn't quite so. When you shoot at things such as trees, you just get bullet holes, and after tons of shots in trees, they don't fall down, just more bullet holes. Additionally, there are added light "blemishes" where there are the little spots around the screen where it looks like dust particles are on your glasses. I don't like this effect at all, and wish it could be turned off. Additionally, some lighting is blinding, and it is as if you are looking directly at the sun with no sunglasses. This doesn't make any sense, and distracts from game-play. At points, you may not even see someone shooting at you because of the lighting.

Now for the graphics of Modern Warfare 3. I think they are very nice, and detailed. They certainly aren't the best, but they are good enough that you can play the game and it looks attractive. So what if it doesn't blow your hair back? The graphics go along with the game and don't distract you in any way. Most of the effects are nice, and characters are well detailed. IW didn't make any claims about their graphics, only that it was better (than the previous versions), and completely agree. You can run it on any gaming-oriented machine (>5550) at high settings. Additionally, the console version looks nice and is also optimized.

Overall, for me, its Modern Warfare, because the graphics of Battlefield distract from the game-play. As I stated, sometimes you cannot see, and in Modern Warfare 3, the graphics help the game, and up the overall experience. But this is really close, because yes, of course Battlefield is more realistic, but sometimes you care about smoothness and ease of viewing instead of realism. Many effects in both games are similar. Either way, you can't go wrong.


SINGLE PLAYER

Battlefield 3 has a vast single player experience. It includes many different vehicles, and varied mission types. It definitely tares away from the standard FPS. With its campaign, its seems almost too serious. There's nothing that's gonna blow you mind and for you to say "WOW" at. Its sorda just like you going through missions, in the typical interrogation room fashion. I personally wish that games do something more original than flashbacks, it just reminded me too much of Black Ops. Its fun, but may get boring. With the vehicle thing, you can't really choose if you want to be in or out if it, and what part of the crew you want to be. The game chooses for you. The tank mission is a good example, you can't choose what part you want to control, nor what tank, or when you get in or out if it. I think Crysis has mastered vehicles better.

If you want something exciting, get Modern Warfare 3. The game is strong and has many surprises. To me, a unexpected plane crash is way better than the ability to go in vehicles. The excitement is powerful, and the voice acting is nice. You get to know the characters of the game, and it seems more like a story than just flashbacks. It is definably less predictable. Controls feel more fluid in this game also, but it may be just because I'm used to it.

Overall, once again, I think Modern Warfare 3 has the edge here. Its simply because its exciting, and it draws you in. Flashbacks aren't really to interesting for me. If you like varying game-play styles, you can sure go with Battlefield.

I haven't really played too much multiplayer so I won't judge that. I would, but I don't want to type anymore, so I'll stop the comparison here.
November 23, 2011 5:17:31 PM

nnaatthhaannx2 said:
Well... depends on what you are looking for.
This is from what I have seen during playing the games on my PC, and briefly, on a friends console.

GRAPHICS:

Battlefield 3 has the new Frostbite 2 Engine for graphics. You can get really good results with this, but depends on your system. With a console, its just another FPS with no big difference from other high quality graphics games. On PC, this is different. You can get amazing results with it, but it will require an amazing system. In my case, the graphics are great, but just not amazing. To get amazing, you spend tons of $. Frostbite 2 is claimed to have a completely destructible landscape, but it isn't quite so. When you shoot at things such as trees, you just get bullet holes, and after tons of shots in trees, they don't fall down, just more bullet holes. Additionally, there are added light "blemishes" where there are the little spots around the screen where it looks like dust particles are on your glasses. I don't like this effect at all, and wish it could be turned off. Additionally, some lighting is blinding, and it is as if you are looking directly at the sun with no sunglasses. This doesn't make any sense, and distracts from game-play. At points, you may not even see someone shooting at you because of the lighting.

Now for the graphics of Modern Warfare 3. I think they are very nice, and detailed. They certainly aren't the best, but they are good enough that you can play the game and it looks attractive. So what if it doesn't blow your hair back? The graphics go along with the game and don't distract you in any way. Most of the effects are nice, and characters are well detailed. IW didn't make any claims about their graphics, only that it was better (than the previous versions), and completely agree. You can run it on any gaming-oriented machine (>5550) at high settings. Additionally, the console version looks nice and is also optimized.

Overall, for me, its Modern Warfare, because the graphics of Battlefield distract from the game-play. As I stated, sometimes you cannot see, and in Modern Warfare 3, the graphics help the game, and up the overall experience. But this is really close, because yes, of course Battlefield is more realistic, but sometimes you care about smoothness and ease of viewing instead of realism. Many effects in both games are similar. Either way, you can't go wrong.


SINGLE PLAYER

Battlefield 3 has a vast single player experience. It includes many different vehicles, and varied mission types. It definitely tares away from the standard FPS. With its campaign, its seems almost too serious. There's nothing that's gonna blow you mind and for you to say "WOW" at. Its sorda just like you going through missions, in the typical interrogation room fashion. I personally wish that games do something more original than flashbacks, it just reminded me too much of Black Ops. Its fun, but may get boring. With the vehicle thing, you can't really choose if you want to be in or out if it, and what part of the crew you want to be. The game chooses for you. The tank mission is a good example, you can't choose what part you want to control, nor what tank, or when you get in or out if it. I think Crysis has mastered vehicles better.

If you want something exciting, get Modern Warfare 3. The game is strong and has many surprises. To me, a unexpected plane crash is way better than the ability to go in vehicles. The excitement is powerful, and the voice acting is nice. You get to know the characters of the game, and it seems more like a story than just flashbacks. It is definably less predictable. Controls feel more fluid in this game also, but it may be just because I'm used to it.

Overall, once again, I think Modern Warfare 3 has the edge here. Its simply because its exciting, and it draws you in. Flashbacks aren't really to interesting for me. If you like varying game-play styles, you can sure go with Battlefield.

I haven't really played too much multiplayer so I won't judge that. I would, but I don't want to type anymore, so I'll stop the comparison here.


I like the BF3 single player campaign quite a bit - it provides great practice. I don't particularly care about the level design - that was where they screwed up.

nnaatthhaannx2 said:
On PC, this is different. You can get amazing results with it, but it will require an amazing system. In my case, the graphics are great, but just not amazing. To get amazing, you spend tons of $...


I don't know what you consider an amazing system, but I would hardly call my system amazing.

Here is my BF3 benchmark using fraps...


Frames - 20511
Time (ms) - 418878
Min - 27
Max - 62
Avg - 48.967

And this totally maxed out in every aspect. 1080p. V-Sync on.
November 23, 2011 6:40:49 PM

PCgamer81 said:



I don't know what you consider an amazing system, but I would hardly call my system amazing.


yea but im just sayin it cost more to get it to good fps compared to mw3
November 23, 2011 7:13:08 PM

nnaatthhaannx2 said:
yea but im just sayin it cost more to get it to good fps compared to mw3

That's reasonable though. BF3 use DX11, large scale destruction, and so on. It was made with gameplay and graphics in mind (and performance somewhat, in terms of optimization). MW3 was made with performance in mind. The only real graphics aspect in mind was high-resolution textures.
November 24, 2011 12:09:40 AM

AbdullahG said:
That's reasonable though. BF3 use DX11, large scale destruction, and so on. It was made with gameplay and graphics in mind (and performance somewhat, in terms of optimization). MW3 was made with performance in mind. The only real graphics aspect in mind was high-resolution textures.


destruction? uhh.. have you seen Crysis? the environment is effected on must things you do, and that's a game of 4 years ago!
November 24, 2011 12:21:33 AM

nnaatthhaannx2 said:
destruction? uhh.. have you seen Crysis? the environment is effected on must things you do, and that's a game of 4 years ago!

I'm aware of that...
My point is BF3 is much more demanding compared to MW3 because you are getting the latest aspects and features in gaming.
That's perfectly reasonable for why BF3 is more demanding than a DX9 game...
What's your point?
November 24, 2011 3:48:16 AM

AbdullahG said:
I'm aware of that...
My point is BF3 is much more demanding compared to MW3 because you are getting the latest aspects and features in gaming.
That's perfectly reasonable for why BF3 is more demanding than a DX9 game...
What's your point?


I think he was just trying to make friendly chit-chat by bringing up Crysis.

You are right in what you said about BF3, BTW. 100% correct.

November 24, 2011 3:52:49 AM

nnaatthhaannx2 said:
destruction? uhh.. have you seen Crysis? the environment is effected on must things you do, and that's a game of 4 years ago!


Yeah, I play Crysis maxed out - played it a few minutes ago and about to play it now. One of my favs.

On my lappy I run it on high settings with physics on very high - that is how the environment is affected - the physics setting. Being able to shoot down trees to fall on enemies, being able to pick up stuff and fling it into some korean guy's head using maximum strength - it doesn't get any better than Crysis. Except for maybe HL2.
November 24, 2011 4:53:54 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Yeah, I play Crysis maxed out - played it a few minutes ago and about to play it now. One of my favs.

On my lappy I run it on high settings with physics on very high - that is how the environment is affected - the physics setting. Being able to shoot down trees to fall on enemies, being able to pick up stuff and fling it into some korean guy's head using maximum strength - it doesn't get any better than Crysis. Except for maybe HL2.

On your laptop?! What are your specs on there?!
November 24, 2011 3:12:10 PM

u r right dude :bounce:  :sweat:  but bf3 grafix ar max out n this games ar :cry:  more real expriance :lol:  as compaire to mw3 n story r nth very gud but this games story r sososos as compair to bt3
November 24, 2011 3:14:02 PM

but crysis r max out not better run for low end grapics card like 4670 hd
November 24, 2011 5:01:43 PM

AbdullahG said:
On your laptop?! What are your specs on there?!


It's an ASUS G73JH

It has an i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz W/TB @ 2.93GHz, 6GB DDR3, and an ATI mobile HD5870.

I use to for on the go.
November 24, 2011 5:49:15 PM

PCgamer81 said:
It's an ASUS G73JH

It has an i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz W/TB @ 2.93GHz, 6GB DDR3, and an ATI mobile HD5870.

I use to for on the go.

Ah now I see. Did a bit of research (aka Google search) and it seems like your getting 50FPS on high, right? On Ultra it does seem to fall a bit short though, but then again, it's Crysis...
November 25, 2011 3:55:47 AM

AbdullahG said:
Ah now I see. Did a bit of research (aka Google search) and it seems like your getting 50FPS on high, right? On Ultra it does seem to fall a bit short though, but then again, it's Crysis...


I get about 20 maxed out.

I get 40-50 on high.
November 25, 2011 8:34:29 PM

One thing I will say for Battlefield 3 that it really gets right, is the M9 pistol. I shot this gun quite a lot when I was in the military and it was the predominant LE sidearm that I carried. I also own an Italian produced 92fs with the military m9 straight eight(snowman) sights. The gun feels very much in battlefield 3 like it does in real life to me, which is exceedingly geeky thing to say but it is still admirable to see them execute things like that. MW3's guns really feel like they have no weight to me. Then again, that's the same problem from MW2 and MW1 because they are all 3 the same game.

Now all of that is strictly a personal taste thing. If you like arcade style shoot-em-up then I really doubt feeling realism in the weapons is your primary concern (and is more likely a primary detraction from the game since it takes away from people who can rapidly spam shots on target with a mouse) and since that is what Modern Warfare 3 caters to best, it's probably not an issue for the loyal fans of the series.
November 25, 2011 8:43:28 PM

I love BF3 a lot more which is why when my computer wouldn't run it I had to go out and buy the xbox 360 version ;) 

Graphics, sounds, and gameplay are so much better too
November 26, 2011 7:43:15 AM

casualcolors said:
One thing I will say for Battlefield 3 that it really gets right, is the M9 pistol. I shot this gun quite a lot when I was in the military and it was the predominant LE sidearm that I carried. I also own an Italian produced 92fs with the military m9 straight eight(snowman) sights. The gun feels very much in battlefield 3 like it does in real life to me, which is exceedingly geeky thing to say but it is still admirable to see them execute things like that. MW3's guns really feel like they have no weight to me. Then again, that's the same problem from MW2 and MW1 because they are all 3 the same game.

Now all of that is strictly a personal taste thing. If you like arcade style shoot-em-up then I really doubt feeling realism in the weapons is your primary concern (and is more likely a primary detraction from the game since it takes away from people who can rapidly spam shots on target with a mouse) and since that is what Modern Warfare 3 caters to best, it's probably not an issue for the loyal fans of the series.


Great points.
November 29, 2011 2:58:13 PM

minekopanda said:
I love BF3 a lot more which is why when my computer wouldn't run it I had to go out and buy the xbox 360 version ;) 

Graphics, sounds, and gameplay are so much better too


I own the PC version of BF3 and recently had the opportunity to play it on the PS3 and man I couldn't believe the difference between the two. I'm not trying to bash consoles as I game on all 3, with PC being #1, but man, what a difference.
November 29, 2011 3:16:31 PM

From_Canada said:
I own the PC version of BF3 and recently had the opportunity to play it on the PS3 and man I couldn't believe the difference between the two. I'm not trying to bash consoles as I game on all 3, but PC being #1, but man, what a difference.


Yeah, I didn't want to crush that girl, but you're right 100%.

BF3 was made for PC. The difference is astounding.

I run BF3 max settings in full 1080p on my PC, and I have an Xbox 360 that I use for Netflix and Halo. The console version looks like total garbage, and I am not exaggerating. If I didn't have a PC that could run it, I would sell a kidney or something - I would figure something out. Because console is blasphemy when it comes to BF3.
December 5, 2011 7:09:30 PM

i have now played BF3 on multiplayer and i take back most of my comments on the graphics. I say that BF3 is much better than modern warfare in many ways. For some reason, the Single Player campaign completely sucks not only in gameplay but in graphic elements as well.
The multiplayer graphics are completely different than the single player ones. Things are destructible and way less linear. You can explore maps in more detail in multiplayer and it is really great.
The other problem is the stupid browser-based system. That bothers me wayyyy to much.
December 6, 2011 10:39:32 AM

nnaatthhaannx2 said:
i have now played BF3 on multiplayer and i take back most of my comments on the graphics. I say that BF3 is much better than modern warfare in many ways. For some reason, the Single Player campaign completely sucks not only in gameplay but in graphic elements as well.
The multiplayer graphics are completely different than the single player ones. Things are destructible and way less linear. You can explore maps in more detail in multiplayer and it is really great.
The other problem is the stupid browser-based system. That bothers me wayyyy to much.


Yep, BF3 is meant to be played online, that's for sure.

Yeah, Battlelog sucks.
December 6, 2011 12:43:48 PM

PCgamer81 said:
Yep, BF3 is meant to be played online, that's for sure.

Yeah, Battlelog sucks.



Honestly, I have come to like battlelog. I find it very fast to exit a game and find a new one. No need to start up the game (and possibly watch non skip-able intro videos) every time you want to play a MP match. Sure the load times can be a little bit excessive but that's why I'll be getting an SSD some time in the near future.
December 6, 2011 1:37:33 PM

It's a long reply so...

Summary:
SP: MW3>BF3
MP: MW3 <> BF3

Details:

Strictly speaking with regards to the PC platform, i believe both games were very successful in sales and in attaining their technological objectives. They wanted MW3 to look good while running smooth (avg 60FPS) on the average PC rig. BF3 wanted to push the limits with it's looks, it's realistic achivements (of being part of a battlefield) and of being capable of playing with lots of people in the same battlefield. I give them both props for what they created.

As for choosing between MW3 and BF3, it's a little hard because they're both fullfilling in their own way. Nothing beats the feeling you get of being part of a full on 32vs32 player match (specially if you're playing with friends) in BF3. If you can, running the game at maxed out visuals simply extends the realism of being part of the experience. Flying jets, helicopters, or other land vehicles to get to destinations/support your squad is something that MW3 will never provide (and is something BF3 excels at).

On the other hand, if you like to be a one-man-army, Rambo, king of the mountain, then MW3 will drop to your knees and give you everytime you wanted. It's MW2 but a little more balanced. I'm just waiting to see if MW3 hacks will be as bad as MW2 (which wasn't supported at all regarding this issue and as a result, ruined the MP experience).

Single Player:
- BF3: full of wow moments -visually amazing (i.e. The jet mission), and much like MOH, had a somewhat realistic feel to it. The cutscenes were a waste of time and the story (well, what story?) sucked. The campaign was also extremely short. BF3 is not recommended for SP playthrough only. COOP is ok (it's a much appreciated bonus, nothing more though).
- MW3: Story was pretty good (not excellent) and did a pretty good job at follow-ing up MW2's plot. I enjoyed a couple of "holy sh*t" moments (i.e. subway scene in paris) but I found they tried a little too hard sometimes with a few cheap shots (i.e. little girl/mother/you scene). Campaign was longer than BF3.

My opinion: I like both. In Multiplayer: I'll play BF3 for a week and miss the simplicity of MW3, so I'll switch for a week...and then get bored/fed up of young kids raking up kills (and not play objective) so I'll switch back to BF3, and so on, and so on...

Who's better? Both military shooters but the gameplay environment is too different to make a proper comparison. Sure you can compare performance, visuals, etc. but you can't compare a 32vs32 player match experience with a last man standing in Search and Destroy while planting a bomb and hoping no one's around. They are both awesome IMO.
!