Battlefield3 mw3 vs bf3

[Deleted4404112User]

You can compare these two games but they're not in the same category. Battlefield 3 is more of a military simulation shooter as it always has been, while Modern Warfare 3 is more of an action/arcade regular shooter. Personally I would choose Battlefield 3 because it has better gameplay, tactical strategy, ability to use vehicles, maps are huge, more weapons to choose from, objectives, visuals look great etc. Modern Warfare 3 seems just like counter strike to me in which you just kill the other team the entire time although there is several objective type game modes to choose from. The MW3 community is full of whiny younger kids and trash talking players who take the game way too seriously. The Battlefield 3 community is more respected. If you're looking for realism go with Battlefield but if your looking for a fast paced unrealistic shooter go with Call of Duty.

[TheDimitrijSquirrel]

im sick of these massivelly stupid ppl who say "they are two entire different games, you cant compare them". YOU CAN. one MUST be better. and that is clearly bf3

 

@VileTouch its your pc brah. mine works perfectly fine

Edited July 25, 2012 by TheDimitrijSquirrel

[Halororor]

im sick of these massivelly stupid ppl who say "they are two entire different games, you cant compare them". YOU CAN. one MUST be better. and that is clearly bf3

 

@VileTouch its your pc brah. mine works perfectly fine

 

Yes, after playing both extensively, I agree, they can be compared. The comparison leads to the conclusion that both are unrealistic twitch-shooters, with BF3 just being a bit slower paced than CoD.

[hoofhearted4]

im sick of these massivelly stupid ppl who say "they are two entire different games, you cant compare them". YOU CAN. one MUST be better. and that is clearly bf3

 

@VileTouch its your pc brah. mine works perfectly fine

 

Yes, after playing both extensively, I agree, they can be compared. The comparison leads to the conclusion that both are unrealistic twitch-shooters, with BF3 just being a bit slower paced than CoD.

 

agreed

[james234]

battlefield 3 was better. more realistic and awesome. call of duty? unrealistic game ever? yes. seriously? acog on 60's? red dot on 60's? abusive tacticool attachment like pointless heartbeat sensor? afganishtan on first modern warfare with us army vs terrorist and the aftermath is nuked town? zombie mode? famas and aug in 1960's? raygun? freeze ray? and lame first mw ending? "just shoot the enemy" tactics? online mode with noobs player? tacti-cool weapon abuse and bullying? even sweetwater from bad company 2 says "they just sent special ops douchebag with pussy ass heartbeat sensor.....

[Vindekarr]

Though comparable, they are equal enough that you could get a great deal of enjoyment out of either. I am really enjoying Black Ops 2-I tend to play for the story and gameplay rather than the multiplayer' BF3 really disapointed me because they followed up Bad Company 2(which was one of the best shooters I've played) with a short, hackneyed, and all round lousey campaign that was just a string of slow-mo breaching and terrorist shooting. B2's futuristic setting, huge arsenal, and tendancy for craziness makes it's campaign genuinely entertaining if nothing else: riding a horse while shooting a minigun and a golden RPG? FTW!

 

On multiplayer as far as I'm concerned, they're equal. Morbidly unrealistic, twitch-shooters which will suit some and revolt others. I've played both franchises extensively, and I preffer COD's approach. With COD, you trade off the vehicles and the huge maps for more focused, corridor/building action. Maps are small, funneled kill-zones, perfectly layed out for an all out firefight. BF3 is for those who like big battles, it's extensive vehicle arsenal, huge maps, and titanic scale add a vast new layer of depth, but mean the infantry fights are nowhere near as focused or balanced, usually being a zergfest followed by one team being base-camped for the rest of the game.

 

Call Of Duty's community has changed a lot over the years, with the current stereotype owing it's roots to MW2. Nowadays I would describe the average COD players as being like Hank Hill, or maybe Peter Griffin. They're average in every way, usually playing to relax. Yet with B2, COD has tried from the very outset to mark itself as an E-Sports venue, and the next change may again see a swing towards a more hardcore community. Time will tell. Certainly there's a lot of shouting, swearing, and namecalling, but that occurs in almost every game, and if it bothers you, you can just switch it off. Personally I think it's hilarious; it adds an extra incentive to teabag their corpse.

 

BattleField's community are usually more hardcore players. They tend to play to win, and this makes them fiercely competitive and some of them are truly amazing shots. However this is a double edged sword; you'll meet players here who'll truly test your mettle, but in my experience, the recoil of this is a general air of arrogance; most BF3 players, in my experience, are even less graceful in (temporary) defeat than B2 players. The thing I don't like is this attitude that the game is somehow realistic. It isn't. Infact, I dare say they're both about as realistic as an anger powered jetpack.

 

VERDICT: I am, I always will, preffer a Halo game over a COD or a BF, but of the two I'd pick Black Ops 2 by a narrow margin. The reason for this is it's a much more accessable game; BF3's achilles heel is that with so many vehicles, guns, and both sides having their own unlock trees, it takes an absolute age to unlock a good loadout for both teams, and in my experience you won't get into many matches without one. In COD, while in depth, it's class creator gives good gear early, meaning you don't have to grind for weeks to have good equipment. It's this pick-up-and-play, along with it's more imaginative setting, greater mode diversity, and hilariously OP top tier gear, makes it the winner in my opinion.

 

 

James, a note for you.

 

ACOG type scopes are infact, a very old technology indeed. They first featured on fighter aircraft circa 1939, with the North American Brewster Buffalo being a good example; having a large ACOG type gunsight mounted directly in front of the pilot. Many similar devices were used all throughout WWII on a variety of aircraft, and later on, ground vehicles, before making their way into sports use, and finally, the army.

 

Red Dot sights are extremely simple devices, relying on a simple reflection of light onto a lense. They would have been completely possible in the 1960s.

 

The nuke was not set off by the Americans OR OPFOR. Instead, Makarov's men detonated it, to hide any evidence that Al Asad might have simply been a pawn of a large organisation(the Inner Circle)

 

Zombies is portayed in a fantasy setting, seemingly as part of a comicbook. It makes sense that if there are zombies, teleporters, and mad scientists, a ray gun won't be far behind.

 

Both the AUG and FAMAS are both old weapons dating back to the early 1970s. Black Ops 1 is set around 1968-69, making an early prototype of either quite plausible due to their high ballistic performance and compactness, relative to other weapons of the period, such as the painfully deficient early M16s, and taking into account the decade or so it usually takes to get a gun from prototype to takeup. The AUG came standard with an ACOG optic.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Vindekarr

[james234]

@Vindekarr

 

if famas are exist in 1968 then why russian have it? they don't suppose to have it and aug too.......

[Vindekarr]

Mercenaries. Why did the Americans have it? Why are there Russians with M1 Garands in BF?

 

BF3 isn't much more realistic. Jets with no electronics. Missiles being confused simply by smoke. One man dying from an umbreller yet another man surviving being directly within the fireball range of a tactical nuke. Both games are hideously unrealistic, if you want to play a realistic shooter, i suggest America's Army. Personally, I like shooters unrealistic though, and preffer it when they're honest about it rather than pretending they're somehow realistic. I mean, come on, in Battlefield, you've got infantry running around flying jet airplanes with no training, ships with no crew, military equipment that miraculously regenerates if the engine is turned off, and Assault Rifles which are better at long ranger than sniper rifles. Not to mention dress code violations, Russians and Americans both using neutral equipment, and vietnam era tech in what, 2015?

 

No, I preffer games which are genuinely, and honestly, unrealistic. Realism is boring, if I wanted a realistic shooter I'd join the frickin' army. I'd much rather pwn noobs through three walls with a railgun, COD can scratch that itch, Battlefield can;t, and Halo can do it better anyway, even if it's Railgun doesn't go through walls, being, somewhat redundantly I might add, an explosive flechette.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Vindekarr

[beastJane]

For me - Battlefield is just classic.

[ApacheGrey]

Really depends on preference. There is no "one is better than the other" because in the end they're all just opinions, but if I had to choose I'd pick Battlefield. I enjoy having a more tactical approach at victory and I've found there's a larger demand for tactical thinking in Battlefield than in CoD.