Personal Opinion: What is better Battlefield 3 or COD Modern Warfare 3

[xXlakratoXx]

Hello forum

 

I've been wondering if BF3 or MW3 is better because I gonna pre-order one of them.

I already asked my friends what is better but it was 50-50.

So I had no choice to ask forum.

Would be great if someone give a overall opinion about what is better.

 

[DaJinari]

You know, i've seen this same topic posting on several forums and i will be surprised if it doesn't become a fanboy flamewar.

 

But on the matter at hand, i wouldn't preorder either. Due to the fact both games predecessors let me down on their release. I'm not standing in line for 4 hours like i did for black ops. After black ops i went back to mw2 and cod4. Cod4 being the best game in that series in my personal opinion. As for battlefield, i will stick to the good old BF2 days, seeing how it's rare to find a team on bc2 that actually plays as a team.

Edited July 26, 2011 by DaJinari

[yoba333]

I can't tell which one is better, mainly because they haven't come out. Battlefield does look better, however, and I enjoyed BF2 better than any Call of Duty game. I'll be pre-ordering Battlefield 3 next month most likely.

[Genzel]

They are both quite different types of first person shooters. It all depends on the experience you want, and it's hard to say which one you will like more. CoD quicker, more lone wolf, and arguably less skill based. From what I hear, Battlefield should be more tactical and team based, with a slower gameplay speed.

[Vindekarr]

OK: I've played both series' last installments pretty extensively, so I'll give you a rundown of the previous generation in lieu of not actualy owning either BF3 or MW3.

 

OK, COD first:

 

First, let me say that it's an OK FPS. It's alright, nothing massively wrong with it, but at the same time, nothing ever really jumps out at you-it's very much like a hollywood movie, all about guns and explosions and bugger all plot. The Multiplayer I would say is a major letdown, Modern Warfare back in donkeys years ago had a superb MP but it's gotten progressively nerfed into oblivion in recent games, to the point that nowadays virtualy all weapons are the same within their class. The real problem here is not the game but the abnoxious community-it's extremely unfriendly, and if you think that it's just a stereotype that it's full of ragers and whiners, then I have bad news fo you-it's full of raging, whining people, mainly adults acting like five year olds, and the shear uniformity of this-literaly every game having atleast one mankiddie-ruins this otherwise mediocre game for me.

 

The other main problem is camping: in COD it's possible to set up sentry guns, and also to use infrared cameras and motion detectors in multiplayer, to the point that most players just set up near a spawnpoint and spend the whole game camping to improve their stats, it's not much fun, and in most games you'd be able to break out of it, but in COD there's no real wauy to do that-you cant change spawn location, and if they fire first, then chances are you're stuffed, reflexes are that critical here. Overall it's a bit average-a big budget game selling on it's fanbase and prevbious success, and if you like twitch shooters and trash talk, you'll love it, but if you want tactics or god forbid teamwork, it's not for you.

 

Graphics: 7/10

 

Gameplay, SP: 6/10

 

Gameplay, MP: 7/10

 

Game Balance, general: 5/10

 

Reliability: 9/10

 

Community: 2/10

 

Funfactor: 7/10

 

Battlefield:

 

The polar opposite of COD, Battlefield is a slower paced, slightly insane class N team based shoot em up. This is fundamentaly a team sport-you feel this the moment you walk in-there's four distinct classes with four distinct roles: medic, sniper, soldier, engineer. The other main point of destinction is that COD's multiplayer is based around deathmatch, BattleField is based around team objective games-the shear dependancy on teamwork also produces a vastly diferent atmosphere, and while the community is a bit less spirited, they're also much friendlier here-they have to be-because while a good player can do a lot solo, a good team steamrolls a bad one. It's a slightly manic game-the fact that everyone has an explosive weapon and that there's rarely not mortars and helicopter rockets not raining on you, and the fully destructible environment, gives it a shear insanity and confusion that COD simply doesnt have.

 

Gameplay is strong here-the shear balance is it's greatest strength-get shot from behind and you might actualy be able to fight back-aswell there's a much higher emphasis on skills as headshots are vital with SMGs and Rifles, and all weapons have significant Bullet Drop over a distance. Even vehicles all have a weakness, and a good player can kill a bad tank easily while a good tank bulldozes a bad team. Camping can be a problem here as well but being able to change spawns tends to self-correct this, and in some servers spawncampers get auto-booted. Team tactics are vital and the community has grown up around reliance on teams-jerks happen but they're rarer and sometimes even get booted for being jerks, futhermore it also has a built in HAX detector, which auto-boots and auto-shames cheats, which is always fun. "Bob111 banned from server due to hacking attempt-aimbot" This game is very very suitablke to those seeking a tactical and strategic experience, but equaly not suited to those seeking a twitch or reflex shooter.

 

Taking popularity out of it BF is a somewhat better game-the destructible environments, vastly better balance, and sometimes huge maps make it a generaly higher quality game excluding a rare few minor reliability twitches and bugs, and being much more PC intensive, but the diference in gameplay type evens this out-if you like twitch response, ultra fast paced shooters then buy COD, if you want a slower team game buy BF, simple as that.

 

Graphics: 8/10

 

Gameplay, SP: 6/10

 

Gameplay, MP: 9/10

 

Game Balance-general: 9/10

 

Reliability: 7/10

 

Community 6/10

 

Funfactor 8/10

[xXlakratoXx]

Thank you I think I gonna buy BF3 because u convinced me that Battlefield is better.

[ub3rman123]

I can't vote for TF2, can I? I'll steal Vindekarr's rating system...

 

Graphics: 5/10

 

Gameplay, SP: 3/10 (Single player? Hah, what single player?)

 

Gameplay, MP: 9/10

 

Game Balance-general: 10/10

 

Reliability: 9/10

 

Community 9/10

 

Funfactor 8/10

 

Aside from that.. I'd vote for Battlefield 3.

[hoofhearted4]

i also prefer BF3. i like the whole play as a team aspect. ya sure you can try to lone wolf on it, maybe youll do good, but most likely your team wont win. knowing what your doing and playing your class like its supposed to be played is key in the game. if you wanna try to camp, go for it. it will prolly work for a little bit, until a sniper finds you. stay in the attic of a house peeking out the corner of the window..hard to be sniped, but say goodbye to the front of your house.

 

on that note, the biggest plus for me for battlefield, besides the teamwork, is the destructible enviros. the game changes constantly. camping points dont last long. people need to run around so your not just in one spot. if you stay in one spot you WILL die. destroying the landscape is the best part of the game. not only is it fun, but it makes the game more tactical .

[CommanderCrazy]

I have an almost PERFECT team, comprised of me and 3 guys i know. We always join the same squad, we communicate with voice via Teamspeak.

We play 2 medics, 2 assaults. The medics assure that it is dificult to stay dead, and the assaults keep everyone topped up. Works a charm.

On some maps, I snipe as well, with a medic covering me. NOTE: Sniping =/= Camping. I dont stay in the same spot for more than 10-15 seconds unless pinned or i can see multiple kills.

 

Its the fact that you can do teamwork like that, that makes Battlefield my game of choice. Its just so damn GOOD.

CoD's definition of teamwork: Something to NOT shoot at.

Edited July 27, 2011 by CommanderCrazy

[Vagrant0]

Always preferred Battlefield's methods... Emphasis on team play, good mix of strategy while still having those periods of fast action. The fact that although you unlocked new weapons and gear as you played, most of the equipment you unlocked was marginally comparable to the standard set, so what weapons you used was more of a personal preference instead of being some "New level, new gun" mechanic. Not only does this make the game more interesting from a tactics standpoint, but it also means that high level players are usually good because they're good, rather than just because they have better gear.

 

The F2P version of Battlezone on Steam disgusted me beyond words, not only because it's a blatent copy of Battlefield, but because it decided to ignore this point and worse... Monetize it, essentially falling into that horrible "buying power" model. Even if the game was playable with an ATI card... I wouldn't play it.

 

 

Never played COD outside of the single player WWII games for PS2... But, if it's anything like these games, it's based too largely on the run, gun, and camp mentality, which frankly, gets boring. The fact that the community of COD players tends to come off as the most annoying, whiny, skill-less, sort of player, who only enjoys quick rush gaming*... Doesn't make things better.

 

 

*Quick Rush gaming is essentially the sort of game that relies on the practice of 1 hit kills and overwhelming odds, where the only value in the game is seeing how long you can live, and being able to brag about it to your friends.