Battlefield3 mw3 vs bf3

[Ghogiel]

lol By comparing them! :whistling:

 

well done, you proved they are different games. I knew that by their titles alone

Edited January 16, 2012 by Ghogiel

[PowderdToastMan]

These are the same "type" of game. They both online mulitplayer first person shooters. They are targeted at the EXACT same demographic. DICE even said that their goal is to unseat COD as the reigning champion. Because, on a large scale, their gameplay is slightly different makes it a stretch to claim that they are different genre's which is what you are trying to do.

 

The equivilant of what you are trying to say is that these games are as different as skyrim and battlefield. When in reality these two games are as different as skyrim and dragon age.

 

Both games use players shooting at each other to complete an objective or kill the remaining enemy team, therefore they are the same type of game and can be compared on merit. Instead of pointing out that these two games are a different genre, you have successfully pointed out the merits of what make the two games unique within the same genre. But trying to claim that, for example, one has vehicles and one doesnt seperates them by classification, is a stretch.

[SubjectProphet]

I'm looking at this argument and laughing. First I see that someone is trying to say that BF3 and MW3 are similair. Lie. They are COMPLETLY different. Second this whole thread is comparing the two as if they were the same game. The only thing COD likes to argue about is Teryarch and IW, thus they don't respond to the stupid flamewar that BF starts over COD. This is like comparing Skyrim to Revelations. Two different concepts, two different engines, two different games. It's not working. COD doesn't beat BF as COD focusses off of Fast paced action and more on the high kill side, whilist in BF, one person on the team could earn 75 kills, but an enemy squad could earn 75 kills total and win over that good player.

 

If you don't see where I'm going, then basicly, here it is: You can't compare these two, they're different, they won't win over each other as both sides have different opinions in gameplay.

[hoofhearted4]

of course they have differences. no one said they are carbon copies. they arent exactly the same, no s***! but they are similar enough to be compared.

[Ghogiel]

 

If you don't see where I'm going, then basicly, here it is: You can't compare these two, they're different, they won't win over each other as both sides have different opinions in gameplay.

How do you know they are different unless you compare them. :facepalm:

[PowderdToastMan]

I'm looking at this argument and laughing. First I see that someone is trying to say that BF3 and MW3 are similair. Lie. They are COMPLETLY different. Second this whole thread is comparing the two as if they were the same game. The only thing COD likes to argue about is Teryarch and IW, thus they don't respond to the stupid flamewar that BF starts over COD. This is like comparing Skyrim to Revelations. Two different concepts, two different engines, two different games. It's not working. COD doesn't beat BF as COD focusses off of Fast paced action and more on the high kill side, whilist in BF, one person on the team could earn 75 kills, but an enemy squad could earn 75 kills total and win over that good player.

 

If you don't see where I'm going, then basicly, here it is: You can't compare these two, they're different, they won't win over each other as both sides have different opinions in gameplay.

 

 

Individuals have been comparing the two throughout the thread. Whats more revealing about the debate is that the individuals that say they cant be compared openly list bulleted points of comparison. How do i not laugh at that?

 

(when you point out their differences, you are comparing them. If they were exactly the same, you could not compare them)

 

Ta Da!

[SubjectProphet]

UGH! Fine.

 

How about this? They both are shooters, yes, they both are multi platformed, yes, however, they are not the same in gameplay, concept, teamwork, basics, etc. Meaning this thread is pointless, as neither wins, and neither will win.

[hoofhearted4]

no one said they were the same in gameplay. we just said that you could compare them.

 

you say they are apples and oranges. i say they are oranges and tangerines.

[Halororor]

I wrote a long-winded reply a a while back, but it got lost as the server went down while I was typed it, and then didn't save when I clicked the post button. But here goes. This is my last post on this thread, having just come back from a hectic game of BF3.

 

These are the same "type" of game. They both online mulitplayer first person shooters. They are targeted at the EXACT same demographic. DICE even said that their goal is to unseat COD as the reigning champion. Because, on a large scale, their gameplay is slightly different makes it a stretch to claim that they are different genre's which is what you are trying to do.

 

Slightly different? Seriously? They are worlds apart in gameplay. Have you even played either of the two? Aside from being able to shoot people, they are nothing alike.

 

When in reality these two games are as different as skyrim and dragon age.

 

Which is entirely different...

 

Skyrim and Dragon Age are from two different subgenres in the overall RPG genre. Skyrim is an Action RPG, and DA is a CRPG. Once again, nothing alike.

 

Both games use players shooting at each other to complete an objective or kill the remaining enemy team, therefore they are the same type of game and can be compared on merit. Instead of pointing out that these two games are a different genre, you have successfully pointed out the merits of what make the two games unique within the same genre. But trying to claim that, for example, one has vehicles and one doesnt seperates them by classification, is a stretch.

 

Vehicles isn't the only thing that separates them by classification. Once again, read my bulleted list you so kindly laugh at. Or play the games and see for yourself.

 

It's like comparing motorbikes and cars. Both are meant to get you to your destination, but they're still entirely different in concept and classification.

[hoofhearted4]

this debate isnt getting anywhere. your too set in the fact you think these games are worlds apart...they arent. its as simple as that. i restate my quote from before "you say apples and oranges, i say oranges and tangerines" i really cant say that any better, i think its a perfect metaphor (analogy? comparison? whatever)...these games arent identical. no one is claiming that. but they are similar in a lot of respects...enough respects that they can in fact be compared (which was how this started. you said you cannot compare them) and i do believe that through out this little debate, both sides have compared the games to prove their point.

 

if the games werent so similar, people wouldnt debate between the two. people wouldnt compare them. this argument wouldnt even be here....i dont see a thread comparing Brink to StarCraft.