Battlefield3 mw3 vs bf3

[AntediluvianSeraph]

I haven't played mw3 but from what I hear it's not that different from the previous Modern Warfare installments.

I did buy Battlefield 3 mainly because I played the Battlefield series before and I knew what I'd get.

 

Well, I think MW3 is more about close quarter action whereas in BF3 the maps are pretty large, and there are vehicles so you can actually be a little tactical in a fight. MW3 is more action and constant pew-pew. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's not really my type. If I had to choose, I choose BF3.

[Halororor]

  On 1/29/2012 at 10:42 PM, Ghogiel said:

If all you can do is point out stuff that has nothing to do with the genre and are only individual gameplay differences..I rest my case.

 

Except, that's not what I'm doing. You're just selectively ignoring my other points and quoting single sentences to 'disprove' my entire argument, so you don't really have a case. I'm not sure if you're daft or just stubborn, but the key difference here is gameplay differences. You play a game, therefore the gameplay differs between games and is what sets them apart. Bullet drop is one gameplay difference out of dozens between CoD and BF3. What do you want? For me to tell you that they're different because their box art differs?

 

No offense, but come back in a few years when you understand the topic you're arguing about and can actually do so with a scrap of intelligence behind your posts. Right now all you're doing is spewing idiocy that doesn't even make sense.

 

As for the original question, after this weekend, I'm going to have go with BF3. I'll still end up playing MW3 more because I find it more casual and relaxing, but BF3 is still the more fun one to play for me.

[Ghogiel]

So your argument is that I'm an idiot and child... Well I guess you win then.

[hoofhearted4]

  On 1/30/2012 at 7:36 AM, Halororor said:

Except, that's not what I'm doing. You're just selectively ignoring my other points and quoting single sentences to 'disprove' my entire argument, so you don't really have a case.

 

thats what you were doing to me, and i believe i called you out on it too.....

 

 

and again. no one is saying they are exactly the same. of course the gameplay is different. that just silly to bring that up. thats not an argument...BF3 is about as different from MW3 as it is from BC2...and yet you can compare BC2 ad BF3 no problem.

[Halororor]

  On 1/30/2012 at 11:31 AM, Ghogiel said:

So your argument is that I'm an idiot and child... Well I guess you win then.

 

No, I don't win. For me to 'win', you'd have to have a valid argument. Which you don't, considering you don't even understand why or what you're arguing about.

 

  On 1/30/2012 at 4:26 PM, hoofhearted4 said:

and again. no one is saying they are exactly the same. of course the gameplay is different. that just silly to bring that up. thats not an argument...BF3 is about as different from MW3 as it is from BC2...and yet you can compare BC2 ad BF3 no problem.

 

BC2 is a Battlefield game, so it would make sense that it and BF3 would be pretty similar. :|

 

Either way, have you not actively been listening to what I've been saying in my last few posts? Yes, you CAN compare them. Would you like me to run around naked screaming "YOU WERE RIGHT YOU CAN COMPARE THEM"? My point, which I should have phrased better right from the start, is that they cannot be accurately weighed by the same criteria, seeing as they both set out to do two entirely different shooters. They're both shooters but their similarities end there. Their gameplay (eg, their defining characteristics) differs wildly. One is an arcade shooter, the other a military sim. They're similar enough that they can be classed under the same genre, and different enough that they can be classed under separate subgenres.

[Ghogiel]

  On 1/30/2012 at 4:59 PM, Halororor said:

  On 1/30/2012 at 11:31 AM, Ghogiel said:

So your argument is that I'm an idiot and child... Well I guess you win then.

 

No, I don't win. For me to 'win', you'd have to have a valid argument. Which you don't, considering you don't even understand why or what you're arguing about.

 

It is you who has resorted in your last few posts to aggressive fallacies, for my argument to invalidated you'd have to address it and not me. You are trying to hide the pointlessness of your opinion behind, they are 'different games' therefore everything else I have said im addition to this obvious statement is right, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

 

The games can be compared, are in the same genre and are direct market competitors. I know why I have and what it is I have stated. And it doesn't even matter if I am right.

[Halororor]

  On 1/30/2012 at 5:29 PM, Ghogiel said:

The games can be compared, are in the same genre and are direct market competitors. I know why I have and what it is I have stated. And it doesn't even matter if I am right.

 

They can be compared yes. Anything can be compared to anything.

 

They are in the same genre, different subgenres.

 

They do not need to be direct competitors, because they set out to do entirely different things. They are competitors only because EA wanted a part of of Activision's pie, and decided the best way of marketing it is to create unnecessary competition between their most prominent titles.

 

Was Morrowind in direct competition with Dungeon Siege 1? No. They were two games from different subgenres of the overall RPG genre. Cater to different needs and all that.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Halororor

[Ghogiel]

So in effect you are retracting all the stuff you said about classification(genre) being entirely different, you can't compare the two games and how ever many times you tried to push your opinion that they do not cater to the same target audience, and are not in direct competition? I'm confused now.

 

CoD and BF series have been competitors for while now, it's not really a new thing since MW3 and BF3 all of a sudden.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Ghogiel

[hoofhearted4]

  On 1/30/2012 at 7:59 PM, Halororor said:

They are competitors only because EA wanted a part of of Activision's pie, and decided the best way of marketing it is to create unnecessary competition between their most prominent titles.

 

They arent competitors because EA said they were. they are competitors because the fans of the series made it that way. the fans compare the two. people ask which one does what. ppl compare them to find out which they would like better. perhaps its one or the other. perhaps its both, perhaps its neither. they may do two entirely different things as you say, but the fact of the matter is, they are pointed at one market...the FPS market. chances are, anyone who is a fan of FPSs buys both games. now some ppl have bought both games, and only liked one, and have stuck to that one game, be it MW or BF, bu regardless, they are both the same market.

 

  On 1/30/2012 at 4:59 PM, Halororor said:

One is an arcade shooter, the other a military sim.

 

also, BF3 IS NOT a military sim. it is not a realistic shooter. so its got physics, big whoop. but it does not represent in even the slightest form, real combat....im soo sick of hearing ppl say that.

Edited January 30, 2012 by hoofhearted4

[Halororor]

edit: Or rather Let me just drop the entire argument. We've quite clearly reached an impasse. Let's just agree to disagree, because otherwise we're just going to keep debating without convincing each other of anything. It would be futile to continue a debate when it is clear that a resolution is nowhere in sight. Edited January 30, 2012 by Halororor