I want a new shooter, BF3 or MW3 ?

Myshra said:
If you play Rambo you will not enjoy BF3.
Click to expand...
Maybe for you and others but i play rambo style all the way, infact this is how i have seen most players on most ranked servers play. BF3 is a fantastic and great fun online shooter, what a rush, and the sounds of modern warfare battle is superb along with top notch graphics. And if you buy the limited edition version of BF3 you get automatic access to " Back to karkand" once released (december 2011 i think?) bring on gulf of oman :D

My gaming mouse is rambo hahaha, class, bf3 is such a fun adrenaline pumping game, avit! :D
 
BF3. Pure adrenaline, online tactical warfare.

You sometimes feel completely lost, and bemused as to what is happening, that is what combat is !! You feel helpless and vunerable, thats why some people dont like it, because they are lost. Get your gun, go for the targets and get involved. You will be richly rewarded with IMO the best FPS online expercience right now.

BF3 offers so much in terms of FPS online gaming, yes its not perfect, however i hope the developers, continue to support BF3, as the online fire fights & gameplay is 2nd to none.
 
I had the same dilemma, my final solution was to get both, but pro's and con's in my opinion:

BF3 Pro's:
Visually Stunning
Amazing Audio
Great depth of unlocks
Vehicles
On PC it will have a longer lifespan
Proper Dedi servers

BF3 Cons:
Origin
Weird, browser based menus
Glitchy / Crash prone
Spawns can be a bit off
**** SP

MW3 Pro's:
Amazing Spec Ops' modes, a whole game in itself with ranking
Removed the MW2 **** (nukes, knife builds)
Solid SP
Smooth, will run well on any old **** hardware really
Decent unlock system
Dedi's can be played with all unlocks once you figure it out, which is nice

MW3 Cons:
Ranked is P2P only, netcode sucks
Worst maps so far (but we know they will add the good ones from MW2 and COD4 as they like selling things twice)
Fugly mostly
It's putting money in Kotick's pockets

I still say get both if you can, they are apples and oranges.
 
If you didn't like bad company 2 chances are that you won't like BF3, they are very similar, But the game does look amazing on a good PC and if you have a few friends to play with it's great, the main problem that I have with it is that my enjoyment of the game depends on my team mates a lot of the time and connecting to a game where your teammates are useless makes for a horrible experience

MW3 is very very similar to MW2, calling it an expansion is a bit harsh as there are a few new things on the table, but it does look like a game from 3-4 years ago, on the plus side though you can just jump into almost any online game and have fun in seconds, there is no need to get a squad set up or anything like that you can just jump in and instantly get rewarded for your efforts,

I have both games and I like them both, at the minute I am playing more MW3 but that is purely because of the hours I'm working, I'm never home when my friends are playing BF3 but if I was I think that would be my game of choice (after Skyrim of course)
 
SteveWD40 said:
MW3 Cons:
Ranked is P2P only, netcode sucks
Worst maps so far (but we know they will add the good ones from MW2 and COD4 as they like selling things twice)
Fugly mostly
It's putting money in Kotick's pockets

I still say get both if you can, they are apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

netcode is actually brilliant in that in makes listen server (player host) workable even on pretty poor connections, the problem is you have a good chance of getting on a game hosted by someone with a crap PC/internet connection or retardedly trying to play and run torrents, etc.

The MP maps are a bit uninspiring, some are quite nice visually but horrid layout, I'm hoping they put some better ones out soon.

Visually its decent enough, sometimes you see stuff that gives away the engine roots but mostly its quite polished - online a lot of people will use the settings that give them the clearest view and highest performance - which is usually fairly low settings - anyhow.
 
Preparing to get flamed.

Way I see it is:

You want to pick up the game when you come in from work, have a quick blast, run and gun shoot some people. MW3 everytime.

You want to hold back, go up as a unit and tactically take some people out, BF3.

I just find BF3 boring, and BFBC2 tbh, I never got BF3 because I assumed it was like BFBC2 where half the team just sit on a hill and snipe and don't even try to go for the objective. Just bores the **** out of me, plus the insane amount of camping on battlefield in general but that's not exactly a downside for some, as tbh it is more realistic to that of a real war but it's not for me. I wanna run around shooting people with overpowered guns and run forever, so I got MW3.
 
setter said:
Ive played both, mw3 is the simpler game to get into, its basically a reskinned mw2, it looks terrible tbh.
Click to expand...

Really?

I know it's an old engine, but seriously. Do you really think it looks terrible?

MW3 looks fine, it doesn't look amazing, but it looks fine.

Source engine is older than the modern warfare engine but the modern warfare engine gets way more stick.
 
MW3 does indeed look fine with the right settings, but compared to BF3 it doesn't look so hot. As you say though, it's irrelevant, CS:S is still more played than both of them.

I actually had a great night last night on a dedicated server, once you fave a few decent ones in terms of ping and get enough so you always have at least 1-2 with players on that is.

Being able to make custom classes with all the unlocks helps. Went through a great rotation, loads of teamwork and some awesome gungame to break up the team defender.

<3
 
snow patrol said:
is it possible to get bf3 online somewhere? I can't find it on steam..is there an equivalent somewhere? And would it run ok on the pc in my sig?
Click to expand...

It's on D2D and Origin in the UK, might be on more but it is not (and probably never will be) on Steam.

Origin is EA's online store that works via a client much like Steam, but just for EA games, caused plenty of controversy, surprised you hadn't heard...
 
I still enjoy battlefield the only thing needing patching is them stupid flashlights and maybe battlelog thats it really i think the snipers will be better damage as i rank up. as for mw3 I wont buy it as all it is, is a stupid overpriced add-on its just like what battlefield done when they brought the vietnam add on out (but it was worth it)
 
I have both, BF3 visually is better and i believe the multiplayer is better also, although because of the map scale if you miss your ride at the start get ready for a few mins of running to the action which can be bloody annoying to say the least.

MW3 is pretty much the same as MW2 visually and also in gameplay. My pet hate so far is the maps, they it appears have been designed purely with one aim and that is to stop tactical play or if your being harsh camping. So many people running with UMP or P90 with rapid fire its not even funny. Some of the assault weapon balance is way off also. They have truely killed the M16 which was one of my fav wpns from MW2.
Both games have the merits but unless you like constant running and gunning like a headless chicken i would steer away from MW3 and onto BF3
 
oL said:
BF3 because MW3 is the same game as the previous ones.
Click to expand...

Quite clearly it isn't. I'm sure somebody would have said something by now if MW2 Discs were being sent out in MW3 packaging. If you meant that the gameplay is similar to the previous MW games, then why doesn't the same apply to BF3? Seems the same as the previous iterations to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom