Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
red orchestra : Heroes of stalingrad.
I want a new shooter, BF3 or MW3 ?
- Thread starter snowdog
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 698
- Location
- South Wales
Never liked the previous SS games really so not sure.
I liked Red orchestra Ostfront back in the day, but bought it recently and barely touched it
.I guess I'll buy BF3, I hope I'll like it more if I play with people I know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,849
- Location
- Nottingham
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,260
- Location
- RG8 9
BF3 will have more longevity and even though it is a little buggy, is shaping up to be an absolute epic shooter. Nothing comes remotely close to what BF3 has to offer.
+1, and plus a few hundred more. Get MW3 in a years time for £5 to play the single player and finish the storyline. But for replayability value and a far superior game, BF3.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,397
Wow thats a touch strong don't you think?
Depends what your looking for from an FPS game tbh.
MW3 is pretty much a slightly higher visual quality reskin of MW2 (even a lot of the assets are reused), while they have fixed some issues they still haven't addressed some simple things with the lobby system that would make the game much better - like an option NOT to re-join the same game you just left over and over. At the end of the day tho it does what it says on the tin, easy to get into and shoot stuff, fluid/responsive gameplay and relatively decent netcode for the most part.
BF3 needs some serious patching from what I've seen to really make the best of it, but you can't beat the overall war ambiance its got going.
I'm not sure on the replayability stakes as tbh tho MW3 is in many ways a fairly simple uncomplicated game, its also easy to just get into it and have a blast, I'd say it probably the one that will get the most mileage.
MW3 is pretty much a slightly higher visual quality reskin of MW2 (even a lot of the assets are reused), while they have fixed some issues they still haven't addressed some simple things with the lobby system that would make the game much better - like an option NOT to re-join the same game you just left over and over. At the end of the day tho it does what it says on the tin, easy to get into and shoot stuff, fluid/responsive gameplay and relatively decent netcode for the most part.
BF3 needs some serious patching from what I've seen to really make the best of it, but you can't beat the overall war ambiance its got going.
I'm not sure on the replayability stakes as tbh tho MW3 is in many ways a fairly simple uncomplicated game, its also easy to just get into it and have a blast, I'd say it probably the one that will get the most mileage.
Perhaps I did go a bit overboard.
Ive played both, mw3 is the simpler game to get into, its basically a reskinned mw2, it looks terrible tbh. But it plays smoothly enough, bf3 isnt perfect either, it just needs a tiny few fixes imo, its no bf2 but its better than bfbc2, which was a cracking good game, but still has a few bugs to this day. My only complaint with the cod games is, theyre starting to look very dated, the developers done some great stuff with the quake engine, but now its starting to show it's age. Frostbite in bf3 isnt perfect yet, but hopefully that will change, though im still a little skeptical as bfbc2 still isnt perfect yet, never mind bf3.
No one can honestly reccomend RO2 at the moment no matter how potentially good the game is or might be as there are only like 800 people worldwide playing it at any one moment. It is a vicious circle of course but fps gamers are not known for taking leaps of faith, unless the game is made free for a while. It is sad how it has turned out, with hindsight it may have been better to wait till after MW£ and BF3 to relese RO2.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,397
Yes fair point kind of annoying though as it is a great game. I would still recommend SS3 over MW3 for run and gun game play though. Soooo much more satisfying (if the previous games are anything to go by. Which with Croteam they are).
If you play Rambo you will not enjoy BF3 which severely punishes this type of play (you'll lose or even if you killed 2 out of 3 - they will respawn on the 1 and you'll be worse off). If on the other hand you like being a part of a squad/team then honestly - I think it's a fantastic game.
There's this feeling you get when you take a map down with your squad, keeping people alive, teaming up to destroy the tank that's pinned you down or taking that rush point back at 0.3 seconds to go that I never really get with CoD MW3 but on the other side it's unlikely I'll go 25:3 and beat the crap out of them that way in a bullet ridden frenzy in BF3. If winning as a team is a better feeling for you then BF3 will be more enjoyable. If you like being the king of the hill because you did it all you'll probably enjoy MW more.
It's worth noting the scale of the games is extremely different, if you like big then BF3 is hands down the winner.
There's this feeling you get when you take a map down with your squad, keeping people alive, teaming up to destroy the tank that's pinned you down or taking that rush point back at 0.3 seconds to go that I never really get with CoD MW3 but on the other side it's unlikely I'll go 25:3 and beat the crap out of them that way in a bullet ridden frenzy in BF3. If winning as a team is a better feeling for you then BF3 will be more enjoyable. If you like being the king of the hill because you did it all you'll probably enjoy MW more.
It's worth noting the scale of the games is extremely different, if you like big then BF3 is hands down the winner.