MW3 vs. Battlefield 3

News & General Discussion
1

I don’t know if this has come up before, but this is the gossip section.

So, I’ve made arguements.

Story: MW3. Battlefield 3 may claim to be more realistic, but honestly, more realistic means less fun. We don’t want to hear somebody cry out @#%$ every five seconds and not know about the story at all. At least we can understand what they are saying in MW3.

Graphics: Battlefield 3. Sledgehammer has claimed to have improved the IW Engine, but not in the way of graphics. Battlefield 3 claims their realistic approach comes from story and engine elements like their physics, but its actually from their graphics.

Framerate: MW3. 60 over 30 any day.

Gameplay: Battlefield 3. While the physics elements do not seem to be the best out there, it is innovative. It seems to me that these new elements are new and a bit dangerous to experiment, but just putting them in there should make the game better, it does not matter how much it reduces the game’s framerate.

Online Multiplayer: Battlefield 3. Their online seems tor run not as smooth as MW3’s but it adds more potential to it. With the new physics and graphics, I’d choose this any day.

DLC: MW3. CoD pwns at this any day.

Co-Op: Battlefield 3. Same with multiplayer.

Optional Modes: MW3. While you can fit this into co-op with spec-ops, it does not really go there. The modes in spec-ops will probably best those of Battlefield 3’s.

Sound: MW3. This was the biggest refinement put into the IW 4.

Developers: MW3. Three developers: Infinity Ward, with their experience, everything they’ve done will be completely polished. Sledgehammer, new guys add new stuff. Raven Software, elements from other and different FPS’ will be used.

Actors: MW3. From Gary Oldman to Toby Maguire.

Winner: Thats for you to choose. For me, on the PC, Battlefield 3 takes over with hell. Console: PS3, Battlefield 3. Xbox 360: MW3 and will outsell PS3 again.

2

I’m pretty sure Battlefield 3’s sounds are much better than MW3. Sounds have always been a strong part of BF games.

3

Did I miss something? Are those games out already? How can you talk about the story and gameplay when they are not even out?

The only thing we can say from the trailers, is that Battlefield 3 feels like the lovechild of some very passionate tech oriented people, because the tech simply looks amazing. MW3 looks like what you would expect if you played MW12. And it’s starting to feel a little outdated.

4

Done with MW myself, and if BF3 isn’t released on Steam I probably just won’t bother buying it.

5

More realistic = much better. Who wants a game where getting hit in the foot by a knife is an insta-kill? Players want to feel like they’re part of the war. Battlefield was out way before the modern CoD was and has always been different. Call Of Duty Modern Warfare is the same game every time, just a different environment. And now they copy Battlefield 3’s destroyable buildings? If they’re so good they don’t need to do what others are doing, obviously they’re afraid of BF3.

6

Like above, neither of these games are out yet. This is a thread that belongs on n4g or otherwise…

7

Anyone who thinks any war game has better sound design than DICE needs a swift kick in the pants. They have the best audio in the genre.

8

They’re both fun. But as they’re gonna be out at the same time I’ll probably pick Battlefield this time around. I’ve kinda had my fill of playing the same game with different skins/maps since CoD4, not that it isn’t a great formula, just that they need to innovate a little more there.

9

Battlefield 3 for sure is what I’m getting. I’ll just play MW2, or MW1, (if I still had them, but they were boring so…) instead of MW3. They’re the same games.

10

Yeah, MW3 is just the same as MW2 and COD4.

Whereas Battlefield 3 is totally different from Battlefield 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2. Because in Battlefield 2 we were playing as American soldiers in the desert and we had vehicles. And in Battlefield Bad Company 2 we were American soldiers in the desert and we had vehicles. Yet in Battlefield we will play as American soldiers in the desert and we’ll have vehicles.

Battlefield 3 is going to be like a breath of fresh air. I just can’t wait!!

11

Yes, because the only things that can qualify as innovation are changing the setting and playable characters. I suppose Super Mario Brothers and Super Mario 64 aren’t any different, either? Try again my friend.

12

Battlefield 3 is totally different from the previous games. Battlefield 3 has a completely different sand texture.

I tell ya, it’s gonna special…

13

Battlefield 3: Coordinate with teammates to hold strategic positions and advance the front, just like in Battlefield 1942, 2, 2142, 1943, Bad Company, and Bad Company 2.
Modern Warfare 3: Run around and shoot everything that moves, just like in CoD4 and Modern Warfare 2.

Is innovation really the issue here?

14

I never really liked CoD. It always seemed like the same game over and over with a new coat of paint. Multiplayer is just like any other shooter game, run around and get shot, only due to CoD’s ‘realism’ this only lasts a few seconds before death.

I’ve never played BfBC2 or any of those games, but from what I’ve seen and heard they’ve made and effort to include teamwork into gameplay.

In the end I don’t care for either of them. I’m getting Skyrim :smile:

15

I wouldnt compare those two games actually. Both of them are pointed to different gamers. Call of duty is more broad opened to younger and also to older players, while i see Battlefield as more serious game with more specific player crowd.
I like IW engine and assets for Cod, it has been proven for me as one of most optimised games i have played and i really like that. You can run it on very low machines, which i cannot say for Medal of Honor and neither for Battlefield. I havent yet played neither of those two games, but i can put my hand in fire that Cod will still run as smooth as it does, while Battlefield will be for more advanced machines.

16

MW3 is nothing like COD4 was. Infinity Ward (or Bobby Kotick his Activision brothers?) actually managed to completely destroy that game for all us PC-people with MW2. They removed dedicated servers. They removed the mod tools. They introduced this IWnet matchmaking thingy + they started to charge for map-packs that were previously free. They totally destroyed the PC community and seemed to focus solely on the 360.

After COD4,I accidentally bought BlOPS, a game that still is unplayable on the PC. Needless to say, I won`t support Activison any more.

BF3 all the way :smile:

17

Of course on a basic level, the objective of the game is going to be the same. They’re sequels, not spin-offs. If not innovation (technology, gameplay mechanics or otherwise), what, in your opinion, should be the objective of a developer when making a competitive multiplayer sequel?

18

MW3 does have better sound. The 60 framerate is more than Battlefield 3’s 30 framerate and therefore the gameplay is going to look smoother (not better) so are the graphics (not better) and the sound is going to be smoother and better.

Want to know why Battlefield 3 will sell awesome on the PC? Its a PC Title.

Want to know why Battlefield 3 will barely beat MW3 on the PS3? Black Ops players are tired of lags all the time.

Want to know why MW3 will greatly outsell PC and PS3 Battlefield 3? CoD just is the best on the 360 because of the Activision and Microsofts deals.

In fact, I would not be surprised if MW3 managed to beat Battlefield 3 on the PS3. I mean MW2 and Black Ops set up such high expectations that idiots who do not check out stuff on the internet will buy it.

19

The average human eye can’t (or can hardly) see any more frames than 30 per second. Young children can see ~50.

Movies play at 24 FPS for reference.

20

Ummm PC version is going to have a frame limiter? That’s weird…