Jump to content

BF3 vs MW3


Polaris

Recommended Posts

Yeah I know, already done to death elsewhere on the internets. But always like new opinions. I have BF3, no MW3 yet. Haven't even installed BF3 because of Skyrim addiction. But I've played BFBC2 and MW2 before.With BFBC2 it was more squad oriented, lone wolves would get cut down pretty quick unless they had some sort of backup. Although I had moments where I would get into the zone and go on a solo rampage.MW2 was more about everyone just doing their own thing, mini encounters 1v1 instead of working together with team mates to take an objective.So can I assume that the above is still true for BF3 and MW3, or have there been some changes?Also, subjective opinion: which do you like best, for those who have played both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've personally put down my FPS games since Black Ops was so disappointing to me. But I have a few friends that are REALLY into the genre; of two of them, one wrote MW3 off as "MW2 map expansion" and migrated to BF3, which he loves. The other stuck with the MW franchise and seems to enjoy it since it's largely in the same mold of MW2, which was one of his favorite games.In short, from what I've been told MW3 is still the solo, rambo-style shooter. BF3 requires more team work than MW3, but I don't think it's at BFBC2 level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are pretty much the same - MW3 for Kill/Death ratio and BF for teamwork. Although I've only played BFBC2 offline because of a 3gb update that I wasn't downloading. I have MW2 though.I don't have MW3, but I have played it, it was a letdown for me, I was expecting something amazing but even MW2 is probably better. (Black Ops ftw! B)) That said, MW3 is still a decent game.I haven't played much BF3, even though I have the game, but it is actually really good in my opinion - I rather like the big maps and large teams. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BF3 > MW3 battlefield has always been team orientated, and the COD series has always been 1 man rambo style, I've played a great amount of the BF series and have liked it since I was young.The first COD game I played was COD 4 and I really enjoyed it, it took over my life. I use to play it on the computer from like 6am-3am (yeah im not an addict) :P But that's the only COD I enjoyed. I did play Black OPS but didn't really like it as much...(probably because I was playing it on 360) I never liked MW2 because when I heard of commando and double shotguns....I'm told myself I would never play a game that wants to be realistic but have capabilities where the game is like GOD mode...(idk I just didn't like the idea...you go shoot a shotgun with arm and tell me what happens then ill play the game :P)As for BF I started playing that when I was young with BF 1943 and then moved to playing BF2 for a bit then BFBC 2 and I have always enjoyed them I've never saw a problem with them aside from glitches and what not but every game has those..Then I got BF3 and I honestly can say it's a really awesome FPS I won't say it's the best but it was really good and maybe potentially the could be the best of the year?But from what I hear from my friends BF3 even though it's team based a lot of people lock their Squads which sometimes handicaps 1-2 players also it seems like people dont want to play in squads. And MW3, I heard people try to co-oridnate even though it's 1 man rush army basically...Idk those are my thoughts on it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yeah I know, already done to death elsewhere on the internets. But always like new opinions. I have BF3, no MW3 yet. Haven't even installed BF3 because of Skyrim addiction. But I've played BFBC2 and MW2 before.With BFBC2 it was more squad oriented, lone wolves would get cut down pretty quick unless they had some sort of backup. Although I had moments where I would get into the zone and go on a solo rampage.MW2 was more about everyone just doing their own thing, mini encounters 1v1 instead of working together with team mates to take an objective.So can I assume that the above is still true for BF3 and MW3, or have there been some changes?Also, subjective opinion: which do you like best, for those who have played both?

If you're refering to Andy, he is returning it lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have both games and I enjoy both of them very much (not as much as skyrim). Battlefield is much more team based game and I find that the pace depends on the class that you are using as well as the map that is playing. MW3 is a good game but to me it didn't meet with the standards that was set by MW2 and the disappointment of Black Ops. It is fast paced, it does seem more solo based, and playing online can get frustrating. I can't say one is better than the other because I enjoy both and alternate playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a die hard cod fan :DBUT i bought BF3 a week ago and I am enjoying it :)It's more squad orientated but that can be a bad thing if your working with randomsBf3 you can chill on and just fly a jet around for a bitMw3 you can't chill but you can rage lolOne game makes me mad the other makes me chilled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally after playing both, I prefer Battlefield 3. I've played Bad Co. 2 and Modern Warfare 2 and between those two, i did prefer BC2 but only because of the teamwork, and lack of "effective" camping.As for this time around, I'd say Battlefield 3 all the way. Modern Warfare 3, to me, is absolutely painful to sit and play (even when I do good). I've always liked the team/tactical orientation of the Battlefield franchise, so one more to Battlefield. There is much more variety in Battlefield 3 over MW3 and the goals and medals don't make leveling an absolute hassle higher up (Colonel 35 :D) whereas by about 40 in Bad Co. 2 you had almost every insignia and you still needed about a BF3 Colonel's xp amount to level.Battlefield 3 has Dedicated Servers. hands down better. They are effectively less laggy (although it can be sometimes, but on average). I think that triumphs over Modern Warfare 3 because they are still ran by the "host" or lag magnet -.-.. the average quality of a match between them is very black and white and with Battlefield's new Rent-A-Server, you can actually play private matches again with your friends and fly the jet around all you want etc., whatever you desire.It all boils down to what you like more. The arcade style 1v1's in MW3 (even though half a team normally camps -.-) or the team tactical and squad of Battlefield 3 (although as mentioned earlier, being stuck with randoms [especially "noobs"] can be frustrating) Also, do you like vehicles or no?PS: in response to Anarchy, the jet flying at this point is too competitive, and i agree that there is nothing more annoying than that. (1000+ Jet kills here) There is really only two ways to get/be good at this point in a Jet, #1 Played it on launch day, or #2 play in a friend's private rent-a-server (unless you find a "no killing chill server")This has been a longish response to why i think Battlefield is better.-Unknown :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...