Thread: MW3 vs. BF3

My take? MW3 > BF3.

I'm a Battlefield fan and I didn't want to buy MW3 but I got it for christmas anyway. I put it in and started playing. It really is much better than BF3. BF3 felt rushed, as though they wanted to get it out before MW3. It had so many glitches and problems in both the campaign and online. I can't stay alive in BF3 multiplayer (I know, this is a matter of skill) and it is laggy in both single player and online. MW3 won this battle.

Gears of War 3 still beats them both though, IMHO.

They both felt rushed, they both have god awful multiplayer, they both have unredeeming qualities of it. At least the story of Battlefield 3 was good, that's the ONLY reason why I still have my copy. I sold MW3.

MW3 doesn't feel that way to me, yet. That isn't saying it wont though but I haven't played it much. I've mostly been playing it online. I still have BF3, I meant to trade it in during xmas while they were doing the $30 guarantee at gamestop but I missed it. damn

Do you like BF3 online? This is what generally makes or breaks a game for me. If I like the multiplayer, I'll play the game for a year or more. If not, I'll beat campaign mode and trade it in. I did not like BF3 multiplayer.

Call Of Duty has another interesting story and is full of adrenaline rushes, but I agree they both suck online and they've pushed me another step back from FPS games.

BF3 and MW3 story isn't bad for a FPS. I've never been enthralled by any FPS storyline though. Well, maybe Killzone series....

Yeah, and because I want a game to be exepctional story-wise, I avoid FPSs.

MW3 couldn't exactly feel rushed because it's been in production since 2007. It just takes elements from MW2 and MW1 and repackages them with very little differences. It's kind of difficult to screw that up so of course the gameplay is going to be solid, but is that worth 60 bucks?

Activision is pulling a scam job on everybody by releasing the same shit every year and letting peer pressure make them money. If they never released a new CoD everyone would just play MW3 and be pretty content with it for quite a while, but no; they have to release another one that is exactly the same in every way once a year to charge everyone another 60 bucks. CoD has essentially become a subscription franchise.

BF3 at least attempts some very new things with it's new engine etc. It's going to be buggy of course since it was released far too early but once it's all smoother over and patched up it will be a fairly great game. Comparing it to MW3 just because it's a war shooter however, is just dumb. They are not even remotely close to being the same thing. People who enjoy MW3 probably won't enjoy BF3 and vice versa. There's no point in trying to declare one as superior to the other since it's a matter of subjective opinion, not actual rational scrutiny.

I think BF3 is better. But honestly, I enjoyed both, and I don't want to make battle which game is better.