Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield

[CHAOSAKALEE]

Which do you prefer, what is it that makes one better than the other, which franchise brings more to the table for you or do you play both, gimme some feedback guys!

[tcg joey]

They are both excellent games, neither title is better than the other.

Cod has a decent fun 5 hour campaign... Battlefields is utter shite
Both online games play well but are totally different.

COD is much quicker, spawn kill kill die. Battlefield is slower paced with vehicles and mostly for the objective. Dont bother comparing the 2 COD is more like Halo than Battlefield.

[Are You EXPd]

well ive not played MW3 but ill take your question as meaning the COD series in general i suppose. ive played COD 4 and MW2 a decent bit

personally, i prefer playing battlefield. yet its a game i wouldnt play myself, without this community i dont imagine id ever play battlefield. its very team-orientated and as we all know public matches arent a hive of teamwork. not that we all put our super try hard pants on everytime we play and always win and are super cunty, but at least being on the other end of a mic makes all the difference. communication is always nice.

as for COD, the games i have played have been good fun. i find it easy to pick up and play for a while and put down again. it has problems but if you only dip in sporadically like i have its not a big deal. i imagine if you're more into it the problems can really piss you off. the big issue for me is the devs, who seem to sit back on their position with a huge community who wont (or perhaps cant) stop buying their games. thats great, if the people enjoy the games then all power to them but it really does rub me up the wrong way that COD devs have ignored their community on huge problems like hacking and game-ruining bullshit like one man army noob tubes and commando knifing. it screams of arrogance and is not helped by the short development cycle which makes the devs just make the next map pack or next game instead of fixing the old ones.

not that DICE and EA are perfect, BF3 has big balance issues, but we are kept informed at least and reassured that patches and fixes are inbound.

as for little things that make a bit of difference to me: i hate one- hit body shot sniping. i just hate it, its so easy to do its horrendous. i like having a bit more health in general in FPS, i feel it takes a bit of luck out of the equation and puts in a bit more skill. im not sold on the idea of killstreaks and a rich get richer system. i like dynamic maps (destruction, different areas opening up on rush in BF). i like (drive/pilotable) vehicles.

things COD does right: making people with big ass powerful guns move slower. actual lobbies inbetween rounds and voting on maps. heavily customisable private matches

[BoneMrLemonPie]

I enjoy the battlefield, changing class being able to go nearly anywhere blowing up buildings, tanks etc

But single player is apalling

MW3 Sp is fun and spec ops and firefight is good too, I just like the pace of battlefield as ya can do whatever u want depending on mood

[tcg joey]

I forgot the private matches, Kill confirmed is brilliant how a simple addition can change the game totally and in a positive manner. The actual lobby system is the best outside of Reach.

[Marc The G]

The way I see it (yeah Gary, that line covers my back from your no doubt bitching about what I say, bring it )

COD = Films
BF = Books

You are going to get more out of books if you put the effort in but if you just need an instant hit then a film can be ok

[Are You EXPd]

The way I see it (yeah Gary, that line covers my back from your no doubt bitching about what I say, bring it )

COD = Films
BF = Books

You are going to get more out of books if you put the effort in but if you just need an instant hit then a film can be ok

yep, makes sense. because every book has more substance than every film. thing is bob, it costs a lot less to write a fucking book as it does to make a film. theres a lot, lot of trash fiction out there. books and films are art forms, and not really comparable. they are so different. people might say the same about COD and BF but its not like books and films for gods sake.

theres shit in book form and greatness on film. and vice versa.

[tcg joey]

I disagree COD has 5 times the content of Battlefield. More game modes, maps, unlocks, ranks etc they all reward dedication and investment. Battlefield has plenty to offer but nowhere near as much as COD. The idea that BF is the thinking gamers COD is bollucks. Previous BF titles especially on the PC i would agree with that statement but not this one, both games have strong merits imo COD rewards the really skilled individual players and a strong team always wins just like Battlefield.

[BoneMrLemonPie]

Killstreaks are cheap as fuck tho

COD,MOH and even crysis 2 ruined by kill streaks

[Marc The G]

yep, makes sense. because every book has more substance than every film. thing is bob, it costs a lot less to write a fucking book as it does to make a film. theres a lot, lot of trash fiction out there. books and films are art forms, and not really comparable. they are so different. people might say the same about COD and BF but its not like books and films for gods sake.

theres shit in book form and greatness on film. and vice versa.

You must have missed the part where I say 'the way I see it'

I have probably put about the same amount of time in BF3 and MW3 (at my nephews) and IMO if I wanted a quick run and gun I would aim for COD and if I wanted to 'think' I would aim for BF. That doesn't mean to say other people can't play as a team on COD and 'think' etc, it's just how I see them.

COD reminds me of Unreal's run and gun pace more than anything else to be honest, it's not a bad thing!