If you want to get the best experience on the PC, get BF3.
If you want to get the best experience on the Consoles, get MW3.
MW3 is built with consoles in mind using dated technology that can still work well on 360 and PS3, which are very dated. Not a lot of innovation and the general feeling has not changed at all, besides a few addicting modes. If you don't plan on swapping from the analog stick, stay with this.
BF3 is built with top of the line technology that can look amazing on the PC, and scale decently to 360 and PS3, but it is obviously not as good of a game on the consoles. For instance, on consoles BF3's frame rate is locked to 30, and the graphics seem to be below (low) setting on PC.
If you install the HD Texture pack on the consoles, it look's great. BF3 also run's really well on the consoles. It was "switched" to consoles in mid-production.
But to the OP on the COD or Battlefield 3, I have BF3 and have pre-ordered MW3 also. Nothing say's you can't get both.
Sic semper tyrannis "Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms."
Both games are entertaining, but I prefer Modern Warfare. I believe Battlefield is often times too chaotic with everything blowing up everywhere and that can seem exciting at first, but it gets annoying really quickly. It becomes hard to gauge where enemy fire is coming from, stealth gameplay is not nearly as effective, and it lacks any form of organization with people grabbing vehicles and just blowing everything on sight. Also, being able to spawn next to one of your squadmates makes it extremely annoying as entire squads spawn behind enemy lines, further making things hectic and confusing. Overall, the sense of scale, impact, and action are hindered by the absurd amounts of pandemonium.
BF3 for me, COD after a great start as a series sold its soul with MW and apeasing the console crowd and then further slapped PC users that gave it its start with MW2 and no dedicated servers.
I would never buy a COD ever again after that debacle and the more I see of the arcade tripe "KILL CONFIRMED" coming with MW3 the more I stand by my decision.
BF3 whilst not quite BF2's spiritual successor more like Battlefield 2.5 and Bad Company 2.5 had a baby and BF3 was it but IMO it has taken the best of what each game had and succesfully merged them into what IMO is the greatest FPS since Kingpin in the late 90s.
Each game is unique. I just downloaded and am playing BOF 3. What I like about the game is the large map to play on. You can choose to be infantry with 4 subsections, support, medic, engineer, or recon. You can enter and play in tanks, helicopters, jets, APC's, etc. This is something COD doesn't have and I think its a major drawback to COD.
Each to their own. They're both great games. See you on the battlefield!
COD: MW3 reportedly has a fantastic campaign/story mode
BF3 reportedly has amazing multiplayer experience
---
Personally, I'm not interested in MW3 as I dislike the COD series all together. Black Ops was obnoxious to me and felt unreasonably frantic. I recently bought BF3 and it is everything I've read and better. It has huge maps and intense and indepth vehicle utilizations, as well as a nice class-progression approach to infantry.
In terms of pure technical quality i.e. graphics, sound, animations, engine: I would say BF3 is FARRRR "better" than COD, but, it still depends on what you're looking for when it comes to "fun" or "enjoyment" --
I've heard from BF3 finatics that the story in COD is unmatched. so... that's what I have to say about it
CoD Modern Warfare was great, but every CoD game that followed has slowly gotten worse. No progression, just pumping out the games to get your Money. The Battlefield series has done nothing but make advances to thier Series.
CoD Modern Warfare made the standard but failed to go beyond that. I hope Modern Warfare 3 does, but given the way the last 3 were, I doubt it. The crap they passed off as Black Ops was the last straw for me. to me it was a Cartoonie Cookie Cutter game. Such a disappointment.
I pre-ordered BF3..beat the compaign in like 3 hours, then played online for like 10 hours.....then took it to Gamestop. I was so thrilled about the game but it was actually quite boring, including the multiplayer. I get my copy of MW3 in about 5 hours or so (midnight release) and I am REALLY looking forward to that story. I still have the first 2 MW titles and play them regularily. That story series is amazing. I can't wait to see how it ends.
BF3 campaign was uninspired. It's Muliplayer is unmatched on PC, but if you are buying for a console, COD will probably entertain you more. I'm sure it's campaign will also be short, but it will probably cause you to feel more. The multiplayer is fast and juvenile, but you already knew that.
BF3 campaign was uninspired. It's Muliplayer is unmatched on PC, but if you are buying for a console, COD will probably entertain you more. I'm sure it's campaign will also be short, but it will probably cause you to feel more. The multiplayer is fast and juvenile, but you already knew that.
A very good point brought up here.... Whether you're playing on PC or console is another variable you might want to consider when deciding which of the two games you get.
On console, I wouldn't be surprised if COD was more satisfying than BF3, simply because of the demographic that plays consoles. For the PC, however, i strongly suggest BF3 hands down.
I pre-ordered BF3..beat the compaign in like 3 hours, then played online for like 10 hours.....then took it to Gamestop. I was so thrilled about the game but it was actually quite boring, including the multiplayer. I get my copy of MW3 in about 5 hours or so (midnight release) and I am REALLY looking forward to that story. I still have the first 2 MW titles and play them regularily. That story series is amazing. I can't wait to see how it ends.
Your kidding right. The MW SP campaigns may not be 3 hours long but they are only about 6 hours long. I never found the multiplayer to be boring when I played BF3 in beta and that was even only on one single map. I dont understand how you can love the MW story as its the most generic story I've ever played in a game (and I have not played BF3's single player, but thats not the reason I want the game).
I don't see the big let down of the BF3 SP mode btw... I mean, it's obvious that the multiplayer is it's shining point, but, the single player mode was still intense imo. The animations, voice work, emotional touches, and pace seemed pretty damn good to me. I'm not saying the BF3 SP is "better" than MW3's, but I don't think it deserves that bad of an assessment.
COD series is really boring when it comes to MP.. Just a kiddies arcade game really.. headshot headshot.. popping up on the screen all the time haha...
BF3 is more tactical and in depth and so much more fun in MP.. cant comment on the SP game as i have not started it and probally wont unless one day i find myself with nothing to do... BF games are not about the SP side of things and never have been.
BF3 is by far the better game... wont sell as much but the amount of sales has nothing to do with quality.
It depends on what you want out of a game. I only like FPS style games with vehicle combat, so its BF3 for me. Others I know like the fast paced of COD series. Neither are better or superior to the other. I would say you'll spend less on BF series as they do not release a whole new game each year.
2 different games, so get both, if not decide on whether you like big maps more places to hide (B3) or small maps close quarter battles (COD)
I got B3 and is my first fps that involves guns and tanks, after watching someone else playng it I just had to get it and is the first game of this genre that has grabbed my attention. Because COD is a different game I might look at that and see if I could enjoy that game aswel, but Skyrim Friday, could be a very difficult decision.
I pre-ordered BF3..beat the compaign in like 3 hours, then played online for like 10 hours.....then took it to Gamestop. I was so thrilled about the game but it was actually quite boring, including the multiplayer. I get my copy of MW3 in about 5 hours or so (midnight release) and I am REALLY looking forward to that story. I still have the first 2 MW titles and play them regularily. That story series is amazing. I can't wait to see how it ends.
SP stories in a FPS is only really good to me for 1, maybe 2 runs tops. After that, an FPS has to really shine in MP.
That is why the sheer scope and variety of BF3, its large maps, varied terrain, teamplay and objectives based gaming, and the combination of infantry AND vehicle combat has been a superior combination. Not to mention a game engine that chews up practically everything in the genre.
COD is infantry combat only, and on small maps, with low player counts to top it off.
Activision is laughing its way to the bank with all these sales for selling an expansion pack (MW3) as a full game.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Comments
If you install the HD Texture pack on the consoles, it look's great. BF3 also run's really well on the consoles. It was "switched" to consoles in mid-production.
But to the OP on the COD or Battlefield 3, I have BF3 and have pre-ordered MW3 also. Nothing say's you can't get both.
Sic semper tyrannis "Democracy broke down, not when the Union
ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms."
I like big and well designed maps; so BF3 is where I went.
I'm expecting some decent action in COD and the story looks far superior in the 1 player campaign.
That's just not enough to give up having 64 players on maps with jets, tanks, jeeps, sniping..
This is a case of more being more.
My biggest gripe is progression and it'll be similar in both games.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Both games are entertaining, but I prefer Modern Warfare. I believe Battlefield is often times too chaotic with everything blowing up everywhere and that can seem exciting at first, but it gets annoying really quickly. It becomes hard to gauge where enemy fire is coming from, stealth gameplay is not nearly as effective, and it lacks any form of organization with people grabbing vehicles and just blowing everything on sight. Also, being able to spawn next to one of your squadmates makes it extremely annoying as entire squads spawn behind enemy lines, further making things hectic and confusing. Overall, the sense of scale, impact, and action are hindered by the absurd amounts of pandemonium.
BF3 for me, COD after a great start as a series sold its soul with MW and apeasing the console crowd and then further slapped PC users that gave it its start with MW2 and no dedicated servers.
I would never buy a COD ever again after that debacle and the more I see of the arcade tripe "KILL CONFIRMED" coming with MW3 the more I stand by my decision.
BF3 whilst not quite BF2's spiritual successor more like Battlefield 2.5 and Bad Company 2.5 had a baby and BF3 was it but IMO it has taken the best of what each game had and succesfully merged them into what IMO is the greatest FPS since Kingpin in the late 90s.
Each game is unique. I just downloaded and am playing BOF 3. What I like about the game is the large map to play on. You can choose to be infantry with 4 subsections, support, medic, engineer, or recon. You can enter and play in tanks, helicopters, jets, APC's, etc. This is something COD doesn't have and I think its a major drawback to COD.
Each to their own. They're both great games. See you on the battlefield!
COD: MW3 reportedly has a fantastic campaign/story mode
BF3 reportedly has amazing multiplayer experience
---
Personally, I'm not interested in MW3 as I dislike the COD series all together. Black Ops was obnoxious to me and felt unreasonably frantic. I recently bought BF3 and it is everything I've read and better. It has huge maps and intense and indepth vehicle utilizations, as well as a nice class-progression approach to infantry.
In terms of pure technical quality i.e. graphics, sound, animations, engine: I would say BF3 is FARRRR "better" than COD, but, it still depends on what you're looking for when it comes to "fun" or "enjoyment" --
I've heard from BF3 finatics that the story in COD is unmatched. so... that's what I have to say about it
hope you find what you're looking for
My Vote is Battlefield 3.
CoD Modern Warfare was great, but every CoD game that followed has slowly gotten worse. No progression, just pumping out the games to get your Money. The Battlefield series has done nothing but make advances to thier Series.
CoD Modern Warfare made the standard but failed to go beyond that. I hope Modern Warfare 3 does, but given the way the last 3 were, I doubt it. The crap they passed off as Black Ops was the last straw for me. to me it was a Cartoonie Cookie Cutter game. Such a disappointment.
I pre-ordered BF3..beat the compaign in like 3 hours, then played online for like 10 hours.....then took it to Gamestop. I was so thrilled about the game but it was actually quite boring, including the multiplayer. I get my copy of MW3 in about 5 hours or so (midnight release) and I am REALLY looking forward to that story. I still have the first 2 MW titles and play them regularily. That story series is amazing. I can't wait to see how it ends.
BF3 campaign was uninspired. It's Muliplayer is unmatched on PC, but if you are buying for a console, COD will probably entertain you more. I'm sure it's campaign will also be short, but it will probably cause you to feel more. The multiplayer is fast and juvenile, but you already knew that.
A very good point brought up here.... Whether you're playing on PC or console is another variable you might want to consider when deciding which of the two games you get.
On console, I wouldn't be surprised if COD was more satisfying than BF3, simply because of the demographic that plays consoles. For the PC, however, i strongly suggest BF3 hands down.
Your kidding right. The MW SP campaigns may not be 3 hours long but they are only about 6 hours long. I never found the multiplayer to be boring when I played BF3 in beta and that was even only on one single map. I dont understand how you can love the MW story as its the most generic story I've ever played in a game (and I have not played BF3's single player, but thats not the reason I want the game).
But whatever floats your boat.
I don't see the big let down of the BF3 SP mode btw... I mean, it's obvious that the multiplayer is it's shining point, but, the single player mode was still intense imo. The animations, voice work, emotional touches, and pace seemed pretty damn good to me. I'm not saying the BF3 SP is "better" than MW3's, but I don't think it deserves that bad of an assessment.
BF3 for sure..
COD series is really boring when it comes to MP.. Just a kiddies arcade game really.. headshot headshot.. popping up on the screen all the time haha...
BF3 is more tactical and in depth and so much more fun in MP.. cant comment on the SP game as i have not started it and probally wont unless one day i find myself with nothing to do... BF games are not about the SP side of things and never have been.
BF3 is by far the better game... wont sell as much but the amount of sales has nothing to do with quality.
It depends on what you want out of a game. I only like FPS style games with vehicle combat, so its BF3 for me. Others I know like the fast paced of COD series. Neither are better or superior to the other. I would say you'll spend less on BF series as they do not release a whole new game each year.
I got both. I have really enjoyed BF3 multiplayer its been pretty intense.
I will be installing MW3 tonight as well.
2 different games, so get both, if not decide on whether you like big maps more places to hide (B3) or small maps close quarter battles (COD)
I got B3 and is my first fps that involves guns and tanks, after watching someone else playng it I just had to get it and is the first game of this genre that has grabbed my attention. Because COD is a different game I might look at that and see if I could enjoy that game aswel, but Skyrim Friday, could be a very difficult decision.
SP stories in a FPS is only really good to me for 1, maybe 2 runs tops. After that, an FPS has to really shine in MP.
That is why the sheer scope and variety of BF3, its large maps, varied terrain, teamplay and objectives based gaming, and the combination of infantry AND vehicle combat has been a superior combination. Not to mention a game engine that chews up practically everything in the genre.
COD is infantry combat only, and on small maps, with low player counts to top it off.
Activision is laughing its way to the bank with all these sales for selling an expansion pack (MW3) as a full game.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)