Author Topic: Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3 (Read 1459 times)

TMRNetShark · « **on:** September 02, 2011, 07:18:37 PM »

So as a treat for all of us warfare fans... IF and DICE both released multiplayer trailers focusing on the classes and equipments people will get in the multiplayer portion of their respective games. I will try to be as unbiased as possible in this original post. So I will just say this: Both trailers look AWESOME. Both games look AWESOME. It's now up to you guys to see which of the two multiplayer trailers put you in more "awe"....

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer Reveal

Battlefield 3 Physical Warfare Pack

Which trailer was better? And as a follow up question... Which one will you probably end up playing with in multiplayer and why?

Big things to note:
Battlefield 3:

64 player PC online (24 player consoles)
Vehicles
Destructible/open environments

Modern Warfare 3:

32 players online (consoles and PC)
Heavily customizable classes
The "Return" of Quick-scoping

As a side note: Both will have dedicated servers.

Soryon · « **Reply #1 on:** September 02, 2011, 07:19:52 PM »

Fuck a trailer. Its about game play, not graphics.

vuzedome · « **Reply #2 on:** September 02, 2011, 07:33:13 PM »

Multi is always about customizability.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #3 on:** September 02, 2011, 07:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Soryon on September 02, 2011, 07:19:52 PM

Fuck a trailer. Its about game play, not graphics.

I would say that which game is better, but we don't know... neither are out. What we can do is base the gameplay on what we see in the trailers...

AceHigh · « **Reply #4 on:** September 02, 2011, 07:48:51 PM »

It's not even a contest. Dice has used years to put all love and care to their game and a frostbite engine that is probably superior to any other engine FPS games use today. They will give us vehicles, jets, helicopters, buildings you can blow up and all that wrapped up in awesome graphics. On top of that they were even generous enough to give us a single player campaign in case you want to chill in the game alone.

Activision is pumping out mediocre CoD games every year, what will make MW3 any different from the other shit they pulled out of their asses for the last 7 years?

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #5 on:** September 02, 2011, 07:53:57 PM »

Quote from: AceHigh on September 02, 2011, 07:48:51 PM

It's not even a contest. Dice has used years to put all love and care to their game and a frostbite engine that is probably superior to any other engine FPS games use today. They will give us vehicles, jets, helicopters, buildings you can blow up and all that wrapped up in awesome graphics. On top of that they were even generous enough to give us a single player campaign in case you want to chill in the game alone.

Activision is pumping out mediocre CoD games every year, what will make MW3 any different from the other shit they pulled out of their asses for the last 7 years?

Did you even watch the MW3 trailer? Quick-scoping is BACK! After a horrible year of no quick scoping... it's back! Plus that anti-missile/rpg robot thing looks kinda cool. I mean, I'm going to be getting both games, but yes, I will probably be playing more BF3 than MW3...

AceHigh · « **Reply #6 on:** September 02, 2011, 08:10:40 PM »

Why should anyone care about quick scoping? Ah, I get it, it's part of the "working as intended" gameplay. Hell, wasn't there one of the cod games where you could draw a crosshair on your screen and shoot 100% accurately without ever using the scope?

Muk666 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 02, 2011, 08:14:33 PM »

Quick scoping is retarded and should not be in a game, sniper rifles are long range weapons and should not be a viable close range weapon =P

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #8 on:** September 02, 2011, 09:08:17 PM »

Quote from: Muk666 on September 02, 2011, 08:14:33 PM

Quick scoping is retarded and should not be in a game, sniper rifles are long range weapons and should not be a viable close range weapon =P

So you'd rather it be retarded about where it shoots instead of shooting... well... straight!

tomoya-kun · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2011, 01:30:45 AM »

I think that quick scoping is actually a disadvantage because it's pretty stupid and unrealistic.

AceHigh · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2011, 02:54:26 AM »

Keep your hand near your hip and point towards an object at 15 metres. Now keep your hand in that position while checking with your eye where you were pointing at. Unless you have some serious problems with hand-eye coordination, you should be pointing pretty close at your chosen target. That is why there are many people that are very proficient at shooting from the hip.

Why am I mentioning this? because it makes more sense with a game mechanic where shooting at short ranges should not require looking through a scope in order to hit anything. I really like Arma for that, guns are accurate enough at short range without aiming down to iron sights, but get inaccurate when you run or sprint, then your aim goes towards left side of the screen (assuming you are right handed).

If the game mechanic is retarded enough for you to need to look from a scope at a target 5 metres away, then making an even more retarded fix for that like quick scope is not a solution.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2011, 03:02:57 AM »

Quote from: AceHigh on September 03, 2011, 02:54:26 AM

Keep your hand near your hip and point towards an object at 15 metres. Now keep your hand in that position while checking with your eye where you were pointing at. Unless you have some serious problems with hand-eye coordination, you should be pointing pretty close at your chosen target. That is why there are many people that are very proficient at shooting from the hip.

Why am I mentioning this? because it makes more sense with a game mechanic where shooting at short ranges should not require looking through a scope in order to hit anything. I really like Arma for that, guns are accurate enough at short range without aiming down to iron sights, but get inaccurate when you run or sprint, then your aim goes towards left side of the screen (assuming you are right handed).

If the game mechanic is retarded enough for you to need to look from a scope at a target 5 metres away, then making an even more retarded fix for that like quick scope is not a solution.

So what you are saying is that sniper rifles in the game shouldn't have that big of a spread (that takes up the entire screen basically)? I don't know how I feel about that... but I think if quick scoping made a comeback and allowed those people who want to quick scope to stop bitching... we'd all be happier. Why? I don't know... I think it's funny to see people rage quit when they lose... I know how to avoid quick scopers (strafe and hip fire bitches!)... so it's not a problem with me.

AceHigh · « **Reply #12 on:** September 03, 2011, 03:24:55 AM »

Exactly, they made it totally unrealistic by trying to make it seem realistic. As for bitching and moaning, that is why I avoid CoD games. The whole series is so infamous for kiddies that rage and whine, that a "CoD kiddie" became a serious insult as of late.

Actually that give MW3 a purpose: keep CoD kiddies in MW3, so that the rest of us can play BF3 in peace

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #13 on:** September 03, 2011, 03:46:03 AM »

Quote from: AceHigh on September 03, 2011, 03:24:55 AM

Exactly, they made it totally unrealistic by trying to make it seem realistic. As for bitching and moaning, that is why I avoid CoD games. The whole series is so infamous for kiddies that rage and whine, that a "CoD kiddie" became a serious insult as of late.

Actually that give MW3 a purpose: keep CoD kiddies in MW3, so that the rest of us can play BF3 in peace

Seem realistic? How can I fire a gun that is pointing straight but it hits a wall that is 3 feet to my left? It really doesn't make a lick of sense. I have actually never heard of Cod kiddies and I lol'ed when I said that out loud.

No, I definitely expect some of the CoD crowd to come over to BF3 initially because they don't want to feel "left out"... Sadly for you (I'm guessing you'll play BF3 on PC), you won't be seeing all of the CoD crowd rage quit when they can't run and gun effectively. As with myself, I will be "Owning my area" with an LMG and I'm sure I'm going to make a LOT of people angry. In all seriousness, the only thing that I will probably miss from CoD in BF3 is... actually no... BF3 will be just better in every regard. I mean, the game looks better... it has big open maps... vehicles (trust me people, vehicles are damn awesome and made Battlefield into what it is today)...

I will say this for everyone to hear: CoD is like Pamela Anderson.... they both use a lot of botox and you die a little bit each time you enjoy them. Battlefield 3 is like Demi Lovato... they are both very good looking and will probably make a lot of people blow their loads prematurely... I for one am a very seasoned 1942/BF2 operator... and I may like looking at Demi sometimes in my free time.

(click to show/hide)

(You can thank me later)

NaRu · « **Reply #14 on:** September 03, 2011, 07:04:31 AM »

The call of duty games are boring for me now. I liked MW2 but when black opps came out I didn't see much a difference in game play. MW3 is the same game with different features. Battlefield is going to be the better game.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #15 on:** September 03, 2011, 06:23:25 PM »

I think they've gotten rid of killstreaks in MW3 and replaced it with "Point Streaks"... so if you capture a position, steal a flag, get an assist, get a kill, etc... basically anything that nets you points gives you 1 point towards your point streaks. So this will help against campers who just sit around until they get their killstreaks.

tomoya-kun · « **Reply #16 on:** September 03, 2011, 08:41:45 PM »

Quote from: NaRu on September 03, 2011, 07:04:31 AM

The call of duty games are boring for me now. I liked MW2 but when black opps came out I didn't see much a difference in game play. MW3 is the same game with different features. Battlefield is going to be the better game.

That's the way it is going to be every year, with Activision forcing annual releases. It'll end up being like those sports games

mgz · « **Reply #17 on:** September 04, 2011, 11:42:42 PM »

i voted for bf3 even though i hate the games purely because mw3 is prolly just going to be another mw expansion

AceD · « **Reply #18 on:** September 04, 2011, 11:49:00 PM »

MW3 baby, as an xbox player BFBC3 will probably suck for it compared to the PC version. I'll probably check it out still but am a COD kinda guy.

Multi that is, don't give a hoot about single player,

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #19 on:** September 05, 2011, 12:05:53 AM »

Quote from: AceD on September 04, 2011, 11:49:00 PM

MW3 baby, as an xbox player BFBC3 will probably suck for it compared to the PC version. I'll probably check it out still but am a COD kinda guy.

Multi that is, don't give a hoot about single player,

It seems you and me are the only people here that will buy MW3 (like I said, I will be buying both)... but I'm more exciting about using the Support package (Sleight of Hand, Overkill, Stalker... look at the pro versions of each

) with UAV, Ballistic Duffle, and Remote UAV. I'm going to LOVE that setup.

Probably another setup will be Assault package (Scavenger, Quickdraw, Sitrep) with Predator Missile, Little Bird Guard, Talcon. Apart from the Predator... no one can surprise buttseck (backstab) me!