I didn't see a topic about this so I decided to post one myself. Keep in mind that this is a discussion/friendly debate, so please don't turn this into a flame war because I don't want to have to ask this thread to be closed.

 

Anyways, here is my opinion: Modern Warfare 3 is a slightly upgraded version of MW2. News guns, new maps, new campaign. All of that is well and fine, but doesn't make me want to buy the game. The graphics haven't really improved at all.The overall mechanics of the game are mediocre. For example, some of the killstreaks are too low and way OP, and some killstreaks are too high and way underpowered. The Osprey Gunner is like 20-something kills, and it sucks. MW3, in my opinion, is just a disappointed. I prefer BF3 over MW3 because of all the improvements DICE has made since BFBC2. The graphics are amazing, the gameplay is more war-like (starts off slow and gradually picks up), and the overall mechanics of the game are good. Now I'm not saying BF3 doesn't have its faults too. The amount of campers are unbelievable, it's way too easy to get spawn killed, and some of the guns are just way OP. But besides these things, I think BF3 comes out better than MW3. What are your thoughts?

I love Call of Duty and I've racked up 11 days since buying Black Ops in May. I bought BF3 instead of MW2.5. :ph34r: It is seriously mindblowing, and yes camping is a serious problem in Rush, especially on Operation Metro. The most satisfying thing ever is creeping up on that one camping sniper that has been pestering you the entire round and sticking a knife in his throat, then nabbing his tags.

 

EDIT: What guns do you think are OP? The Famas maybe. The USAS-12 was and it got a bit nerfed.

Battle Field does not have Zombies so.

Well COD3 does not have zombies at the moment but at least Black Ops and World At War did.

I love Call of Duty and I've racked up 11 days since buying Black Ops in May. I bought BF3 instead of MW2.5. :ph34r: It is seriously mindblowing, and yes camping is a serious problem in Rush, especially on Operation Metro. The most satisfying thing ever is creeping up on that one camping sniper that has been pestering you the entire round and sticking a knife in his throat, then nabbing his tags.

 

EDIT: What guns do you think are OP? The Famas maybe. The USAS-12 was and it got a bit nerfed.

 

Those two you mentioned, the MK3A1 (seriously that thing is just OP'd to hell), and the UMP.

It is pretty refreshing to get rid of a camping sniper, but I hate when there are spots where it's damn near impossible to get them. Like I think at Damavand Peak, there is this crane where they can climb up and snipe and watch if people are climbing up to take them down as well, and that's pretty annoying.

BF3 is much better cause you get that epic war feeling while playing and the graphics are stunning. There are a lot of campers in rush but it's not really a problem when you bring in the amazing C4-ed car! It is also fun to crash a helicopter that is full of people

MW3 is the most disappointing game this year. I hate dying just because of some random explosion that happened on the other side of a wall and all the overpowered weapons and let's not forget the campers! and you feel just disappointed after every game.

BF3 FTW!

I just like BF3 even though I haven't played it yet I HAVE played BFP4F,because of two simple reasons,BF3 has large maps WITH VEHICALS unlike MW3 which doesn't have vehicals which you can get into and control! Well except for killstreaks but you all know what I MEAN! But that is one huge reason why I like BF3 more. Also MW3 is so un-noob friendly with the kill-streaks.But I have no problem with MW3. I HAVE completed the campaign.And although technically I played it mostly on my cousin's husband's PS3,I still had alot of fun with both the campaign and the multi-player.I'm sure both games are a TON of fun,or at least would be for me,but BF3 quite a bit more just because of free vehicals you can press one button and get into and WREAK HAVOC!

This is pretty hard thing to say because both games have good points and bad things.

 

MW3: Fun to play with friends. Action is fast and pretty addicting. Spec-ops, better story than in BF3. Is better on consoles.

 

BF3: Is bettter on computer. More realistic. Better graphics.

 

(If someone complains about killstreaks , then dont use those killstreaks which are underpowered, use better ones.)

Well to be perfectly honest, I liked Call of Duty MW2 and Bad Company 2 just about on equal. However, when Battlefield 3 and MW3 came out, I was left bitterly disappointed with both of them. Learn to KillZone, guys.

Well here I go, better put my rant hat on.

 

Battlefield 3 is superior in every single way.

 

Campaign

 

First off, the Campaign, while a little lack luster, was at least original. The MW3 campaign was essentially the same thing as the MW2 and COD4 campaign, especially the parts where you almost kill Makarov. Then we have the fact that 50% of the campaign consist of random ass, irrelevant shoot outs. I understand it is a shooter game but do you honestly expect me to find 10 seconds of plot then "HOLY SHIT RUSSIANS!" is entertaining? It's more annoying then anything, you are just starting to get into the story and the characters and then everyone your talking to gets shot. WTF? Infinity Ward, if you can't focus on plot for more than 20 seconds a level then why add a campaign at all? Your just wasting our time by killing bots. The other 50% of the campaign? American propaganda. Europe can't do shit against drunken soviets so they have to rely on Americans to do everything.

 

While the Battlefield 3 campaign wasn't that great either, at least DICE made an attempt to tell a story. There were slow moments, fast moments the whole 9 yards. And lets not forget there weren't 50 plot holes in the story unlike a certain shooter...

 

Multiplayer

 

Is this even worth debating? Multiplayer in MW3 is just a mod of MW2 which is why people call the game MW2.5. There is nothing new about it at all. If you disagree than you are pretty much just being a fanboy or haven't played another COD before.

 

Here is how the average game of the Modern Warfare games go.

 

COD 4:

 

1. Spawn

2. Run around

3. Killed by martydom

4. Respawn

5. Spawn killed for the rest of the game

 

MW2

 

1. Spawn

2. Run around

3. Killed by grenade launcher

4. Respawn

5. Spawn killed for the rest of the game

 

MW3

 

1. Spawn

2. Run around

3. Killed by overpowered killstreak

4. Respawn

5. Spawn killed for rest of the game.

 

Notice how the only improvement to multiplayer is that the way you die gets slightly less irritating with every game. Though the entire spawn killing thing negates the fact that you are slightly less irritated by the death.

 

Oh! And there is the fact that every COD game has been using the same video game engine since COD4 which is nearly 5 years old! That just goes to show how little IW actually cares about creating a decent multiplayer experience. The engine is outdated, the explosions look like cuts & pastes from 70s action movies, the character models are ugly, and it's glitched to the point of oblivion. And lets not forget the firetrucking lag! Seriously, whether or not it's host migration or just shitty connections in general the lag is terrible. We've all been in games where lag has rendered the entire game unplayable.

 

And then you have the fact that the majority of the people who actually play MW3 are around 12 to 14 years old which makes the entire game sound like chimpanzees getting raped while gunshots go off int he background. Finally we have the fact that the entire community is a piece of shit which consist of 1% reasonable people and 99% people raging at each other.

 

Battlefield 3 is much better. First off the game engine allows for excellent visuals and a full destruction engine. Kid camping in a building? No problem! Blow the building to tiny pieces! The game feels more alive that way. Beautiful landscapes are quickly turned into war torn doomsday events! It also feels much more smooth, you don't have people running around from one side to the other confusing the crap out of everyone. It actually feels like, well, a battlefield. There is actually some strategy involved instead of running into your favorite camping spot and staring at the entrance to it.

 

The guns are much better with more realistic and more entertaining qualities as well as a wide range of attachments that actually do shit. Blinding kids with a flashlight is due for some easy kills!

 

Then you have vehicles that you actually need to be good at using to get kills in. There is also that whole teamwork thing. People care more about winning than their firetrucking KD ratios. So as a result people work together more often which makes things more epic in general.

 

 

 

 

There is just too much to say at once on how overrated MW3 is. If you would like to challenge any of my ideas I would be glad to prove you wrong.

I liked black Ops only because of Zombies. The multiplayer didn't really appeal to me, it seemed to 'arcady'. It was fun but the community just drove me to hate the franchise. Battlefield 3 on the other hand is awesome! I just prefer the realism added to the gameplay even though there are times where it gets pretty stupid. The thing that I like about battlefield is the sheer size and epicness of the multiplayer. There are times where it feels like Call of Duty because of some of the closed quarters but I guess that's something I'll have to deal with. Also, the vehicles. There's nothing more satisfying than learning how to drive a Jet

 

Notice how the only improvement to multiplayer is that the way you die gets slightly less irritating with every game. Though the entire spawn killing thing negates the fact that you are slightly less irritated by the death.

 

There is just too much to say at once on how overrated MW3 is. If you would like to challenge any of my ideas I would be glad to prove you wrong.

 

Well I would argue that the way you die has actually becomes increasingly more irritating as opposed to less. And that the killstreaks were more over powered in MW2 than they are in MW3.

Updated the topic with a poll guys.

 

Well to be perfectly honest, I liked Call of Duty MW2 and Bad Company 2 just about on equal. However, when Battlefield 3 and MW3 came out, I was left bitterly disappointed with both of them. Learn to KillZone, guys.

 

Why were you bitterly disappointed? Just wondering

Because I liked the previous entries to both series quite a lot more. Maybe not "bitterly" disappointed, but disappointed nonetheless...

Well I would argue that the way you die has actually becomes increasingly more irritating as opposed to less. And that the killstreaks were more over powered in MW2 than they are in MW3.

 

The Osprey is a killstreak that shits out other kill streaks

 

This allows an endless cycle of being raped by air support.

MW2 has a tactical nuke that kills everyone and ends the game.

And also MW2 had danger close which allowed bigger explosive damage, thus making the killstreaks more powerful than they already were. Also, not sure if this happens in MW3 because I didn't play much of it, but in MW2 the killstreaks counted toward other killstreaks.

 

That said though, MW3 doesn't even require killstreaks, you can get I think 12 kills over the course of a game and be awarded a stealth bomber lol so I do see where you are coming from. Personally I think they are as incredibly annoying in each, all things considered =D