Battlefield 3 or MW3
- Thread starter Apathy
- Start date
Hammerhead
New member
I'll probably end up going with MW3 if I get either. I play more single-player than multiplayer (either I don't have my XBL account renewed or I have it renewed and I have yet another Xbox take a dump on me :throw ) and from what I gather, BF3 is geared more toward online play. I might be in the minority here, but I really liked Black Ops's single-player campaign, so I'd expect MW3 to have a decent campaign as well.
redblooded
New member
Black ops single-player campaign was like 5 minutes of fighting, 30 minutes of lame cutscene where you aren't doing anything but listening to horrible storyline... repeat till the game is over and you get a 30 minute credit scene.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance
Administrator
What's really difficult for me is that I prefer PC through and through. The first video game I ever played was Doom when I was about four or five years old (1994-1995). But because I'm in college, and my 'gaming' laptop is four years old and can't handle the more demanding games, I'm stuck buying pretty much all my games for the xbox. If I had my choice I'd much rather play anything on the PC, especially shooter games.
One of my first "big" purchases out of college is going to be a customized gaming computer. I'm salivating just thinking about it.
So a more advanced engine, better graphics, destructible environments, squad based gameplay, vehicles and about the most realistic warfare game ever don't trip your trigger?
You're crazy son!!! I wouldn't waste $60 on Modern Warfare 2 Modern Warfare 3. It's basically just new weapons, reorganized perks and new models slapped onto the same half a decade old engine. I guess you have to give IW made props for being able to sell that garbage, though.
Now that I've said that, though, I'm glad nobody knows I still generally pay full price for the new NCAA game every year. At least this last year it only cost me $35!
Last edited by a moderator:
krill
New member
"When I was a kid, we rocket jumped all the way to school, uphill both ways" :lol:
I didn't even like Quake 3 Arena back in the day when this argument was Quake or Unreal Tournament (of course they were both fabulous games), but now all I play is Quake Live. Not another penny for console ports that have watered down and jammed with DLC.
VectorVictor
Donor
Enhance, there are some folks that just can't handle what BF3 provides, bottom line. MW's success lies in its banality, simplicity, and the ease of which script kiddies can hack the games. It's part of the reason why Infinity Ward and Activision came to loggerheads--the former wanted to expand the franchise greatly, and the later was content to shovel the same **** out the door for $59.99 U.S. and rely on P.T. Barnum's Law of Consumer Creation and Categorization.
Considering the braintrust behind MW (Infinity Ward) has mostly migrated over to EA and DICE, it's only a matter of time before Call of Duty goes the way of Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk Skateboard games.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lyons in the Sea of Red.
New member
LOLx2 Based on what? What does MW3 have to offer that BF3 doesnt? I have BF3 and will probably wait til christmas to get MW3. All i know is Bf3 is amazing and when the expansion comes out it might not be a contest.
redblooded
New member
Uhh, there really isn't a way to stop hackers in any game. You can minimize the amount there are with decent cheat detection, but at its core these games are simply pieces of software that have to store things like enemy positions in memory. The more calculations you have to do for security double checks the slower the game is going to run so if you had a really hard to hack game (never would it be impossible) it wouldn't have all the graphic bells and whistles that drive the Masses. However games like counterstrike and quake don't have nearly the large amount of problems MW did (and BF3 will). Mainly because 3rd party server admins that would take care of their own servers and you could actually ban hackers.
There is nothing wrong with simplicity in games. Nor is there anything wrong with people that don't find graphics and physics engines with destroyable environments and other eye-candy the equivalent of fun.
For the past 4 or 5 years I've played a fair amount of cs gungame to pass time. It's not a hugely involved game, but it's fast paced and can be quit any time. That makes it fun for me. The graphics aren't as good as even MW, but the game is better, faster, and more entertaining.
Arguing that engines make a game better is like arguing that candy land is better then chess because the board is more colorful.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stu
New member
My roomate has both. Played one match of online MW3 before heading to a concert, it looked the same as Black Ops, kind of like a map expansion. different killstreak rewards, but everything looked pretty familiar. He said he played ONE online match of BF3 and didn't like it.
Basically, I live with a guy who owns both and you would think I'd have drawn some sort of conclusion to which I want to buy, or maybe be able to suggest to others... but NO. I suck at life.
I. Suck. So. Much.
and so does he.
Basically, I live with a guy who owns both and you would think I'd have drawn some sort of conclusion to which I want to buy, or maybe be able to suggest to others... but NO. I suck at life.
I. Suck. So. Much.
and so does he.
