The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => Hobbies and Recreation => Gamers Zone => Topic started by: Spartanguy88 on November 12, 2011, 03:17:53 PM
-
This was a very hard decision for me. Both games have outstanding multiplayer, great graphics, and practically infinite re-playability.
But I'm gonna have to give it to Battlefield 3 because while the single player campaign was simply not that good, the multiplayer greatly encouraged teamwork and vehicle usage.
-
I chose Battlefield 3. I really like any games that encourage teamwork. Also the vehicles and destructible environments can provide some fun situations.
I don't really like the main story for either game.
-
Since I am a big Call of Duty fan, I choose Modern Warfare 3. Outstanding single player and awesome Multiplayer experience, many players already bought this game and go compete with other people using Multiplayer.
As for Battlefield 3, the one thing that amazed me is the graphics, or the what they called "Frostbite Engine" that beats the graphics of Modern Warfare 3. It almost looked real.
But, yet, I still choose Modern Warfare 3. I'll be getting that game when it is officially released here in the Philippines. :)
-
Since I don't own these games I'll say Modern Welfare 3.
-
I'm a bit dubious about this thread as it has the potential to turn into a mud-slinging match. I'm letting this up purely on the basis that I can trust people not to fall into acts of trolling when they write replies and they can be diplomatic about responses. Please don't let me down guys! Warning given!
Both games are stellar examples of modern gaming done right but they come from different angles; particularly in the multiplayer scenes. BF3 works a lot more on teamwork aspects and bonding as a virtual unit in order to overcome the opposing team. Solo flyers don't tend to get too far in games of Rush and Conquest and the team effort is what helps win a bout. Where COD excels is in the ability for one to become a champion among the crowd. Be it DM, TDM or any other game mode, more praise and "ego-points" are awarded to the individuals thru perks, killstreaks and match winning shots. They both work but on different planes.
As for the actual mechanics of each of the games, my sway is more towards COD. The action is thrilling, on a constant high and runs at a smooth 60fps no matter your hardware. Story modes are hollow but the addition of extra modes and co-op affairs help build a more complete package. BF3 does a great job of making use of destruction physics and really does make a war zone look and feel as such. Issue is, frame rate is hampered for console versions, graphically it's not much to admire (not saying a game has to be pretty to be good but it's a subtle bonus), more bugs in the way of clipping, bizarre animations (particularly when killed) and there are peaks and troughs in the action rather than a constant flow. Personally, given the choice, I'd go with COD but I'd always consider BF on the back burner for when COD just gets irritating and you want a different spin on the genre.
-
Generic Military shooter VS generic military shooter
interesting thread!!!! :lol
BTW I don't like COD at all. If I had a gun held to my head, I guess I would choose Battlefield, but I never liked that stuff either.
-
Now that I've played both, I can say for certain that I prefer Battlefield 3. I like supporting my teammates (since I'm not all that great in a straight-up gunfight), and BF3 gives me a greater variety of ways to do so. I also enjoy having to factor in bullet drop and travel time when sniping - adds a neat challenge to it, I think.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_msAKWdOs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_msAKWdOs)
This explains my opinion of both.
Bulletstorm gets my shooter of the year. The anniversary edition of Halo is a close second, despite being an overhauled HD remake of a ten-year-old game. But the first Halo is just that awesome. :lol