Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3

[PCgamer81]

COD has more highs but that comes with more lows, and the moments of frustration always seemed to overtake whatever good time I had. While BF felt awkward at first I eventually got a hang of the controls. I also enjoyed the slow casual like pace of it. Best of all the shotguns were awesome, only thing I ended up using on BF. Slap on slugs for big maps and buckshot for close quarters. And the lack of kill streaks made no difference for when I died. In COD I would get so annoyed when something stupid ended my streak.

...the few times you had a streak.

 

[nnaatthhaannx2]

Well... depends on what you are looking for.
This is from what I have seen during playing the games on my PC, and briefly, on a friends console.

GRAPHICS:

Battlefield 3 has the new Frostbite 2 Engine for graphics. You can get really good results with this, but depends on your system. With a console, its just another FPS with no big difference from other high quality graphics games. On PC, this is different. You can get amazing results with it, but it will require an amazing system. In my case, the graphics are great, but just not amazing. To get amazing, you spend tons of $. Frostbite 2 is claimed to have a completely destructible landscape, but it isn't quite so. When you shoot at things such as trees, you just get bullet holes, and after tons of shots in trees, they don't fall down, just more bullet holes. Additionally, there are added light "blemishes" where there are the little spots around the screen where it looks like dust particles are on your glasses. I don't like this effect at all, and wish it could be turned off. Additionally, some lighting is blinding, and it is as if you are looking directly at the sun with no sunglasses. This doesn't make any sense, and distracts from game-play. At points, you may not even see someone shooting at you because of the lighting.

Now for the graphics of Modern Warfare 3. I think they are very nice, and detailed. They certainly aren't the best, but they are good enough that you can play the game and it looks attractive. So what if it doesn't blow your hair back? The graphics go along with the game and don't distract you in any way. Most of the effects are nice, and characters are well detailed. IW didn't make any claims about their graphics, only that it was better (than the previous versions), and completely agree. You can run it on any gaming-oriented machine (>5550) at high settings. Additionally, the console version looks nice and is also optimized.

Overall, for me, its Modern Warfare, because the graphics of Battlefield distract from the game-play. As I stated, sometimes you cannot see, and in Modern Warfare 3, the graphics help the game, and up the overall experience. But this is really close, because yes, of course Battlefield is more realistic, but sometimes you care about smoothness and ease of viewing instead of realism. Many effects in both games are similar. Either way, you can't go wrong.


SINGLE PLAYER

Battlefield 3 has a vast single player experience. It includes many different vehicles, and varied mission types. It definitely tares away from the standard FPS. With its campaign, its seems almost too serious. There's nothing that's gonna blow you mind and for you to say "WOW" at. Its sorda just like you going through missions, in the typical interrogation room fashion. I personally wish that games do something more original than flashbacks, it just reminded me too much of Black Ops. Its fun, but may get boring. With the vehicle thing, you can't really choose if you want to be in or out if it, and what part of the crew you want to be. The game chooses for you. The tank mission is a good example, you can't choose what part you want to control, nor what tank, or when you get in or out if it. I think Crysis has mastered vehicles better.

If you want something exciting, get Modern Warfare 3. The game is strong and has many surprises. To me, a unexpected plane crash is way better than the ability to go in vehicles. The excitement is powerful, and the voice acting is nice. You get to know the characters of the game, and it seems more like a story than just flashbacks. It is definably less predictable. Controls feel more fluid in this game also, but it may be just because I'm used to it.

Overall, once again, I think Modern Warfare 3 has the edge here. Its simply because its exciting, and it draws you in. Flashbacks aren't really to interesting for me. If you like varying game-play styles, you can sure go with Battlefield.

I haven't really played too much multiplayer so I won't judge that. I would, but I don't want to type anymore, so I'll stop the comparison here.

 

[PCgamer81]

Well... depends on what you are looking for.
This is from what I have seen during playing the games on my PC, and briefly, on a friends console.

GRAPHICS:

Battlefield 3 has the new Frostbite 2 Engine for graphics. You can get really good results with this, but depends on your system. With a console, its just another FPS with no big difference from other high quality graphics games. On PC, this is different. You can get amazing results with it, but it will require an amazing system. In my case, the graphics are great, but just not amazing. To get amazing, you spend tons of $. Frostbite 2 is claimed to have a completely destructible landscape, but it isn't quite so. When you shoot at things such as trees, you just get bullet holes, and after tons of shots in trees, they don't fall down, just more bullet holes. Additionally, there are added light "blemishes" where there are the little spots around the screen where it looks like dust particles are on your glasses. I don't like this effect at all, and wish it could be turned off. Additionally, some lighting is blinding, and it is as if you are looking directly at the sun with no sunglasses. This doesn't make any sense, and distracts from game-play. At points, you may not even see someone shooting at you because of the lighting.

Now for the graphics of Modern Warfare 3. I think they are very nice, and detailed. They certainly aren't the best, but they are good enough that you can play the game and it looks attractive. So what if it doesn't blow your hair back? The graphics go along with the game and don't distract you in any way. Most of the effects are nice, and characters are well detailed. IW didn't make any claims about their graphics, only that it was better (than the previous versions), and completely agree. You can run it on any gaming-oriented machine (>5550) at high settings. Additionally, the console version looks nice and is also optimized.

Overall, for me, its Modern Warfare, because the graphics of Battlefield distract from the game-play. As I stated, sometimes you cannot see, and in Modern Warfare 3, the graphics help the game, and up the overall experience. But this is really close, because yes, of course Battlefield is more realistic, but sometimes you care about smoothness and ease of viewing instead of realism. Many effects in both games are similar. Either way, you can't go wrong.


SINGLE PLAYER

Battlefield 3 has a vast single player experience. It includes many different vehicles, and varied mission types. It definitely tares away from the standard FPS. With its campaign, its seems almost too serious. There's nothing that's gonna blow you mind and for you to say "WOW" at. Its sorda just like you going through missions, in the typical interrogation room fashion. I personally wish that games do something more original than flashbacks, it just reminded me too much of Black Ops. Its fun, but may get boring. With the vehicle thing, you can't really choose if you want to be in or out if it, and what part of the crew you want to be. The game chooses for you. The tank mission is a good example, you can't choose what part you want to control, nor what tank, or when you get in or out if it. I think Crysis has mastered vehicles better.

If you want something exciting, get Modern Warfare 3. The game is strong and has many surprises. To me, a unexpected plane crash is way better than the ability to go in vehicles. The excitement is powerful, and the voice acting is nice. You get to know the characters of the game, and it seems more like a story than just flashbacks. It is definably less predictable. Controls feel more fluid in this game also, but it may be just because I'm used to it.

Overall, once again, I think Modern Warfare 3 has the edge here. Its simply because its exciting, and it draws you in. Flashbacks aren't really to interesting for me. If you like varying game-play styles, you can sure go with Battlefield.

I haven't really played too much multiplayer so I won't judge that. I would, but I don't want to type anymore, so I'll stop the comparison here.

I like the BF3 single player campaign quite a bit - it provides great practice. I don't particularly care about the level design - that was where they screwed up.

On PC, this is different. You can get amazing results with it, but it will require an amazing system. In my case, the graphics are great, but just not amazing. To get amazing, you spend tons of $...

I don't know what you consider an amazing system, but I would hardly call my system amazing.

Here is my BF3 benchmark using fraps...


Frames - 20511
Time (ms) - 418878
Min - 27
Max - 62
Avg - 48.967

And this totally maxed out in every aspect. 1080p. V-Sync on.

 

[nnaatthhaannx2]

I don't know what you consider an amazing system, but I would hardly call my system amazing.

yea but im just sayin it cost more to get it to good fps compared to mw3

 

[AbdullahG]

yea but im just sayin it cost more to get it to good fps compared to mw3

That's reasonable though. BF3 use DX11, large scale destruction, and so on. It was made with gameplay and graphics in mind (and performance somewhat, in terms of optimization). MW3 was made with performance in mind. The only real graphics aspect in mind was high-resolution textures.

 

[nnaatthhaannx2]

That's reasonable though. BF3 use DX11, large scale destruction, and so on. It was made with gameplay and graphics in mind (and performance somewhat, in terms of optimization). MW3 was made with performance in mind. The only real graphics aspect in mind was high-resolution textures.

destruction? uhh.. have you seen Crysis? the environment is effected on must things you do, and that's a game of 4 years ago!

 

[AbdullahG]

destruction? uhh.. have you seen Crysis? the environment is effected on must things you do, and that's a game of 4 years ago!

I'm aware of that...
My point is BF3 is much more demanding compared to MW3 because you are getting the latest aspects and features in gaming.
That's perfectly reasonable for why BF3 is more demanding than a DX9 game...
What's your point?

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm aware of that...
My point is BF3 is much more demanding compared to MW3 because you are getting the latest aspects and features in gaming.
That's perfectly reasonable for why BF3 is more demanding than a DX9 game...
What's your point?

I think he was just trying to make friendly chit-chat by bringing up Crysis.

You are right in what you said about BF3, BTW. 100% correct.

 

[PCgamer81]

destruction? uhh.. have you seen Crysis? the environment is effected on must things you do, and that's a game of 4 years ago!

Yeah, I play Crysis maxed out - played it a few minutes ago and about to play it now. One of my favs.

On my lappy I run it on high settings with physics on very high - that is how the environment is affected - the physics setting. Being able to shoot down trees to fall on enemies, being able to pick up stuff and fling it into some korean guy's head using maximum strength - it doesn't get any better than Crysis. Except for maybe HL2.

 

[AbdullahG]

Yeah, I play Crysis maxed out - played it a few minutes ago and about to play it now. One of my favs.

On my lappy I run it on high settings with physics on very high - that is how the environment is affected - the physics setting. Being able to shoot down trees to fall on enemies, being able to pick up stuff and fling it into some korean guy's head using maximum strength - it doesn't get any better than Crysis. Except for maybe HL2.

On your laptop?! What are your specs on there?!

 

[lusifer]

u r right dude but bf3 grafix ar max out n this games ar more real expriance :lol: as compaire to mw3 n story r nth very gud but this games story r sososos as compair to bt3

 

[lusifer]

but crysis r max out not better run for low end grapics card like 4670 hd

 

[PCgamer81]

On your laptop?! What are your specs on there?!

It's an ASUS G73JH

It has an i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz W/TB @ 2.93GHz, 6GB DDR3, and an ATI mobile HD5870.

I use to for on the go.

 

[AbdullahG]

It's an ASUS G73JH

It has an i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz W/TB @ 2.93GHz, 6GB DDR3, and an ATI mobile HD5870.

I use to for on the go.

Ah now I see. Did a bit of research (aka Google search) and it seems like your getting 50FPS on high, right? On Ultra it does seem to fall a bit short though, but then again, it's Crysis...

 

[PCgamer81]

Ah now I see. Did a bit of research (aka Google search) and it seems like your getting 50FPS on high, right? On Ultra it does seem to fall a bit short though, but then again, it's Crysis...

I get about 20 maxed out.

I get 40-50 on high.

 

[Gothams Finest]

MW3 for me

 

[casualcolors]

One thing I will say for Battlefield 3 that it really gets right, is the M9 pistol. I shot this gun quite a lot when I was in the military and it was the predominant LE sidearm that I carried. I also own an Italian produced 92fs with the military m9 straight eight(snowman) sights. The gun feels very much in battlefield 3 like it does in real life to me, which is exceedingly geeky thing to say but it is still admirable to see them execute things like that. MW3's guns really feel like they have no weight to me. Then again, that's the same problem from MW2 and MW1 because they are all 3 the same game.

Now all of that is strictly a personal taste thing. If you like arcade style shoot-em-up then I really doubt feeling realism in the weapons is your primary concern (and is more likely a primary detraction from the game since it takes away from people who can rapidly spam shots on target with a mouse) and since that is what Modern Warfare 3 caters to best, it's probably not an issue for the loyal fans of the series.

 

[minekopanda]

I love BF3 a lot more which is why when my computer wouldn't run it I had to go out and buy the xbox 360 version

Graphics, sounds, and gameplay are so much better too

 

[PCgamer81]

One thing I will say for Battlefield 3 that it really gets right, is the M9 pistol. I shot this gun quite a lot when I was in the military and it was the predominant LE sidearm that I carried. I also own an Italian produced 92fs with the military m9 straight eight(snowman) sights. The gun feels very much in battlefield 3 like it does in real life to me, which is exceedingly geeky thing to say but it is still admirable to see them execute things like that. MW3's guns really feel like they have no weight to me. Then again, that's the same problem from MW2 and MW1 because they are all 3 the same game.

Now all of that is strictly a personal taste thing. If you like arcade style shoot-em-up then I really doubt feeling realism in the weapons is your primary concern (and is more likely a primary detraction from the game since it takes away from people who can rapidly spam shots on target with a mouse) and since that is what Modern Warfare 3 caters to best, it's probably not an issue for the loyal fans of the series.

Great points.

 

[From_Canada]

I love BF3 a lot more which is why when my computer wouldn't run it I had to go out and buy the xbox 360 version

Graphics, sounds, and gameplay are so much better too

I own the PC version of BF3 and recently had the opportunity to play it on the PS3 and man I couldn't believe the difference between the two. I'm not trying to bash consoles as I game on all 3, with PC being #1, but man, what a difference.

 

[PCgamer81]

I own the PC version of BF3 and recently had the opportunity to play it on the PS3 and man I couldn't believe the difference between the two. I'm not trying to bash consoles as I game on all 3, but PC being #1, but man, what a difference.

Yeah, I didn't want to crush that girl, but you're right 100%.

BF3 was made for PC. The difference is astounding.

I run BF3 max settings in full 1080p on my PC, and I have an Xbox 360 that I use for Netflix and Halo. The console version looks like total garbage, and I am not exaggerating. If I didn't have a PC that could run it, I would sell a kidney or something - I would figure something out. Because console is blasphemy when it comes to BF3.

 

[nnaatthhaannx2]

i have now played BF3 on multiplayer and i take back most of my comments on the graphics. I say that BF3 is much better than modern warfare in many ways. For some reason, the Single Player campaign completely sucks not only in gameplay but in graphic elements as well.
The multiplayer graphics are completely different than the single player ones. Things are destructible and way less linear. You can explore maps in more detail in multiplayer and it is really great.
The other problem is the stupid browser-based system. That bothers me wayyyy to much.

 

[PCgamer81]

i have now played BF3 on multiplayer and i take back most of my comments on the graphics. I say that BF3 is much better than modern warfare in many ways. For some reason, the Single Player campaign completely sucks not only in gameplay but in graphic elements as well.
The multiplayer graphics are completely different than the single player ones. Things are destructible and way less linear. You can explore maps in more detail in multiplayer and it is really great.
The other problem is the stupid browser-based system. That bothers me wayyyy to much.

Yep, BF3 is meant to be played online, that's for sure.

Yeah, Battlelog sucks.

 

[From_Canada]

Yep, BF3 is meant to be played online, that's for sure.

Yeah, Battlelog sucks.

Honestly, I have come to like battlelog. I find it very fast to exit a game and find a new one. No need to start up the game (and possibly watch non skip-able intro videos) every time you want to play a MP match. Sure the load times can be a little bit excessive but that's why I'll be getting an SSD some time in the near future.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

It's a long reply so...

Summary:
SP: MW3>BF3
MP: MW3 <> BF3

Details:

Strictly speaking with regards to the PC platform, i believe both games were very successful in sales and in attaining their technological objectives. They wanted MW3 to look good while running smooth (avg 60FPS) on the average PC rig. BF3 wanted to push the limits with it's looks, it's realistic achivements (of being part of a battlefield) and of being capable of playing with lots of people in the same battlefield. I give them both props for what they created.

As for choosing between MW3 and BF3, it's a little hard because they're both fullfilling in their own way. Nothing beats the feeling you get of being part of a full on 32vs32 player match (specially if you're playing with friends) in BF3. If you can, running the game at maxed out visuals simply extends the realism of being part of the experience. Flying jets, helicopters, or other land vehicles to get to destinations/support your squad is something that MW3 will never provide (and is something BF3 excels at).

On the other hand, if you like to be a one-man-army, Rambo, king of the mountain, then MW3 will drop to your knees and give you everytime you wanted. It's MW2 but a little more balanced. I'm just waiting to see if MW3 hacks will be as bad as MW2 (which wasn't supported at all regarding this issue and as a result, ruined the MP experience).

Single Player:
- BF3: full of wow moments -visually amazing (i.e. The jet mission), and much like MOH, had a somewhat realistic feel to it. The cutscenes were a waste of time and the story (well, what story?) sucked. The campaign was also extremely short. BF3 is not recommended for SP playthrough only. COOP is ok (it's a much appreciated bonus, nothing more though).
- MW3: Story was pretty good (not excellent) and did a pretty good job at follow-ing up MW2's plot. I enjoyed a couple of "holy sh*t" moments (i.e. subway scene in paris) but I found they tried a little too hard sometimes with a few cheap shots (i.e. little girl/mother/you scene). Campaign was longer than BF3.

My opinion: I like both. In Multiplayer: I'll play BF3 for a week and miss the simplicity of MW3, so I'll switch for a week...and then get bored/fed up of young kids raking up kills (and not play objective) so I'll switch back to BF3, and so on, and so on...

Who's better? Both military shooters but the gameplay environment is too different to make a proper comparison. Sure you can compare performance, visuals, etc. but you can't compare a 32vs32 player match experience with a last man standing in Search and Destroy while planting a bomb and hoping no one's around. They are both awesome IMO.