Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3

[PCgamer81]

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.

Very good points.

Your system is very good, so I assume that you are playing BF3 max settings?

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

Very good points.

Your system is very good, so I assume that you are playing BF3 max settings?

I had to OC my CPU (from 2.4ghx to 3.12) to reduce sluterring when playing bigger maps. That said, I play with most things maxed out (but def not everything). BF3 is a beast!

 

[PCgamer81]

I had to OC my CPU (from 2.4ghx to 3.12) to reduce sluterring when playing bigger maps. That said, I play with most things maxed out (but def not everything). BF3 is a beast!

BF3 is definitely a beast. I have to turn things down to play it smooth, as well.

 

[nnaatthhaannx2]

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

it should be mw3=bf3 in MP
you should also add graphics and overall experience (controls and "funness") to ur summary
very good points

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

it should be mw3=bf3 in MP
you should also add graphics and overall experience (controls and "funness") to ur summary
very good points

What I meant by MW3 <> BF3 is that you can't compare the two as they are very different. For some, MW3 > BF3 but for others MW3 < BF3.

IMO,

Team Based / Tactical / Team Play Experience: goes to BF3
Solo / Rambo / King of the Mountain Experience: goes to MW3

I could have easily made points on where these 2 games really do poorly (but my post would have been longer lol).

MW3:
- Stuck with kids that don't play objectives, instead will try to finish you off for the final killcam with a 360 sniper shot (while no scopping) so they can put their 19387 attempt on youtube.
- No *Ranked* dedicated servers (WTF)...and how often the Host doesn't have a good connection (but ends up being host).
- Spawns can get pretty ridiculous (spawning right in front of your enemies)
- Unbalanced weapons (i.e. Akimbo)

BF3:
- Needs a beast of a system to run and the game crashes after crash after crash (at least for me) on a regular basis.
- Teams are can get quite unbalanced (due to bigger clans) sometimes
- Battlelog (not sure if it's good or bad) but WTF were they thinking when making this entirely on a webpage...

 

[jfizzle4321]

BF3 is ambitious, the MW series is crammed and closer-quarter. The new BF3 close-quarter expansion will run like butter at max settings and is going to be insane with destructables.

 

[seasideField]

I am seriously dissapointed by the comments in this thread.

First and Foremost this is for PC gaming which is far superior to consoles,

GRAPHICS:
The fact that people can actually consider modern warfare to have better graphics over Battlefield is actually pretty funny.
Battlefield is considered to be a Benchmark for custom built computers and overclocks, where as MW is a pushover.

MULTIPLAYER:
The multiplayer in bf3 is so much more advanced than modern warfare will ever be, with vehicles, destruction engine,bulletdrop,squads,and more than one battle going on at a time, it gives an extremely immersive experience.

There is a reason that war veterans have post traumatic stress after playing bf3.

 

[jfizzle4321]

I am seriously dissapointed by the comments in this thread.

First and Foremost this is for PC gaming which is far superior to consoles,

GRAPHICS:
The fact that people can actually consider modern warfare to have better graphics over Battlefield is actually pretty funny.
Battlefield is considered to be a Benchmark for custom built computers and overclocks, where as MW is a pushover.

MULTIPLAYER:
The multiplayer in bf3 is so much more advanced than modern warfare will ever be, with vehicles, destruction engine,bulletdrop,squads,and more than one battle going on at a time, it gives an extremely immersive experience.

There is a reason that war veterans have post traumatic stress after playing bf3.

I agree with almost everything.

PC>than every console ever... for sure.

Graphx....mmmmm. Benchmark? I'm not sure man. I kind of agree. 2 gtx 680s in SLI kill that game. However, the game was built for 5760X1080 so I think it's optimized for it so that's probably why it runs smoother than other titles. Then again, BF3 is the reason I ditched my old GTX295/QX9650 for a new rig so you're probably right.

Multi-player? MW3 has a Multiplayer? Who knew? But ya, BF3 takes the cake without any question. Every soldier is so unique, so dynamic. Changing from a rifle scoped m16a3 to a suppressor with a holo scope and laser completely changes your role, as does the medic box and m230 option. You can go from cover-breaker with range to short range fast assault medic... I like that option. Same with the vehicles. I loved how one of the review sites deemed the jets "an air to air weapon where they'll be fighting each other having no effect on ground;" cool story, most of my f18/su-34 kills are air to ground with rockets. The teamwork on the viper is awesome, when they come out with the vehicle map I'm hoping they allow for copious amounts of air vehicle combat.... I'm thinking that's the plan.

CODMW has a solid grandiose campaign but I still think BF3 is slightly superior. I know I'm on my own with this one but the "on foot" part of the campaigns are equally weighted and I thought the f-18 mission was pretty fun. The thing that sold me on it was when the pilot and crew chief were going for launch preparations. I never launched an f-18 but I was fortunate enough to recover one being that I work on a different airframe. A lot of the checks they go through on the launch are very accurate (if not eerily accurate). So because of the vehicle parts of the campaign, I'm giving BF3 the edge. Again, I know people were disappointed they couldn't fly the f18 in campaign, but if they could the complaint would have been that it was "too linear while flying" because it would have been hard to maintain the same graphical excellence while flying an f18 over a huge map... The gunner position was pretty fun I thought.

PTSD? The thought has crossed my mind a few times and I feel it's far superior to MW3 in that category (realism); though arma2 makes both of the games look like Contra on NES. The game that really made me think of your PTSD point was BFBC2. The tank shots and the deafening boom you heard was creepy at 2 a.m. on a map like Heavy Metal. The one shot kills were eery too.

 

[jfizzle4321]

Yeah Ill agree that the single play sucked on BF3, but neither game is made for the single player. People will end up putting 5-10 hours in single player then 200+ into multiplayer. And that is where BF3 takes the cake.

That's a point I meant to make. How many times can one play a single player campaign in one of these titles? I played BFBC2 3x but 2 of those were because I had virtually zero internet (Thank you Clear for your "unlimited" internet) for a few months and I had a nice gaming laptop to play BFBC2.

 

[jfizzle4321]

I own Battlefield 3, but not Modern Warfare 3. I do own Modern Warfare 2, and I still play it. I plan to get Modern Warfare 3 at some point.

But, I will say this...

If Modern Warfare 3 is anything like Modern Warfare 2, than Battlefield 3 dispatches it with extreme prejudice, and it's not even close.

Very accurately put.

 

[jfizzle4321]

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.

Copy that loud and clear From_Canada. I purchased 3 copies, 1 on PC because I love PC gaming and 2 for PS3, one of the copies going to my boss. I bought it, played one round with him, went to school, never played the game on PS3 since. My military buddy from down south came up and he played it while he was up here getting me points in the game but it was very difficult with a controller and the graphics at 30fps were very distracting. If I were a console gamer, I'd probably play COD just because of the double fps.

 

[johnsonma]

Going to kind of echo the sentiment of the other posts but,

MW3>BF3 SP
BF3>>>>>MW3 MP

BF3 to me seems to have a much more complete MP experience. COD always ends up being the same people with the same guns in the same spots. While snipers gravitate towards certain spots in BF3, you can still have a ton of creativity when it comes to your placement. I am the master bush ninja sniper! Throw in some insane destruction with convoys of tanks rolling into a base blowing it to **** and its really no contest about which one is a more dynamic experience online. Not to mention that every new COD is pretty much the same game with new maps and a few new killstreaks.