Modern warfare 3 or Battlefield 3?

[Dubies]

I have them both, and BF3 is way more fun than COD in multiplayer

[Deleted]

CoD MW1, MW2 and MW3 are basically the exact same game with a few extra guns and perks thrown in.

Battlefield 3, reminds me of the good old days of playing BF2 endlessly, with a beefed up engine, bigger maps, more weapon mods(than bad company). I love the ability to change out my weapon to how I feel like playing, my entire kit is always Assault, always the HK416, just modified in different ways depending on the map.

Reflex and Flashlight with M26 MASS for close quarters maps and urban.

6x Scope, Heavy Barrel and a Bipod for the longer maps, lets me sit off from a mile away and act like a Designated Marksman whilst still being able to heal myself and hold my own in close combat if needed.

[LolretKJ]

Nice try troll, but learn to do better research next time. Vivendi games (though called Activision-Blizzard now) is the parent company of activision and blizzard, neither of those two companies have anything to do with each other except being owned by the same holdings company.

OT: MW3 and BF3 are both excellent games in their own respects.

MW3 presents a great single player experience and the multiplayer is fast and brutal TDM style gameplay in the same vein as TF2.

BF3 is by far the best team objective oriented combat multiplayer experience I have ever played, and if you are looking for those huge battles where you can duke it out across huge swathes of terrain then BF3 is the way to go.

Dont listen to either camp of haters, both games bring alot to the table and it really is up to you which style fits you best

Vivendi and Activision merged like 4 years ago bro. Also, most of the Vivendi people got layed off after that merge.

[Deleted]

BF3 is full of large maps, slow battles, and OP sniper scopes. I'd go for MW3 anyday

Have you even played Battlefield? Snipers (or Recons) are the weakest class by far, there's nothing overpowered about them.

Edit: And I think it should stay that way, mind you.

[Deleted]

Put up a Poll and se Battlefield win by a large margain.

I'd pick BF3 because it is the most awesome game ever released, with the most awesome graphics ever release.
Go with MF3 if you want the same graphics as MF2.
Anyways, BF3 is an awesome game! It haz Jets!

It's people like you who give BF3 players a bad name, if you going to give your opinion atleast try not to make it look like a 12y old fanboy.

[Frozenshadow]

Call of Duty is much more fast-paced, the small FoV makes it very chaotic (even more chaotic than MW2/MW1). Also, this game is much more about soundwhoring/spawntrapping. I tend to find Call of Duty very frustrating due to lag (servers being hosted p-2-p, you can play dedicated but you can't rank up, which is the thing that keeps you playing as most of the people don't play competitive I assume you won't either).

Battlefield has had it's flaws. The party systems didn't work right, laggy/instabile servers. Although they fixed this pretty quickly. Apart from this, Battlefield is much more realistic and engaging. You won't win if you won't play as a team. Maps are big and vehicles are not very overpowered, if you have a bit of brain you can counter them very easily. Also, everything can be destroyed, buildings can be turned in to ruins, this keeps maps very dynamic.
Also, in Battlefield you can play as you want. If you want to be the rambo medic running around healing everyone and killing lads, go ahead! If you wanna be the sniper up on the hill spotting and picking people off with a sniper, go ahead! If you wanna be the pilot in the helicopter paratrooping() people and providing air support, go ahead! This game is much more versatile.

It's really up to you, I am not to say which game is better as I might like other types of games.

My suggestion to you is; look up some gameplay videos, read some reviews etc etc.

Based on that, make your decision.

[JustintimeSS]

From the complete lack of responses from the OP, I'm starting to think this was just a giant troll thread. Perfectly played though, perfectly played. I mean he even replied today with another conflicting issue "I like large scale combat but hate vehicles". LMAO that's like coming back, ignoring everyone's posts and stirring the pot. "Oh I like small maps but love vehicles" is the same thing. One from both things.

What better way to stir up crap than to make a BF3 vs MW3 thread right? But no, it'll get locked! Quickly, say you are undecided on which to buy and you can only afford one! Then come back later and stir it up again with another "tough choice". The fact that this thread, full of biased opinions, fanboyism and arguments is still open just amazes me to no end.

[Blackdecker]

Stop, MW3 singleplayer is worst than BF3 singleplayer.

If 2 ou 3 friends will play with you : BF3.
If you is going to play alone: MW3.

[JustintimeSS]

Stop, MW3 singleplayer is worst than BF3 singleplayer.

Stop, that is your opinion. I disagree and here is why-

Graphics - In BF3 the game is beautiful, no doubt and you get a sense of realism. I felt the same in MW3 though, just not on such a large of a scale. Not to mention, a vast majority of BF3 was linear and small and very few stages represented the large, openness it gets judged for. All in all both games look stunning. I never once went "oy, this game is garbage, look at that rock".

Story - BF3 had a decent story but it ended entirely too fast and none of the characters were relate-able to me. The sgt getting his throat cut on camera was supposed to be a wow factor but I played as the guy for one stage. The russian getting blown up and dying in slow motion was supposed to be heart wrenching but I played with the guy for one stage. Me shooting my own Officer to save the world was a big deal to me having been in the service and understanding what it takes to actually go through with such a thing, yet still, barely knew the guy. MW3 is bringing back repeat players and every single time they are on the screen you cheer and fist pump. The story is fast paced and has a solid ending. Of course it's over the top but that is nothing new.

Gameplay - They are both very similar but I was surprised at just how much quicktime events were in BF3 and NOT in MW3.

All in all the BF3 story, graphics and gameplay (to me) didn't add up to MW3. Of course anyone can say "well BF3 is the best graphics ever!" and they are phenomenal, but seriously, MW3 didn't look unrealistic or bad at all. And when explosions, collapsing buildings and weaponry look close to the same while in combat in both games.... who nit picks? See how I explained my opinion, not just stated it like it was a fact.

[NoRest4Wicked]

I got both, and never having played a previous Battlefield title, I hated BF3. It was fucking hard for me, I couldn't kill anyone and seemed to die instantly. So I went back to MW3. After a couple hours, I was pretty frustrated with how much I sucked at Battlefield, so I started playing again. Now, I've only put 16 hours into BF3, but I fucking love it. You can still run and gun in TDM on BF3, or play conquest and roll around in tanks or jets. Imo, it's a much more fulfilling game with diverse combat.

[Deleted]

BF3 requires a brain to play effectively. Therefore you will be playing with people who aren't 12-year-old quasi-gangsta Xbox live thugs. Therefore BF3.

Yeah, enough with the "MW3 is for 12 year old kids" mantra, it just serves as flaimbait. Infracted. -Edge

[Edge-]

There are some good opinions in here, but sadly there is also a lot of trolling/flaming. Closing this.