MW3 vs BF3 ? :shock:

BF3.BF3 has been in development since 2009 with most of the focus going toward PC gamers. The multiplayer mode will have up to 64 players and require team work and not just be run and gun. Even though there will be times you do not kill a lot of people per match it is still fun because youwork together. I can't say much about the SP but it should be good. MW3 will have a very short SP and a MP mode that is all about just running and gunning to get kill streaks and basically made for theconsole crowd only to be cast aside a year later for the same game under a different subtitle. Remember COD's core audience are casual gamers who are too lazy to work together, don't want to have to think while playing a game, and too stupid too realize they are buying the same game every year.

[QUOTE="urbangamez"]

[QUOTE="deathshand707"]

what?

Every dev is copyign COD? since when, please prove to me a game that straight up copies cod, the only ones that do that is COD itself, producing the same game every year. And when has COD done vietnam? I dont think it has EVER, Battlefield has done it twice though, when most other DEV's were still twiddling there thumb in WWII

deathshand707

if you wanna find vietnam, play cod black ops sp campaign, play cod mw 2 sp brazil section and play homefront sp campaign see if anywhere feels familiar, In fact just go back and play the cod mw series through black ops sp campaigns, then play some millitary fps games released after to find out.

finally for all the hate the simple fact is cod is the standard check the numbers.

BF did vietnam before COD did.... Not quite sure where your getting your standards. The standard is to produce a game every year, and rush it without adding anything really new? I give COD credit for somewhat defining the system, and I do feel like it is used alot in many games now, but BF has never done anything like that so its hard to compare the two in that sense.

I don't understand when people say this.

The only CoD that really didn't do much new was Black Ops, and that was from a DIFFERENT company.

MP from MW1 to MW2 added killstreaks and other things to MP which changed the gameplay dramatically (and can change the tide of one battle in seconds).

I didn't play World at War MP so I cannot comment, but again that was from ANOTHER company not related to the MW series.

I havent enjoyed any of the MW games, singleplayer is oversly scripted, samey and too easy and multiplayer is just crap compared to Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield 2 so, Battlefield 3 for me.

BF3, mainly because it is a PC first game ;) and I am going to support any game that does that out of sheer principle.

Also DICE is a known quantity, wheer as we have 3 teams working on MW3, usually when several studios devide a game as such it does not turn out that well due to lack of communication, also while I really love Raven of the 3, none of them have shown that they were able to make really high quality games before (wildcard being that atleast Raven CAN make games with unique personality).

Also... I never bought a CoD game after CoD 2 :S

[QUOTE="deathshand707"]

[QUOTE="urbangamez"]

if you wanna find vietnam, play cod black ops sp campaign, play cod mw 2 sp brazil section and play homefront sp campaign see if anywhere feels familiar, In fact just go back and play the cod mw series through black ops sp campaigns, then play some millitary fps games released after to find out.

finally for all the hate the simple fact is cod is the standard check the numbers.

FelipeInside

BF did vietnam before COD did.... Not quite sure where your getting your standards. The standard is to produce a game every year, and rush it without adding anything really new? I give COD credit for somewhat defining the system, and I do feel like it is used alot in many games now, but BF has never done anything like that so its hard to compare the two in that sense.

I don't understand when people say this.

The only CoD that really didn't do much new was Black Ops, and that was from a DIFFERENT company.

MP from MW1 to MW2 added killstreaks and other things to MP which changed the gameplay dramatically (and can change the tide of one battle in seconds).

I didn't play World at War MP so I cannot comment, but again that was from ANOTHER company not related to the MW series.

The reason people say this is because it's true.

Each game in the CoD series became a $60 mod after MW1. Nothing new was added. They just changed the setting of the singleplayer campaign and changed the maps.... $60 mod.

i haven't seen MP footage for both games but um probably getting BF3 day one, if MW3 is good i'll get it when it gets cheaper.yemen_headshot

Which is never...knowing Activision.

[QUOTE="yemen_headshot"]i haven't seen MP footage for both games but um probably getting BF3 day one, if MW3 is good i'll get it when it gets cheaper.Remmib

Which is never...knowing Activision.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="deathshand707"]

BF did vietnam before COD did.... Not quite sure where your getting your standards. The standard is to produce a game every year, and rush it without adding anything really new? I give COD credit for somewhat defining the system, and I do feel like it is used alot in many games now, but BF has never done anything like that so its hard to compare the two in that sense.

Remmib

I don't understand when people say this.

The only CoD that really didn't do much new was Black Ops, and that was from a DIFFERENT company.

MP from MW1 to MW2 added killstreaks and other things to MP which changed the gameplay dramatically (and can change the tide of one battle in seconds).

I didn't play World at War MP so I cannot comment, but again that was from ANOTHER company not related to the MW series.

The reason people say this is because it's true.

Each game in the CoD series became a $60 mod after MW1. Nothing new was added. They just changed the setting of the singleplayer campaign and changed the maps.... $60 mod.

Maybe you didn't read my ENTIRE post.

MW2 added Killstreak rewards which imo changed the gameplay dramatically and can be used to turn a loosing team into a winning team.

I did not play World at War MP so I cannot comment (although the setting was completely different from MW and it's from a different company).

Black Ops seemed to copy most of MW2 without really adding much (and getting some things worse), but again it's from a different company.

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

I don't understand when people say this.

The only CoD that really didn't do much new was Black Ops, and that was from a DIFFERENT company.

MP from MW1 to MW2 added killstreaks and other things to MP which changed the gameplay dramatically (and can change the tide of one battle in seconds).

I didn't play World at War MP so I cannot comment, but again that was from ANOTHER company not related to the MW series.

FelipeInside

The reason people say this is because it's true.

Each game in the CoD series became a $60 mod after MW1. Nothing new was added. They just changed the setting of the singleplayer campaign and changed the maps.... $60 mod.

Maybe you didn't read my ENTIRE post.

MW2 added Killstreak rewards which imo changed the gameplay dramatically and can be used to turn a loosing team into a winning team.

I did not play World at War MP so I cannot comment (although the setting was completely different from MW and it's from a different company).

Black Ops seemed to copy most of MW2 without really adding much (and getting some things worse), but again it's from a different company.

Killstreaks were already in MW1...

Battlefield 3, all the way. Two things I'm worried about it though: the 'nade spamming and the dolphin-diving. Hopefully, they corrected that awful stuff.

yourmajesty90

Well I guess BC2 managed to avoid dolphin diving by removing prone lol. TBH it wouldn't be hard to remove dolphin diving at all in a game like BF, and I would assume they will somehow as long as they don't hurrr durrr no prone because teh prone isn't balanced (when in fact the real reason they removed it was engine limitations due to the destructable environments).

Nade spamming was a major pain in bf2 but only on some maps (i.e. the start of kharkand). I just think the grenandes shouldn't be as powerful or remove the ability to get more from ammo boxes.

[QUOTE="yourmajesty90"]

Battlefield 3, all the way. Two things I'm worried about it though: the 'nade spamming and the dolphin-diving. Hopefully, they corrected that awful stuff.

October_Tide

Well I guess BC2 managed to avoid dolphin diving by removing prone lol. TBH it wouldn't be hard to remove dolphin diving at all in a game like BF, and I would assume they will somehow as long as they don't hurrr durrr no prone because teh prone isn't balanced (when in fact the real reason they removed it was engine limitations due to the destructable environments).

Nade spamming was a major pain in bf2 but only on some maps (i.e. the start of kharkand). I just think the grenandes shouldn't be as powerful or remove the ability to get more from ammo boxes.

Battlefield!

- Bigger battles

- Vechicles

- Team work

- Better Developer

The COD series went down hill fast when 3 came out, i loved the original+expansion pack and COD2 though.

[QUOTE="yourmajesty90"]

Battlefield 3, all the way. Two things I'm worried about it though: the 'nade spamming and the dolphin-diving. Hopefully, they corrected that awful stuff.

October_Tide

Well I guess BC2 managed to avoid dolphin diving by removing prone lol. TBH it wouldn't be hard to remove dolphin diving at all in a game like BF, and I would assume they will somehow as long as they don't hurrr durrr no prone because teh prone isn't balanced (when in fact the real reason they removed it was engine limitations due to the destructable environments).

Nade spamming was a major pain in bf2 but only on some maps (i.e. the start of kharkand). I just think the grenandes shouldn't be as powerful or remove the ability to get more from ammo boxes.

I hope they don't remove the prone, but at least don't make it that fast either. I tried BF2 recently and the ones that have most kills and points are the dolphins. Besides, they said it's a "true sequel to BF2", that's why I hoped they won't make those mistakes again. They resolved the 'nade spam too, on BC2. The grenades refill it's a lot slower.

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

I don't understand when people say this.

The only CoD that really didn't do much new was Black Ops, and that was from a DIFFERENT company.

MP from MW1 to MW2 added killstreaks and other things to MP which changed the gameplay dramatically (and can change the tide of one battle in seconds).

I didn't play World at War MP so I cannot comment, but again that was from ANOTHER company not related to the MW series.

FelipeInside

The reason people say this is because it's true.

Each game in the CoD series became a $60 mod after MW1. Nothing new was added. They just changed the setting of the singleplayer campaign and changed the maps.... $60 mod.

Maybe you didn't read my ENTIRE post.

MW2 added Killstreak rewards which imo changed the gameplay dramatically and can be used to turn a loosing team into a winning team.

I did not play World at War MP so I cannot comment (although the setting was completely different from MW and it's from a different company).

Black Ops seemed to copy most of MW2 without really adding much (and getting some things worse), but again it's from a different company.

I guess you didnt play MW, but they already had killstreaks..what was your point again? IW did give killstreaks a bit more depth in MW2, but after that the series flatlined..and I mean hardcore flatlined.

BF3, but I play both series. Battlefield's gameplay I find to be more enjoyable because I actually feel like I'm in a war, not just shooting 6 other people

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

The reason people say this is because it's true.

Each game in the CoD series became a $60 mod after MW1. Nothing new was added. They just changed the setting of the singleplayer campaign and changed the maps.... $60 mod.

deathshand707

Maybe you didn't read my ENTIRE post.

MW2 added Killstreak rewards which imo changed the gameplay dramatically and can be used to turn a loosing team into a winning team.

I did not play World at War MP so I cannot comment (although the setting was completely different from MW and it's from a different company).

Black Ops seemed to copy most of MW2 without really adding much (and getting some things worse), but again it's from a different company.

I guess you didnt play MW, but they already had killstreaks..what was your point again? IW did give killstreaks a bit more depth in MW2, but after that the series flatlined..and I mean hardcore flatlined.

That's what I meant....after MW2 is sort of went flat....

[QUOTE="deathshand707"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

Maybe you didn't read my ENTIRE post.

MW2 added Killstreak rewards which imo changed the gameplay dramatically and can be used to turn a loosing team into a winning team.

I did not play World at War MP so I cannot comment (although the setting was completely different from MW and it's from a different company).

Black Ops seemed to copy most of MW2 without really adding much (and getting some things worse), but again it's from a different company.

FelipeInside

I guess you didnt play MW, but they already had killstreaks..what was your point again? IW did give killstreaks a bit more depth in MW2, but after that the series flatlined..and I mean hardcore flatlined.

That's what I meant....after MW2 is sort of went flat....

Then what was your point of your previous points, where you clearly said that what I posted was wrong.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="deathshand707"]

I guess you didnt play MW, but they already had killstreaks..what was your point again? IW did give killstreaks a bit more depth in MW2, but after that the series flatlined..and I mean hardcore flatlined.

deathshand707

That's what I meant....after MW2 is sort of went flat....

Then what was your point of your previous points, where you clearly said that what I posted was wrong.

Mw3. At least the CoD franchise is known for having a good campaign, large and mature community. NerubianWeaver

Yep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afj8tlFvWZk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJOCRZTshlw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deeV4cYC0kw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD2wJz4Rq4I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRa0EDfUKRg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YgiTajc_PI&feature=related

[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]Mw3. At least the CoD franchise is known for having a good campaign, large and mature community. PTMags

^lol

[QUOTE="urbangamez"]

[QUOTE="deathshand707"]

what?

Every dev is copyign COD? since when, please prove to me a game that straight up copies cod, the only ones that do that is COD itself, producing the same game every year. And when has COD done vietnam? I dont think it has EVER, Battlefield has done it twice though, when most other DEV's were still twiddling there thumb in WWII

deathshand707

if you wanna find vietnam, play cod black ops sp campaign, play cod mw 2 sp brazil section and play homefront sp campaign see if anywhere feels familiar, In fact just go back and play the cod mw series through black ops sp campaigns, then play some millitary fps games released after to find out.

finally for all the hate the simple fact is cod is the standard check the numbers.

BF did vietnam before COD did.... Not quite sure where your getting your standards. The standard is to produce a game every year, and rush it without adding anything really new? I give COD credit for somewhat defining the class system, and I do feel like it is used alot in many games now, but BF has never done anything like that so its hard to compare the two in that sense.

"for the record"

battlefield did do vietnam multiplayer before bc 2 vietnam and before cod black ops vietnam sp campaign, I got it wrong there, but I was mesmerized by that cod helicopter scene in black ops, I still am, awesome, aawwwww

battfield is a great series, and I hope bf3 has a great sp campaign, sp only fan here, but I still want my cod everyone likes different stuff.

Having seen the MW3 debut trailer, my vote for BF3 still stands.

BF3 by far, I'm not even gonna think about MW3.

I think a lot of people are forgetting how horrible some of the things were in Battlefield 2. For instance: Insane range of claymores, nade spam, dolphin diving, griefing over aircrafts and helicopters, weapon handling (IMO), terrible netcode, and probably a lot of other things I am forgetting. If it weren't for some of the awesome features that made this game amazing, I trust more people would rant on about these things.

I think a lot of people are forgetting how horrible some of the things were in Battlefield 2. For instance: Insane range of claymores, nade spam, dolphin diving, griefing over aircrafts and helicopters, weapon handling (IMO), terrible netcode, and probably a lot of other things I am forgetting. If it weren't for some of the awesome features that made this game amazing, I trust more people would rant on about these things.

BLUBBBER

Well you're certainly right about all of those things.

I really hope they fix those things with BF3, though just looking at BC2 I have faith in DICE. The weapons and netcode were a thousand times better in BC2 than BF2.

I'm not trying to join a bandwagon or anything but it's not even a competition for me. BF 3 actually tries to be new and it pushes PC tech. And the way that the two series are being handled, BF will be here for years to come while Modern Warfare will be either dead or a joke even among casual gamers.

I'm not trying to join a bandwagon or anything but it's not even a competition for me. BF 3 actually tries to be new and it pushes PC tech. And the way that the two series are being handled, BF will be here for years to come while Modern Warfare will be either dead or a joke even among casual gamers.

Roris0A

That's what I am trying to get at.

Where is BF3 being NEW?

As for pushing tech, does EVERY game need to push tech or is it about story/gameplay etc?... Look at WoW, it didn't push tech but improved on the MMO formula and it succeeded.

You're joking there right..??

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

I'm not trying to join a bandwagon or anything but it's not even a competition for me. BF 3 actually tries to be new and it pushes PC tech. And the way that the two series are being handled, BF will be here for years to come while Modern Warfare will be either dead or a joke even among casual gamers.

FelipeInside

That's what I am trying to get at.

Where is BF3 being NEW?

As for pushing tech, does EVERY game need to push tech or is it about story/gameplay etc?... Look at WoW, it didn't push tech but improved on the MMO formula and it succeeded.

You're joking there right..??

And how many big budget games this gen have been made primarily for the PC out there? Crysis & Crysis Warhead, Arma 2 and Witcher 2 and the upcoming Arma 3 come to mind and I'm grateful for them but that number still pales in comparison to the exclusives that the consoles are now getting. Which makes BF 3 that more special; as there are a few PC gamers out there who actually want to use our hardware for something more than higher resolutions, AA & AF.

In addition to that BF 3 will have 60 players, it's a pure pc game, unlike the Modern Warfare 3.

As for your second point, I agree that not every game has to push tech to be good, Dead Space 2 was a great game and that didn't exactly push any graphical boundaries. But it turns into a strawman when you compare it to a series like Call of Duty that's being Milked every year, as it will get old very soon. Using the same engine regardless of what little tweaks they can make to it within their small development time will get old fast. The new trailer that was released today looked much like the past two games. What I disliked most were how similar the animations were. In other words it's more like expansion pack material imo.

I agree that Story is important, but not everyone likes the heavily scripted stuff that the Call of Duty series has. And I don't see how Wow is in any comparable to Modern Warfare 3? It actually made the MMO genre fun and opened it up for many people while still retaining a lot of depth. And it's being expanded upon in a rational way.

As for your last point, no I wasn't joking, just look at Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk, both of which Activision ran into the ground until no one cared anymore. However I do think that Cod will have a bigger milking spree because of its genre.

If you think this new yearly entry in the Cod franchise is good, I'm not trying to say otherwise. What I was trying to say is that there are some elements in the Call of Duty series in how it's being handled as a franchise and techincally that are undeniable. And in comparison to BF3, the shooter that many pc gamers like me have been waiting for, those factors are only more glaring than ever before. No offense meant if you still enjoy the Call of Duty series.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

I'm not trying to join a bandwagon or anything but it's not even a competition for me. BF 3 actually tries to be new and it pushes PC tech. And the way that the two series are being handled, BF will be here for years to come while Modern Warfare will be either dead or a joke even among casual gamers.

Roris0A

That's what I am trying to get at.

Where is BF3 being NEW?

As for pushing tech, does EVERY game need to push tech or is it about story/gameplay etc?... Look at WoW, it didn't push tech but improved on the MMO formula and it succeeded.

You're joking there right..??

And how many big budget games this gen have been made primarily for the PC out there? Crysis & Crysis Warhead, Arma 2 and Witcher 2 and the upcoming Arma 3 come to mind and I'm grateful for them but that number still pales in comparison to the exclusives that the consoles are now getting. Which makes BF 3 that more special; as there are a few PC gamers out there who actually want to use our hardware for something more than higher resolutions, AA & AF.

In addition to that BF 3 will have 60 players, it's a pure pc game, unlike the Modern Warfare 3.

As for your second point, I agree that not every game has to push tech to be good, Dead Space 2 was a great game and that didn't exactly push any graphical boundaries. But it turns into a strawman when you compare it to a series like Call of Duty that's being Milked every year, as it will get old very soon. Using the same engine regardless of what little tweaks they can make to it within their small development time will get old fast. The new trailer that was released today looked much like the past two games. What I disliked most were how similar the animations were. In other words it's more like expansion pack material imo.

I agree that Story is important, but not everyone likes the heavily scripted stuff that the Call of Duty series has. And I don't see how Wow is in any comparable to Modern Warfare 3? It actually made the MMO genre fun and opened it up for many people while still retaining a lot of depth. And it's being expanded upon in a rational way.

As for your last point, no I wasn't joking, just look at Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk, both of which Activision ran into the ground until no one cared anymore. However I do think that Cod will have a bigger milking spree because of its genre.

If you think this new yearly entry in the Cod franchise is good, I'm not trying to say otherwise. What I was trying to say is that there are some elements in the Call of Duty series in how it's being handled as a franchise and techincally that are undeniable. And in comparison to BF3, the shooter that many pc gamers like me have been waiting for, those factors are only more glaring than ever before. No offense meant if you still enjoy the Call of Duty series.

Oh, I agree that probably BF3 (5 years in the making?) will be a bit more polished than a game that comes out every year.... but I think some comparisons are invalid in these cases.

That's because of Map Size... you cannot have 32v32 in the small maps CoD uses for MP

I understand that point, but imo MW still looks amazing. MW2 looked awesome, Black Ops looked great and from that trailer in low resolution, MW3 will look great too. The CoD is such an awesome engine it doesn't need to be upgraded just yet... it is keeping up with the times and most hardware can run it (which wasn't the case when BC2 first was released)

And lots of people do. I wasn't comparing WoW to MW3, I was just pointing out WoW to clarify my point about each game not requiring to push tech.

I agree here... but so many people like CoD they don't care if it's the same year to year...they just want more. Let's give the new guys in charge of MW3 a chance at least...who says MW3 will be great and BF3 fail? it might happen that way, who knows.... I personally hope BOTH are awesome cause I will be playing each one.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

FelipeInside

Oh, I agree that probably BF3 (5 years in the making?) will be a bit more polished than a game that comes out every year.... but I think some comparisons are invalid in these cases.

That's because of Map Size... you cannot have 32v32 in the small maps CoD uses for MP

I understand that point, but imo MW still looks amazing. MW2 looked awesome, Black Ops looked great and from that trailer in low resolution, MW3 will look great too. The CoD is such an awesome engine it doesn't need to be upgraded just yet... it is keeping up with the times and most hardware can run it (which wasn't the case when BC2 first was released)

And lots of people do. I wasn't comparing WoW to MW3, I was just pointing out WoW to clarify my point about each game not requiring to push tech.

I agree here... but so many people like CoD they don't care if it's the same year to year...they just want more. Let's give the new guys in charge of MW3 a chance at least...who says MW3 will be great and BF3 fail? it might happen that way, who knows.... I personally hope BOTH are awesome cause I will be playing each one.

Well inleast we've found a good level of understanding now between us.

My main point was just that though, BF3 is a pc game through and through while MW3 isn't. But I see that you're still a fan to both of the series so I see why it isn't an 1up for you over another.

I agree with MW still looking good for what it intends to be, and also with its engine being more scalable, but just hopefully this one won't release with as many bugs on the pc as the last one did.

And yeah in my original post, I may have come as off trying to condemn MW3 but I was just stating my opinion and how I saw Activision handling it. I however never was trying to ruin the fun for anyone else. And in that vain, I hope the series proves to be more fruitful in the years to come than how I speculated. We'll have to wait and see. :)

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

Roris0A

Oh, I agree that probably BF3 (5 years in the making?) will be a bit more polished than a game that comes out every year.... but I think some comparisons are invalid in these cases.

That's because of Map Size... you cannot have 32v32 in the small maps CoD uses for MP

I understand that point, but imo MW still looks amazing. MW2 looked awesome, Black Ops looked great and from that trailer in low resolution, MW3 will look great too. The CoD is such an awesome engine it doesn't need to be upgraded just yet... it is keeping up with the times and most hardware can run it (which wasn't the case when BC2 first was released)

And lots of people do. I wasn't comparing WoW to MW3, I was just pointing out WoW to clarify my point about each game not requiring to push tech.

I agree here... but so many people like CoD they don't care if it's the same year to year...they just want more. Let's give the new guys in charge of MW3 a chance at least...who says MW3 will be great and BF3 fail? it might happen that way, who knows.... I personally hope BOTH are awesome cause I will be playing each one.

Well inleast we've found a good level of understanding now between us.

My main point was just that though, BF3 is a pc game through and through while MW3 isn't. But I see that you're still a fan to both of the series so I see why it isn't an 1up for you over another.

I agree with MW still looking good for what it intends to be, and also with its engine being more scalable, but just hopefully this one won't release with as many bugs on the pc as the last one did.

And yeah in my original post, I may have come as off trying to condemn MW3 but I was just stating my opinion and how I saw Activision handling it. I however never was trying to ruin the fun for anyone else. And in that vain, I hope the series proves to be more fruitful in the years to come than how I speculated. We'll have to wait and see. :)

That sums it up. Time will tell.

Guys, don't praise BF3 like it's the next coming of Jesus (I've hyped games before only to be let down), and don't judge MW3 like it's going to be real crap (it's got new developers anyway doesn't it).... and vice-versa.

Hopefully by the end of the year...we will have 2 great fun games...

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

Oh, I agree that probably BF3 (5 years in the making?) will be a bit more polished than a game that comes out every year.... but I think some comparisons are invalid in these cases.

That's because of Map Size... you cannot have 32v32 in the small maps CoD uses for MP

I understand that point, but imo MW still looks amazing. MW2 looked awesome, Black Ops looked great and from that trailer in low resolution, MW3 will look great too. The CoD is such an awesome engine it doesn't need to be upgraded just yet... it is keeping up with the times and most hardware can run it (which wasn't the case when BC2 first was released)

And lots of people do. I wasn't comparing WoW to MW3, I was just pointing out WoW to clarify my point about each game not requiring to push tech.

I agree here... but so many people like CoD they don't care if it's the same year to year...they just want more. Let's give the new guys in charge of MW3 a chance at least...who says MW3 will be great and BF3 fail? it might happen that way, who knows.... I personally hope BOTH are awesome cause I will be playing each one.

FelipeInside

Well inleast we've found a good level of understanding now between us.

My main point was just that though, BF3 is a pc game through and through while MW3 isn't. But I see that you're still a fan to both of the series so I see why it isn't an 1up for you over another.

I agree with MW still looking good for what it intends to be, and also with its engine being more scalable, but just hopefully this one won't release with as many bugs on the pc as the last one did.

And yeah in my original post, I may have come as off trying to condemn MW3 but I was just stating my opinion and how I saw Activision handling it. I however never was trying to ruin the fun for anyone else. And in that vain, I hope the series proves to be more fruitful in the years to come than how I speculated. We'll have to wait and see. :)

That sums it up. Time will tell.

Guys, don't praise BF3 like it's the next coming of Jesus (I've hyped games before only to be let down), and don't judge MW3 like it's going to be real crap (it's got new developers anyway doesn't it).... and vice-versa.

Hopefully by the end of the year...we will have 2 great fun games...

I'm not cool enough to pass on MW3. Both are day one purchases...

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

Well inleast we've found a good level of understanding now between us.

My main point was just that though, BF3 is a pc game through and through while MW3 isn't. But I see that you're still a fan to both of the series so I see why it isn't an 1up for you over another.

I agree with MW still looking good for what it intends to be, and also with its engine being more scalable, but just hopefully this one won't release with as many bugs on the pc as the last one did.

And yeah in my original post, I may have come as off trying to condemn MW3 but I was just stating my opinion and how I saw Activision handling it. I however never was trying to ruin the fun for anyone else. And in that vain, I hope the series proves to be more fruitful in the years to come than how I speculated. We'll have to wait and see. :)

realguitarhero5

That sums it up. Time will tell.

Guys, don't praise BF3 like it's the next coming of Jesus (I've hyped games before only to be let down), and don't judge MW3 like it's going to be real crap (it's got new developers anyway doesn't it).... and vice-versa.

Hopefully by the end of the year...we will have 2 great fun games...

Doesn't need to. As long as I get the same fun ride I've had with the previous MW games, and the fun MP then I'll be happy.

The things I DO want changed though:

- optimized...no Black Ops again

- Better Anti-Cheat system

- No dedicated servers (that's my personal taste though, IWNet worked flawlessly for me and I always found a match)

- No Commando Knifing

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

That sums it up. Time will tell.

Guys, don't praise BF3 like it's the next coming of Jesus (I've hyped games before only to be let down), and don't judge MW3 like it's going to be real crap (it's got new developers anyway doesn't it).... and vice-versa.

Hopefully by the end of the year...we will have 2 great fun games...

FelipeInside

Doesn't need to. As long as I get the same fun ride I've had with the previous MW games, and the fun MP then I'll be happy.

The things I DO want changed though:

- optimized...no Black Ops again

- Better Anti-Cheat system

- No dedicated servers (that's my personal taste though, IWNet worked flawlessly for me and I always found a match)

- No Commando Knifing

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]Well, can I just say that anyone who thinks that MW3 will stray from the last four games will probably be severely disappointed.

sexygirl6t9

Doesn't need to. As long as I get the same fun ride I've had with the previous MW games, and the fun MP then I'll be happy.

The things I DO want changed though:

- optimized...no Black Ops again

- Better Anti-Cheat system

- No dedicated servers (that's my personal taste though, IWNet worked flawlessly for me and I always found a match)

- No Commando Knifing

Yeah I know, but for some reason I've always had trouble with dedicated servers.... and finding players sometimes, or my favourite server being empty.

With IWNet I just sat back and waited for a game when my friends weren't online. I'm not saying it's better, just that my experience wasn't as bad as others...

[QUOTE="sexygirl6t9"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

Doesn't need to. As long as I get the same fun ride I've had with the previous MW games, and the fun MP then I'll be happy.

The things I DO want changed though:

- optimized...no Black Ops again

- Better Anti-Cheat system

- No dedicated servers (that's my personal taste though, IWNet worked flawlessly for me and I always found a match)

- No Commando Knifing

FelipeInside

Yeah I know, but for some reason I've always had trouble with dedicated servers.... and finding players sometimes, or my favourite server being empty.

With IWNet I just sat back and waited for a game when my friends weren't online. I'm not saying it's better, just that my experience wasn't as bad as others...

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="sexygirl6t9"] dedicated servers are 10x better than the crap match making system.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Yeah I know, but for some reason I've always had trouble with dedicated servers.... and finding players sometimes, or my favourite server being empty.

With IWNet I just sat back and waited for a game when my friends weren't online. I'm not saying it's better, just that my experience wasn't as bad as others...

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="sexygirl6t9"] dedicated servers are 10x better than the crap match making system.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Yeah I know, but for some reason I've always had trouble with dedicated servers.... and finding players sometimes, or my favourite server being empty.

With IWNet I just sat back and waited for a game when my friends weren't online. I'm not saying it's better, just that my experience wasn't as bad as others...

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

Yeah I know, but for some reason I've always had trouble with dedicated servers.... and finding players sometimes, or my favourite server being empty.

With IWNet I just sat back and waited for a game when my friends weren't online. I'm not saying it's better, just that my experience wasn't as bad as others...

FelipeInside

Another issue with this system as you pointed out: hackers. VAC is awful at catching hackers, from my experience with playing nearly 300 hours of MW2 online. At least with dedicated servers, you have players who act as admins during peak times and they can ban players. Hacker problem was why I avoided 9v9 playlists in MW2.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"] With IWNet, I just sat back and waited...and waited....and waited...to play something that was not DOM or TDM. And during certain time periods, such as in the morning on days when I wasn't working or in class, I would also have trouble finding a game. If MW3 has the same crappy matchmaking system, that would rule out any chance of me purchasing it.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Another issue with this system as you pointed out: hackers. VAC is awful at catching hackers, from my experience with playing nearly 300 hours of MW2 online. At least with dedicated servers, you have players who act as admins during peak times and they can ban players. Hacker problem was why I avoided 9v9 playlists in MW2.

Anyone else here that cares more about the campaign?

Anyone else here that cares more about the campaign?

Baranga

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Anyone else here that cares more about the campaign?

sexygirl6t9

[QUOTE="sexygirl6t9"][QUOTE="Baranga"]

Anyone else here that cares more about the campaign?

FelipeInside