Battlefield 3 is incredibly different from Modern Warfare 3. The game features an advanced destruction model, beautiful visuals, a plethora of vehicles, huge maps, 64 players (on PC), and a more tactical, team-oriented approach. A good match in Battlefield 3 is a team working together, squads working as one to hold objectives and capture new points, with each player doing a different task like healing/reviving, resupplying, fixing, spotting, and so on. Sure, there are some (or a lot, depends on how you look at it) matches where team play is the last thing that is going on, but when you are with a good squad that you can communicate with (friends, or just people in a party or a Ventrilo server or so on), the team aspect comes back. The philosophy behind the game play in Battlefield 3 is that working together and utilizing resources efficiently will allow you to propel yourself to victory. Using cover, supporting your teammates, and being a team player go a long way towards victory.
Modern Warfare 3, on the other hand, shines in different ways. The Call of Duty approach is a more casual, arcade ****shooter that appeals to many a gamer and even some non-gamers. Now, I will admit that my experience with any Call of Duty game is pretty slim, but I've played some Modern Warfare 3 and I understand the concept behind it. Modern Warfare 3 plays faster than Battlefield 3, in that the pace is much quicker. Spawn times are quick, and your soldier runs and jumps in a way that almost defies what is humanly possible, but you don't care, because you're having fun. The game is meant to be played quickly; there is still a small focus on team play, but it is much less pronounced than Battlefield 3's focus is. The maps are small and cozy (in my experience) and offer a pretty solid infantry commanded experience. Typically, a Call of Duty player is able to run and gun all on their own, unless there is a major objective that requires more than one person to go after. This lone wolf attitude would never work in a game like Battlefield, but it works well in a game like Call of Duty. All of these factors make Modern Warfare 3 easier to pick up and play than Battlefield 3.
Here's a list of what I have seen as the general consensus as to what the pro's and con's of these games are: Battlefield 3+ Runs on a new engine, which produces better destruction, physics, and visuals + Expansive maps for if you want to play on a large map, and tighter, more infantry based maps if you'd rather play on those + 64 players in one game (PC only) + Tactical focus, team based approach- Difficult to enjoy team play if you don't communicate with your squad, meaning it isn't a good game to play if you like to be a "lone wolf" type - Some maps are structured poorly, especially as you add more players (Operation Metro, 64 players, Conquest, anybody?) - Battlelog (on PC); a service that, in time, could become great, but is, as of now, a bit unstable and annoying to use.Modern Warfare 3+ Easy to pick up and play + You don't have to worry much about team play and mechanisms; you can be a "lone wolf" and still enjoy yourself + Fast paced- Dated engine results in much less brilliant visuals and etc. when compared to Battlefield 3 - Call of Duty Elite and paid DLC add more expenses to those who want to enjoy the game to its fullest. While this could be partially applicable to BF3, I find this more of an issue in Modern Warfare 3, due to Elite and what it entails, and how it will affect those who don't pay for it - Feels simply like an extension to Modern Warfare 2. In other words, feels more like a bunch of new maps instead of a brand new game Both games have their strong and weak points. Both games have gotten similar reviews. Modern Warfare 3 has sold more and has more mainstream popularity because that's just how Call of Duty is. This popularity results in amazing sales numbers. But, at the same time, it brings up a concern: why, if these games sell so damn much, thus making a lot of money, is there not a lot more work put in to improvement? Modern Warfare 2 sold boatloads, and yet Modern Warfare 3 isn't a huge improvement. The usual response I see to this is the "isn't broken, don't fix it" response, but, even with that aside, why haven't they seemed to put a ton of effort into making the game the best it can be? Battlefield 3 set out to do the wrong thing: outsell Call of Duty. The second Dice and EA (and EA is the worse offender of the two, or so I believe) started saying they wanted to take out Call of Duty's market share (or at least some of it), they put themselves up against something that they couldn't hope to beat. During the development process, they hyped us up too much, fed us all of these great things about the game, and then didn't fully deliver on release. Sure, there are updates and patches coming here and there, but the hype for the game was still let down a bit. Battlefield 3 is not better than Modern Warfare 3. It does some things better, while Modern Warfare 3 does other things better. Battlefield 3 succeeds in what it tries to be, just as Modern Warfare 3 does. Both games have received great reviews, met with spectacular sales, and they both have a lot of active players. Modern Warfare 3 is not better than Battlefield 3. It's selling more due to Call of Duty's popularity, but that doesn't equate to it being a better game. Selling a lot of a game is great, but that doesn't make the game great. tl;dr: Both games have their ups and downs, both games are good, both warrant a purchase Disclaimer: I do not own Modern Warfare 3, and that is only because it didn't interest me. I hope that I've seemed objective enough, as that is what I was aiming for. I have played it though. I've also played Battlefield 3 enough to understand its strengths and weaknesses: [spoiler]
[/spoiler] Obligatory review scores: 
(where the average for Modern Warfare 3 is an 86, and for Battlefield 3 is an 86.3333333333333333etc.)
Here's a fancy looking graph I toiled over in Paint to use as a visual and to keep your attention: 
Log in to comment