Is the Battlefield 3 > CoD MW 3 Feud real?

Why does this feud exist ones like using crappy vehicles and driving around crappy maps

the other one is like a powerful counterstrike shooter

of course ones doing better

ones like a team play do whatever u want fly in fly in that

the other ia solid death match with better maps an kill streak rewards

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

Why does this feud exist ones like using crappy vehicles and driving around crappy maps

the other one is like a powerful counterstrike shooter

of course ones doing better

ones like a team play do whatever u want fly in fly in that

the other ia solid death match with better maps an kill streak rewards

ProtossX

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

tjricardo089

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

Jebus213

Relatively, of course.

On the scale where one extreme is pure arcade and the other extreme is pure realism, BF3 leans more toward realistic than MW3 does.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

VoodooHak

Relatively, of course.

On the scale where one extreme is pure arcade and the other extreme is pure realism, BF3 leans more toward realistic than MW3 does.

But honestly, neither game is realistic. In one game I can throw a knife into the air, have it bounce off 3 different solid structures, and kill a guy with a slight 1mph tap from the hilt of it.

In another I can instantly teleport outside a jet when I take the slightest damage and survive a hit to the chest from a .50 bolt action rifle.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Battlefield 3 makes you feel like a real soldier in a real battlefield

Call of Duty makes you feel like rambo in a crappy battlefield.

I prefer BF3 to be honest

VoodooHak

Relatively, of course.

On the scale where one extreme is pure arcade and the other extreme is pure realism, BF3 leans more toward realistic than MW3 does.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] While BF3 is pretty much rambo style on all of it's city maps. Even Karkand... BF3 is the least authentic out of the whole series. It's pretty much a more interactive CoD on a big scale. SPYDER0416

Relatively, of course.

On the scale where one extreme is pure arcade and the other extreme is pure realism, BF3 leans more toward realistic than MW3 does.

But honestly, neither game is realistic. In one game I can throw a knife into the air, have it bounce off 3 different solid structures, and kill a guy with a slight 1mph tap from the hilt of it.

In another I can instantly teleport outside a jet when I take the slightest damage and survive a hit to the chest from a .50 bolt action rifle.

Yup. You won't get any argument from me there. But If I had to choose one, I prefer the one that's a bit more realistic. MW3 plays almost cartoonishly fast. And the environments feel like arenas engineered like paintball fields. BF3 maps feel like they could be real places.

I can appreciate them both for what they offer, but I just prefer BF3.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] While BF3 is pretty much rambo style on all of it's city maps. Even Karkand... BF3 is the least authentic out of the whole series. It's pretty much a more interactive CoD on a big scale. Jebus213

Relatively, of course.

On the scale where one extreme is pure arcade and the other extreme is pure realism, BF3 leans more toward realistic than MW3 does.

Compared to MW3, there's no contest which one is the more arcade-like shooter.

vehicles add a lot to the gameplay. if you didn't suck so much at the game you'd understand. sorry.

vehicles add a lot to the gameplay. if you didn't suck so much at the game you'd understand. sorry.

Dead-Memories

I bet he suck as much at Battlefield 3 as he does at making a coherent sentence.

I like both.I prefer COD though.Always have.

Only 2 of the mw3 maps I care to play on where as only 2 maps on bf3 I cant stand.

Why does this feud exist ones like using crappy vehicles and driving around crappy maps

the other one is like a powerful counterstrike shooter

of course ones doing better

ones like a team play do whatever u want fly in fly in that

the other ia solid death match with better maps an kill streak rewards

ProtossX

Why does this feud exist ones like using crappy vehicles and driving around crappy maps

the other one is like a powerful counterstrike shooter

of course ones doing better

ones like a team play do whatever u want fly in fly in that

the other ia solid death match with better maps an kill streak rewards

ProtossX

[QUOTE="ProtossX"]

Why does this feud exist ones like using crappy vehicles and driving around crappy maps

the other one is like a powerful counterstrike shooter

of course ones doing better

ones like a team play do whatever u want fly in fly in that

the other ia solid death match with better maps an kill streak rewards

2beers_in_hand

I'unno... I think its real....

It's like asking someone living in South Korea or any foreign country whether Boston Red Sox fans and New York Yankees fans hate each other. They have no clue.

Nope, it's all just a dream :o

Seriously though, of course it's real. People compare them, but I don't see how MW3 comes anywhere near BF3 for the reasons stated in the OP.

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

SPYDER0416

Trolling as always I see. Anyway BF3>>>>>>MW3. Any real gamer or any gamer that has been playing games for longer than this generation knows this.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

vtoshkatur

Trolling as always I see. Anyway BF3>>>>>>MW3. Any real gamer or any gamer that has been playing games for longer than this generation knows this.

There's no such thing as a fake gamer, so how can there be a real gamer? Wouldn't that just mean any gamer?

no its not real. Theyre both computer games which are virtual reality, The plastic discs dont come to life at night and duke it out to the death like som feudral japan samurai's.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

vtoshkatur

Trolling as always I see. Anyway BF3>>>>>>MW3. Any real gamer or any gamer that has been playing games for longer than this generation knows this.

Good to see you have a problem with me so you have to stalk me from thread to thread calling me a troll, makes me feel extra special ;)

[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

XVision84

Trolling as always I see. Anyway BF3>>>>>>MW3. Any real gamer or any gamer that has been playing games for longer than this generation knows this.

There's no such thing as a fake gamer, so how can there be a real gamer? Wouldn't that just mean any gamer?

Elitism logic.

Doesn't matter if you love videogames, spend money supporting the industry and play with your friends. If you don't like what the elitist likes, you aren't a "real gamer" and are tossed with all the farmville playing housewives.

Its dumb, but so is all of SW.

[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

AGH THE GRAMMAR HURTS MY EYES!!!

SPYDER0416

Trolling as always I see. Anyway BF3>>>>>>MW3. Any real gamer or any gamer that has been playing games for longer than this generation knows this.

Good to see you have a problem with me so you have to stalk me from thread to thread calling me a troll, makes me feel extra special ;)

I'm glad =)

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]

Trolling as always I see. Anyway BF3>>>>>>MW3. Any real gamer or any gamer that has been playing games for longer than this generation knows this.

vtoshkatur

Good to see you have a problem with me so you have to stalk me from thread to thread calling me a troll, makes me feel extra special ;)

I'm glad =)

You two are going to get along real nice.

I see a special relationship in the making here.

Wait... did someone just compare MW3 to CS? I seriously hope not...

That said, those who feud over BF3 and MW3, are likely feuding over the different takes the games have on the genre, none of them are the epitome of either type of fps game. One hapen to be the most marketed hyped fps game ever, and certainly ain't bad, but ain't exactly the top of its class either.

The other is a letdown for its own series. But still offer a great amount of fun.

Claiming either is high class is pretty bad, as it would only reflect on the really very low amount of FPS games that someone has playied.

Wait... did someone just compare MW3 to CS? I seriously hope not...

That said, those who feud over BF3 and MW3, are likely feuding over the different takes the games have on the genre, none of them are the epitome of either type of fps game. One hapen to be the most marketed hyped fps game ever, and certainly ain't bad, but ain't exactly the top of its class either.

The other is a letdown for its own series. But still offer a great amount of fun.

Claiming either is high class is pretty bad, as it would only reflect on the really very low amount of FPS games that someone has playied.

Maddie_Larkin

Battlefield 3 is not a let down in its series. Not even close.

To be honest I think both games kind of disappointed me.

MW3 gave me what I expected, but to be honest its disappointing that I expected it to be so similar to MW2 and that I wasn't completely wrong in how the multiplayer and single player played (though co-op was a blast).

BF3 had its single player hyped to Oblivion and its probably the worst FPS single player I've ever played (yes worse then Homefront I'd personally say, if only for it lacks the unique story angle, but Homefront also sucked so eh), and it ended up being overwhelmingly underpolished in regards to lag and clipping issues.

But whatever, people want to debate which one they think it better, that is fine. Both are good (or terrible depending who you ask, and everyone has a different view on that and its pretty much 100% opinion considering the incredibly close scores and varying opinions on them.

To be honest I think both games kind of disappointed me.

MW3 gave me what I expected, but to be honest its disappointing that I expected it to be so similar to MW2 and that I wasn't completely wrong in how the multiplayer and single player played (though co-op was a blast).

BF3 had its single player hyped to Oblivion and its probably the worst FPS single player I've ever played (yes worse then Homefront I'd personally say, if only for it lacks the unique story angle, but Homefront also sucked so eh), and it ended up being overwhelmingly underpolished in regards to lag and clipping issues.

But whatever, people want to debate which one they think it better, that is fine. Both are good (or terrible depending who you ask, and everyone has a different view on that and its pretty much 100% opinion considering the incredibly close scores and varying opinions on them.

SPYDER0416

Who hyped up Battlefield 3's singleplayer? (other than EA of course), I expected a bad campaign. Battlefield games usually don't have good campaigns, but this one is especially bad. They should've stuck to Bad Company-style storytelling. It was a lot better.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

To be honest I think both games kind of disappointed me.

MW3 gave me what I expected, but to be honest its disappointing that I expected it to be so similar to MW2 and that I wasn't completely wrong in how the multiplayer and single player played (though co-op was a blast).

BF3 had its single player hyped to Oblivion and its probably the worst FPS single player I've ever played (yes worse then Homefront I'd personally say, if only for it lacks the unique story angle, but Homefront also sucked so eh), and it ended up being overwhelmingly underpolished in regards to lag and clipping issues.

But whatever, people want to debate which one they think it better, that is fine. Both are good (or terrible depending who you ask, and everyone has a different view on that and its pretty much 100% opinion considering the incredibly close scores and varying opinions on them.

XVision84

Who hyped up Battlefield 3's singleplayer? (other than EA of course), I expected a bad campaign. Battlefield games usually don't have good campaigns, but this one is especially bad. They should've stuck to Bad Company-style storytelling. It was a lot better.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

To be honest I think both games kind of disappointed me.

MW3 gave me what I expected, but to be honest its disappointing that I expected it to be so similar to MW2 and that I wasn't completely wrong in how the multiplayer and single player played (though co-op was a blast).

BF3 had its single player hyped to Oblivion and its probably the worst FPS single player I've ever played (yes worse then Homefront I'd personally say, if only for it lacks the unique story angle, but Homefront also sucked so eh), and it ended up being overwhelmingly underpolished in regards to lag and clipping issues.

But whatever, people want to debate which one they think it better, that is fine. Both are good (or terrible depending who you ask, and everyone has a different view on that and its pretty much 100% opinion considering the incredibly close scores and varying opinions on them.

Dead-Memories

Who hyped up Battlefield 3's singleplayer? (other than EA of course), I expected a bad campaign. Battlefield games usually don't have good campaigns, but this one is especially bad. They should've stuck to Bad Company-style storytelling. It was a lot better.

Well mostly EA, my buddies, and some people here on SW. In fact I remember Wasdie saying that it looked like it would be awesome, and I trust 80% of what he says (70% now).

I mean, they showed some of the best aspects of the campaign. It looks like this fantastic cinematic but also fun to play game, with AI bounding from car to car, sweet destruction, an open looking tank battle in the desert, etc. Then you find out its 90% mediocre CoD rip off with QTE's and bad AI, 8% cutscenes and loading after EVERY DEATH (seriously), and 2% actual interesting and awesome gameplay (mainly the middle part of the sniper mission and some of Dima's missions).

But yeah, its an MP game first and foremost, and I really wish they either stuck all the resources towards multi, or got another team or part of their team to focus on making the game more then a glorified mechanic tutorial.

BF3 is just a better game imo. It's way more engrossing and the sound effects are incredible.

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

Who hyped up Battlefield 3's singleplayer? (other than EA of course), I expected a bad campaign. Battlefield games usually don't have good campaigns, but this one is especially bad. They should've stuck to Bad Company-style storytelling. It was a lot better.

SPYDER0416

Well mostly EA, my buddies, and some people here on SW. In fact I remember Wasdie saying that it looked like it would be awesome, and I trust 80% of what he says (70% now).

I mean, they showed some of the best aspects of the campaign. It looks like this fantastic cinematic but also fun to play game, with AI bounding from car to car, sweet destruction, an open looking tank battle in the desert, etc. Then you find out its 90% mediocre CoD rip off with QTE's and bad AI, 8% cutscenes and loading after EVERY DEATH (seriously), and 2% actual interesting and awesome gameplay (mainly the middle part of the sniper mission and some of Dima's missions).

But yeah, its an MP game first and foremost, and I really wish they either stuck all the resources towards multi, or got another team or part of their team to focus on making the game more then a glorified mechanic tutorial.

Yes, they should have put forth all their effort into the multiplayer, but remember that this is an Activision vs EA sort of thing. If EA didn't include a singleplayer, Activision can say "Battlefield 3 has no story, but our CoD provides an excellent fast-paced campaign topped with good co op and multiplayer, why not buy CoD over Battlefield?". That would lose them sales.

i wonder if most the people that rip on BF3's campaign even played it at all , it's nowhere near as bad as people claim. it was well-paced, short and sweet with some more than great moments.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"] when the first disc is multiplayer/co-op certain implications are made.... bf 3 is not about the single player at all, regardless of mindless ad campaigns. XVision84

Well mostly EA, my buddies, and some people here on SW. In fact I remember Wasdie saying that it looked like it would be awesome, and I trust 80% of what he says (70% now).

I mean, they showed some of the best aspects of the campaign. It looks like this fantastic cinematic but also fun to play game, with AI bounding from car to car, sweet destruction, an open looking tank battle in the desert, etc. Then you find out its 90% mediocre CoD rip off with QTE's and bad AI, 8% cutscenes and loading after EVERY DEATH (seriously), and 2% actual interesting and awesome gameplay (mainly the middle part of the sniper mission and some of Dima's missions).

But yeah, its an MP game first and foremost, and I really wish they either stuck all the resources towards multi, or got another team or part of their team to focus on making the game more then a glorified mechanic tutorial.

Yes, they should have put forth all their effort into the multiplayer, but remember that this is an Activision vs EA sort of thing. If EA didn't include a singleplayer, Activision can say "Battlefield 3 has no story, but our CoD provides an excellent fast-paced campaign topped with good co op and multiplayer, why not buy CoD over Battlefield?". That would lose them sales.

I'm still debating whether or not this is a good thing.

On the one hand, the competition means BOTH franchises will strive to be better. If BC2 didn't become a potential threat to CoD, I don't think EA would have poured as much marketing and time into BF3, while I also think its something Activision will consider and hopefully make some beneficial changes to the CoD formula to prevent it.

On the other hand, it means EA is trying to shoehorn in stuff for the CoD audience instead of stuff for the Battlefield audience. The campaign and co-op were basically a poor man's MW campaign and co-op, and if I wanted to play a better version of them I'd just play Call of Duty. They also ended up having Metro as the beta map (contrary to the beta maps they used with BC2, which were full of vehicles and destruction, though I admit I actually like Metro now), and they had all those commercials and ads that were basically just annoying Publisher versions of the one upping dbag storyteller at a party, just namedropping CoD and being "oh we're SOOOO much better" while fostering the dumb fanboy hate we see now further then normal.

It also doesn't help that the game seems rushed to try and directly compete, which wasn't an issue for BC2 (which had a few extra months over its supposed December 2009 release date).

I love the multiplayer though, and I do not regret buying it at all. Damn do I hate Origin's downloader, but other then that I love BF3, and I personally enjoy the multiplayer MUCH more (but yeah, the co-op and campaign still suck, and MW3's mp isn't too bad I guess).

I prefer BF3. I just like the more realstic feel.

i wonder if most the people that rip on BF3's campaign even played it at all , it's nowhere near as bad as people claim. it was well-paced, short and sweet with some more than great moments.

Dead-Memories

Well it had alright pacing and good set pieces, but the problem is that that was pretty much it. The AI was weirdly buggy, and it was easy to break the game by doing things before you are told to (such as in one case where my CO kept blabbing on how to take out some enemy sniper about a mile after I killed said sniper). It was also just one straight line, with literally no room for a different route. I mean, honestly, at least Call of Duty's levels give me the occasional alley or rooftop to flank on.

Maybe it wasn't completely terrible, but I could rant on about its flaws, and I guess I expected much more, especially when the Bad Company campaigns were actually fun and unique and not all CoD ripoffy.

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

Who hyped up Battlefield 3's singleplayer? (other than EA of course), I expected a bad campaign. Battlefield games usually don't have good campaigns, but this one is especially bad. They should've stuck to Bad Company-style storytelling. It was a lot better.

SPYDER0416

Well mostly EA, my buddies, and some people here on SW. In fact I remember Wasdie saying that it looked like it would be awesome, and I trust 80% of what he says (70% now).

I mean, they showed some of the best aspects of the campaign. It looks like this fantastic cinematic but also fun to play game, with AI bounding from car to car, sweet destruction, an open looking tank battle in the desert, etc. Then you find out its 90% mediocre CoD rip off with QTE's and bad AI, 8% cutscenes and loading after EVERY DEATH (seriously), and 2% actual interesting and awesome gameplay (mainly the middle part of the sniper mission and some of Dima's missions).

But yeah, its an MP game first and foremost, and I really wish they either stuck all the resources towards multi, or got another team or part of their team to focus on making the game more then a glorified mechanic tutorial.

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"]

i wonder if most the people that rip on BF3's campaign even played it at all , it's nowhere near as bad as people claim. it was well-paced, short and sweet with some more than great moments.

SPYDER0416

Well it had alright pacing and good set pieces, but the problem is that that was pretty much it. The AI was weirdly buggy, and it was easy to break the game by doing things before you are told to (such as in one case where my CO kept blabbing on how to take out some enemy sniper about a mile after I killed said sniper). It was also just one straight line, with literally no room for a different route. I mean, honestly, at least Call of Duty's levels give me the occasional alley or rooftop to flank on.

Maybe it wasn't completely terrible, but I could rant on about its flaws, and I guess I expected much more, especially when the Bad Company campaigns were actually fun and unique and not all CoD ripoffy.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"] when the first disc is multiplayer/co-op certain implications are made.... bf 3 is not about the single player at all, regardless of mindless ad campaigns. Bebi_vegeta

Well mostly EA, my buddies, and some people here on SW. In fact I remember Wasdie saying that it looked like it would be awesome, and I trust 80% of what he says (70% now).

I mean, they showed some of the best aspects of the campaign. It looks like this fantastic cinematic but also fun to play game, with AI bounding from car to car, sweet destruction, an open looking tank battle in the desert, etc. Then you find out its 90% mediocre CoD rip off with QTE's and bad AI, 8% cutscenes and loading after EVERY DEATH (seriously), and 2% actual interesting and awesome gameplay (mainly the middle part of the sniper mission and some of Dima's missions).

But yeah, its an MP game first and foremost, and I really wish they either stuck all the resources towards multi, or got another team or part of their team to focus on making the game more then a glorified mechanic tutorial.

Yeah I know that... now.

The BC games seemed to have been heading in a direction that would possibly mean a great single player for DICE. They didn't lessen the fun of MP any, and they were well lengthed, outlandishly fun, and other then some terribly done set pieces (like the mortar sequence that was mentioned in Zero Punctuation), it was great.

But here it was very much an addon, and if that's the route they'll take then they shouldn't tease me by promising a nice campaign that can stack up to modern FPS competitors. I wasn't expecting Bioshock, just a fun campaign that didn't feel like Call of Duty 4: Frostbite Edition with extra restrictions!

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Well mostly EA, my buddies, and some people here on SW. In fact I remember Wasdie saying that it looked like it would be awesome, and I trust 80% of what he says (70% now).

I mean, they showed some of the best aspects of the campaign. It looks like this fantastic cinematic but also fun to play game, with AI bounding from car to car, sweet destruction, an open looking tank battle in the desert, etc. Then you find out its 90% mediocre CoD rip off with QTE's and bad AI, 8% cutscenes and loading after EVERY DEATH (seriously), and 2% actual interesting and awesome gameplay (mainly the middle part of the sniper mission and some of Dima's missions).

But yeah, its an MP game first and foremost, and I really wish they either stuck all the resources towards multi, or got another team or part of their team to focus on making the game more then a glorified mechanic tutorial.

SPYDER0416

Yeah I know that... now.

The BC games seemed to have been heading in a direction that would possibly mean a great single player for DICE. They didn't lessen the fun of MP any, and they were well lengthed, outlandishly fun, and other then some terribly done set pieces (like the mortar sequence that was mentioned in Zero Punctuation), it was great.

But here it was very much an addon, and if that's the route they'll take then they shouldn't tease me by promising a nice campaign that can stack up to modern FPS competitors. I wasn't expecting Bioshock, just a fun campaign that didn't feel like Call of Duty 4: Frostbite Edition with extra restrictions!

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"]

i wonder if most the people that rip on BF3's campaign even played it at all , it's nowhere near as bad as people claim. it was well-paced, short and sweet with some more than great moments.

Bebi_vegeta

Well it had alright pacing and good set pieces, but the problem is that that was pretty much it. The AI was weirdly buggy, and it was easy to break the game by doing things before you are told to (such as in one case where my CO kept blabbing on how to take out some enemy sniper about a mile after I killed said sniper). It was also just one straight line, with literally no room for a different route. I mean, honestly, at least Call of Duty's levels give me the occasional alley or rooftop to flank on.

Maybe it wasn't completely terrible, but I could rant on about its flaws, and I guess I expected much more, especially when the Bad Company campaigns were actually fun and unique and not all CoD ripoffy.

I don't have a hard on for BC2, but BC2 did a lot of things right and better then BF3, and the campaigns were one such thing. Instead of a cheesy, 5 hour story on rails, I got a nice and explosive, semi open ended campaign at a decent length with funny characters and a story I've never seen in a military FPS game before.

BF3 was full of quicktime events, was a HUGE on rail experience and treaded ground that the CoD games have walked on. The BC games on the other hand, had you driving away from a tank on a golf cart on your way to blowing up a Russian Mercenary outpost. It was unique in setting, tone and characters with more charisma then a cardboard box, and it was also lengthy and open ended.

BF3, was none of that. It was just something they slapped on and hyped up.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Well it had alright pacing and good set pieces, but the problem is that that was pretty much it. The AI was weirdly buggy, and it was easy to break the game by doing things before you are told to (such as in one case where my CO kept blabbing on how to take out some enemy sniper about a mile after I killed said sniper). It was also just one straight line, with literally no room for a different route. I mean, honestly, at least Call of Duty's levels give me the occasional alley or rooftop to flank on.

Maybe it wasn't completely terrible, but I could rant on about its flaws, and I guess I expected much more, especially when the Bad Company campaigns were actually fun and unique and not all CoD ripoffy.

SPYDER0416

I don't have a hard on for BC2, but BC2 did a lot of things right and better then BF3, and the campaigns were one such thing. Instead of a cheesy, 5 hour story on rails, I got a nice and explosive, semi open ended campaign at a decent length with funny characters and a story I've never seen in a military FPS game before.

Honestly, you'll just argue any point I make but in the end, even if the BC campaigns weren't perfect, they had some love and care in them that BF3 didn't in its campaign. And the direction it was headed in (a funny and Crysis like open ended campaign with hilarious partners and tons of destruction and freedom), is a much nobler goal then "do what Call of Duty did, but worse".

But I guess I shouldn't complain TOO much, I guess the BF3 campaign being terrible meant the multiplayer being awesomer. Then again, it makes me not want a campaign at all if they could do more with the MP.

Honestly, you'll just argue any point I make but in the end, even if the BC campaigns weren't perfect, they had some love and care in them that BF3 didn't in its campaign. And the direction it was headed in (a funny and Crysis like open ended campaign with hilarious partners and tons of destruction and freedom), is a much nobler goal then "do what Call of Duty did, but worse".

But I guess I shouldn't complain TOO much, I guess the BF3 campaign being terrible meant the multiplayer being awesomer. Then again, it makes me not want a campaign at all if they could do more with the MP.

SPYDER0416

Exactly, Bad Company had spirit, but Battlefield 3 didn't. I actually really enjoyed Bad Company 2's campaign because it flowed pretty well and had distinct characters. Battlefield 3 was an uninspired military borefest, they need to go back to Bad Company-style storytelling.

Honestly, you'll just argue any point I make but in the end, even if the BC campaigns weren't perfect, they had some love and care in them that BF3 didn't in its campaign. And the direction it was headed in (a funny and Crysis like open ended campaign with hilarious partners and tons of destruction and freedom), is a much nobler goal then "do what Call of Duty did, but worse".

But I guess I shouldn't complain TOO much, I guess the BF3 campaign being terrible meant the multiplayer being awesomer. Then again, it makes me not want a campaign at all if they could do more with the MP.

SPYDER0416