[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]
[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
MW3's campaign
MW3's co-op
and everything inside that beats out BF3's campaign and co-op (story, characters, content, polish, optimization, framerate, score, variety)
Like I said, I like them both, but it is very easy to find reasons one game is better then the other so don't assume someone can't prove you wrong in finding reasons one might like MW3 over BF3 :cool:
SPYDER0416
i don't get that.
1. BF3 isn't about the campaign, or Co op or w/e.
BF3 is all about multiplayer.
Those facts that i've stated show which game is superior on a technical standpoint.
However, You're free to like MW3 for what ever reasons, don't get me wrong.
IT would be foolish to think that MW3 is better than bf3 because of a linear campaign (in my opinion) because BF isn't about campaigns, etc.
Let me give you a hypothetical example:
I don't like neither of the campaigns because i don't like linear story modes. Now what?
Please find other reasons as to why MW3 beats BF3 on a technical stand point..
The reasons i stated are facts.I think Yahtzee said it best, but you can't ignore the flaws because "it wasn't the point".
By adding in the co-op and campaign, DICE took less time to work on the multiplayer and made a product that is decidedly average in many respects.
When judges and reviewers look at a game, they don't look at one part. They look at a whole thing, and in that regard MW3 surpasses BF3 in what it offers to some people.
BF3's multiplayer may be the point, but it doesn't make the other parts any better, and by adding those other parts it certainly reduces the quality of the multiplayer.
Its like MW3 is a Big Mac. You've eaten them before, they're alright, pretty popular and some people love them, some don't. Overall though, the whole sandwich does what its intended and a food critic might not like the whole thing, but none of it is particularly "terrible", and some people might love it or hate it.
BF3 is like a Whopper, except the bread(co-op) is stale and the cheese(campaign) is moldy. Sure the beef might be WAY better, but it has a crappy bread and cheese. Someone eating only the beef (multiplayer BF fans) will love it way over the Big Mac when they only eat the Big Mac's beef, but somone like the public or a gaming journalist tries the whole thing and its not that great.
Honestly, like I said, I like both games, but BF3 is not objectively better then MW3. It has some serious flaws, flaws DICE decided to put in there when they could have just focused on a singular aspect instead.
Plus saying its graphically better doesn't mean a thing. I care about gameplay, and I don't care if the beef looks like a sirloin if it tastes like generic gameplay and missed polish.
So saying BF3 is better because you ignore the parts of it that are worse (claiming they "aren't the point"), then that is pretty foolish.
And yes I may have come off as a fanboy before, but I never said I preferred MW3 or point out "facts" that are simply my opinion before did I? Can't say the same for some of you guys, who pretty much are no better then TC.
Plus considering how the focus on MW3 was on co-op and campaign over the multiplayer, then by your logic MW3 is 2x better since it put focus on two aspects that are better then BF3's, while BF3's only focus is just one part of MW's focus. Its terrible logic however you look at it, and you have to judge the whole package, not just how pretty it is and ignoring how crappy the parts you don't care for are.
Right... And your logic makes perfect sense. :roll:
MW3 is a Big Mac.
BF3 is a Whopper with moldy cheese and stale bread.
That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. And a crappy analogy to boot.
CoD fanboys are awful. Just because you like playing the same games over and over every year does not make them a good thing. The MP in CoD is awful. So while the SP is better in CoD than the SP in BF3, the MP in BF3 far outshines the MP in CoD. So therefore, your logic makes no sense.
Log in to comment