MW3 beats BF3 in every way

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"] MW3 sales: 20 million BF3 sales: 1 million Facts speak for themselves, son.SPYDER0416

Those are some completely accurate facts( No they aren't actually, BF3 sold more than 1mil). But how does that suggest COD is better than BF3? Does 20million sales = better graphics? does 20million sales = better story? does 20million sales = better gameplay? The only thing those sales prove is that COD sold more than BF3.

Again, try harder.

Both games are (gasp!) good games for different reasons and audiences. End topic.

If only that worked... well BF and CoD fanboys can keep trying to one up each other on stupid reasons why they think they are right, nothing will stop that I guess.

See, i disagree with that. My experience with MW3 suggests that it's the worst COD in the entire series, well atleast the multiplayer. Haven't tried SpecOps or Campaign.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Those are some completely accurate facts( No they aren't actually, BF3 sold more than 1mil). But how does that suggest COD is better than BF3? Does 20million sales = better graphics? does 20million sales = better story? does 20million sales = better gameplay? The only thing those sales prove is that COD sold more than BF3.

Again, try harder.

el3m2tigre

Both games are (gasp!) good games for different reasons and audiences. End topic.

If only that worked... well BF and CoD fanboys can keep trying to one up each other on stupid reasons why they think they are right, nothing will stop that I guess.

See, i disagree with that. My experience with MW3 suggests that it's the worst COD in the entire series, well atleast the multiplayer. Haven't tried SpecOps or Campaign.

So you are judging the entire game by your multiplayer experience, and yours alone?

Its no wonder fanboys are shocked by MW3's success when they just completely ignore the other modes that aren't "online multiplayer".

Personally, I thought the extra focus they put on the other modes over MP made it better then MW2 for me, but so many people just want to compare multiplayer modes, as if the other two modes don't exist. Makes me feel like single player is dying, and it explains why developers are starting to tack on MP with everything when some people only care about that.

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3 Ok, Fair reason.

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun Subjective. Some people think BF3 is more fun.

3. Better Singleplayer Subjective. Some people like COD sp more, some like BF sp more.

4. Better Co-Op Subjective. Some think BF3 has better co-op.

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode Fair reason.

6. More game modes Ok, fair reason.

7. More maps, guns Fine, fair reason.

8. Killstreaks Some heavily dislike killstreaks...

9. Perks and more customization Ok.fair reason.

10. COD elite. BF3 has a similar service called battlelog y'know...

shahilsyed

See the bold. MW3 doesn't beat BF3 in every way, but it does beat BF3 in some. Just not all ;).

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3 Ok, Fair reason.

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun Subjective. Some people think BF3 is more fun.

3. Better Singleplayer Subjective. Some people like COD sp more, some like BF sp more.

4. Better Co-Op Subjective. Some think BF3 has better co-op.

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode Fair reason.

6. More game modes Ok, fair reason.

7. More maps, guns Fine, fair reason.

8. Killstreaks Some heavily dislike killstreaks...

9. Perks and more customization Ok.fair reason.

10. COD elite. BF3 has a similar service called battlelog y'know...

keybladegamer

See the bold. MW3 doesn't beat BF3 in every way, but it does beat BF3 in some. Just not all ;).

You are doing it wrong! In SW either you agree that MW3 totally destroys BF3 and BF3 sux, or you agree that MW3 sux and BF3 totally destroys it. There is no room for unbiased logical ground in these parts.

[QUOTE="TRStrider"]List of facts. MW3 beat BF3 in copy for copy sales. MW3 broke industry sales records. This was not a surprise, anyone who thought otherwise was delusional. MW3, less than a month after its release, is showing a sharp decline in sales. BF3 sales are still climbing. Over 10 million I believe? Copies of MW3 (console) are hitting the used bins in GameStop stores across the country alarmingly fast. (I know two people who work on the corporate side of GS) BF3 has won, and still is winning, FAR more industry awards than MW3. It continues to come out on top in more reviews and polls that make this comparison or ask the question, what one is "better". Those are real facts, not trolling numbers you pull of of your backside. Sales does not denote quality. There is a reason you go to GameStop and see a bin or shelf full of used MW3 copies, and far fewer used BF3 copies. Sure all games make it into the used bins, what tells the tale here is that just weeks after breaking industry sales records, MW3 is already on the decline and filling those used bins far faster than its supposed rival. I know fanboys are going to hate. "MW3 is the greatest thing EVER", and no one will be able to tell them otherwise. They will never understand they just paid $60 for a Modern Warfare 2 repack. Want proof? Activision is milking CoD players for all they are worth and has killed what I used to consider a fantastic series. Releasing outdated games at full $60 price tags and with developers too lazy to even write new code or crate new textures. They cut and paste the same crap together in a new pattern. I leave you with this image link. http://i.imgur.com/Cgb80.png Edit: Holy format fail. =/WickoSicko

1. Sales don't mean everything (or Wii Play would be God King of gaming)

2. VGA's is just one award, and though I think the co-op and campaign kind of won out (it was a lackluster year for campaign and co-op), BF3's multiplayer broke more ground and did a lot more with more ambition and a good focus giving PC players what they want while still being fun for console gamers.

Opinions, opinions, but no facts anywhere here. If you think MW3 is better great, good for you, doesn't mean it destroys it when both are pretty much tied for score and it sells more after the several top selling games before it gave it the name it has (over BF, which is just starting to get into that huge sales zone for EA). Honestly, there are a LOT of things BF3 is better then MW3 at too, so it doesn't "destroy" BF3 just for being what you prefer and being better in just some ways.

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3

shahilsyed

Gotta love console gaming :lol:

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"][QUOTE="TRStrider"]List of facts. MW3 beat BF3 in copy for copy sales. MW3 broke industry sales records. This was not a surprise, anyone who thought otherwise was delusional. MW3, less than a month after its release, is showing a sharp decline in sales. BF3 sales are still climbing. Over 10 million I believe? Copies of MW3 (console) are hitting the used bins in GameStop stores across the country alarmingly fast. (I know two people who work on the corporate side of GS) BF3 has won, and still is winning, FAR more industry awards than MW3. It continues to come out on top in more reviews and polls that make this comparison or ask the question, what one is "better". Those are real facts, not trolling numbers you pull of of your backside. Sales does not denote quality. There is a reason you go to GameStop and see a bin or shelf full of used MW3 copies, and far fewer used BF3 copies. Sure all games make it into the used bins, what tells the tale here is that just weeks after breaking industry sales records, MW3 is already on the decline and filling those used bins far faster than its supposed rival. I know fanboys are going to hate. "MW3 is the greatest thing EVER", and no one will be able to tell them otherwise. They will never understand they just paid $60 for a Modern Warfare 2 repack. Want proof? Activision is milking CoD players for all they are worth and has killed what I used to consider a fantastic series. Releasing outdated games at full $60 price tags and with developers too lazy to even write new code or crate new textures. They cut and paste the same crap together in a new pattern. I leave you with this image link. http://i.imgur.com/Cgb80.png Edit: Holy format fail. =/SPYDER0416

1. Sales don't mean everything (or Wii Play would be God King of gaming)

2. VGA's is just one award, and though I think the co-op and campaign kind of won out (it was a lackluster year for campaign and co-op), BF3's multiplayer broke more ground and did a lot more with more ambition and a good focus giving PC players what they want while still being fun for console gamers.

Opinions, opinions, but no facts anywhere here. If you think MW3 is better great, good for you, doesn't mean it destroys it when both are pretty much tied for score and it sells more after the several top selling games before it gave it the name it has (over BF, which is just starting to get into that huge sales zone for EA). Honestly, there are a LOT of things BF3 is better then MW3 at too, so it doesn't "destroy" BF3 just for being what you prefer and being better in just some ways.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"] 1. MW3 violated BF3 in every way possible, when it comes to sales. 2. MW3 was awarded the best shooter of the year, by "the Oscars of gaming", at VGA.WickoSicko

1. Sales don't mean everything (or Wii Play would be God King of gaming)

2. VGA's is just one award, and though I think the co-op and campaign kind of won out (it was a lackluster year for campaign and co-op), BF3's multiplayer broke more ground and did a lot more with more ambition and a good focus giving PC players what they want while still being fun for console gamers.

Opinions, opinions, but no facts anywhere here. If you think MW3 is better great, good for you, doesn't mean it destroys it when both are pretty much tied for score and it sells more after the several top selling games before it gave it the name it has (over BF, which is just starting to get into that huge sales zone for EA). Honestly, there are a LOT of things BF3 is better then MW3 at too, so it doesn't "destroy" BF3 just for being what you prefer and being better in just some ways.

Nice opinion bro :cool:

But, that doesn't make it a universal fact, sadly for you.

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

1. Sales don't mean everything (or Wii Play would be God King of gaming)

2. VGA's is just one award, and though I think the co-op and campaign kind of won out (it was a lackluster year for campaign and co-op), BF3's multiplayer broke more ground and did a lot more with more ambition and a good focus giving PC players what they want while still being fun for console gamers.

Opinions, opinions, but no facts anywhere here. If you think MW3 is better great, good for you, doesn't mean it destroys it when both are pretty much tied for score and it sells more after the several top selling games before it gave it the name it has (over BF, which is just starting to get into that huge sales zone for EA). Honestly, there are a LOT of things BF3 is better then MW3 at too, so it doesn't "destroy" BF3 just for being what you prefer and being better in just some ways.

SPYDER0416

Nice opinion bro :cool:

But, that doesn't make it a universal fact, sadly for you.

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3 I get 60fps consistently...build a good pc and u wont have to worry about that

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun not sure what u mean here...unlocking is unlocking...u still get stuff by playing the game...

3. Better Singleplayer lawl...u bought either of these games for single player

4. Better Co-Op will say...not had good exp with the bf3 co-op but probably my friends system crapping out over it not being good

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode

6. More game modes so bf3 has fewer game modes...when u get a game mode on cod that can compete with 64 player conquest and rush let me know...cause thats what bf3 is all about

7. More maps, guns back to karkland...nuff said

8. Killstreaks honestly...and i know this is an unpopular opinion...but i f****** hate killstreaks...i remember when fps games took skill and when you were chalking up ur killstreaks it was cause u were doing it...not cause the game gave u easy mode for more kills

9. Perks and more customization ...its an fps...not an rpg...u dont need either of those...u need a gun and a crosshair...and somebody's head...

10. COD elite. is there really a point to this...why do u need a social network for a video game?

shahilsyed

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

Valdez was actually a pretty fun and moderately open map, but it was focused on Rush so it won't be a big circular field. It was very well balanced for both modes though, since when they made it for Conquest they added another chopper and some speedy vehicles.

I'd say its one of my top BF maps because of how fun Rush was on it and how not terrible Conquest was. Better then Metro and Damavand Peak I think, though I actually really like Damavand Peak, its not that great on Conquest and is a little unbalanced in one section for Rush.

SPYDER0416

Sure if you only followed the roads instead of taking any of the woods or side paths, then I guess you could say its totally linear, but then you really weren't playing it right.

Its not meant for Conquest, its meant for Rush, and pretty much every point in that map has several ways to the M-COM stations. If you don't like it great, but it was a well done map and meant for Rush more then anything, and it succeeded pretty well and ended up being one of the most balanced Rush maps in the game.

Port valdez as attacker on rush is extreme frustrating. For Conquest I think its pretty decent.26whitewolf

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"] 1. MW3 violated BF3 in every way possible, when it comes to sales. 2. MW3 was awarded the best shooter of the year, by "the Oscars of gaming", at VGA.WickoSicko

1. Sales don't mean everything (or Wii Play would be God King of gaming)

2. VGA's is just one award, and though I think the co-op and campaign kind of won out (it was a lackluster year for campaign and co-op), BF3's multiplayer broke more ground and did a lot more with more ambition and a good focus giving PC players what they want while still being fun for console gamers.

Opinions, opinions, but no facts anywhere here. If you think MW3 is better great, good for you, doesn't mean it destroys it when both are pretty much tied for score and it sells more after the several top selling games before it gave it the name it has (over BF, which is just starting to get into that huge sales zone for EA). Honestly, there are a LOT of things BF3 is better then MW3 at too, so it doesn't "destroy" BF3 just for being what you prefer and being better in just some ways.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"] I'm just saying that MW3 outsold BF3... Um, VGA > any other gaming awards show. There is a reason it's compared to the Oscars.WickoSicko

Nice opinion bro :cool:

But, that doesn't make it a universal fact, sadly for you.