*NEW* MW3 vs BF3 feature - GS says MW3 is better!!??

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

I know right. The suppression is just insane now. All you gotta do is pray and spray in the enemies general direction and they're severely crippled. It basically just boils down to who sees who first, kind of like MW3

OneLazyAsian

yep, really annoying when I've got the upper hand on someone then some idiot recon starts shooting at me. Can't even hit the guy when he's not even moving around.

rent-a-servers and a couple weapon tweaks were nice and all (Scar, G3, An-94, SKS all got a nice buff) (famas and frag rounds getting a nerf) Too bad they didn't actually do anything about a lot of the stuff that they were supposed to fix (vaulting, fall damage, bipod, MAV lifting)

Then their lack of Q.A. produced new problems. ex: SOFLAMs that are immune to rocket pods and explosive rounds.

I'd rather deal with the USAS w/ frags and FAMAS again, wasn't as bad as what we got now.

Do you guys get suppressed from random sniper pot shots as well? Like a sniper would shot at my general direction and my screen would turn into a blurry mess with any bullets even getting near me or hitting me. That annoys the hell out of me.

yep, and it's always someone with a **** shot.

I'd like to go down with a little decency. I should not have to flounder around in front of the guy I was supposed to kill.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

BF3 on consoles does need more players no question maps are WAY TOO BIG

Master_ShakeXXX

Not really a problem if you play Rush or TDM. Conquest can feel a tad empty at times but not too bad. Conquest on Operation Metro is actually a lot more playable in the console versions.

I agree with this. 24 is perfect for rush and that's what I play 66% of the time.

Conquest on consoles could be so much better if there was a capacity of at least 32 players. Over 1/3 of your team will end up in air vehicles and it just doesn't leave enough on the ground. You can have air superiority throughout the match but lose horribly because there's not enough people to cap flags.

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

BF3 on consoles does need more players no question maps are WAY TOO BIG

HavocV3

Not really a problem if you play Rush or TDM. Conquest can feel a tad empty at times but not too bad. Conquest on Operation Metro is actually a lot more playable in the console versions.

I agree with this. 24 is perfect for rush and that's what I play 66% of the time.

Conquest on consoles could be so much better if there was a capacity of at least 32 players. Over 1/3 of your team will end up in air vehicles and it just doesn't leave enough on the ground. You can have air superiority throughout the match but lose horribly because there's not enough people to cap flags.

Yeah, I really feel like they should have kept the Bad Company series to consoles and keep BF mainly on PC if they couldn't pull off more players on consoles. But hey, its EA and they'll be damned if they can't wring every cent possible out of as many gamers as they can I guess.

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

OF course MW3 is better... nothing is better than CoD games imo

Wasdie

Your opinion is dumb and you should feel bad.

Thank you for saying that.

BF3 is better. It offers so much more content and there are so many mroe ways to play it. You can be a lone wolf but teamwork is key. Vehicles cause people to adapt to every new situation and work together to take them out. DESTRUCTION!!! Better graphics and sound design. Dedicated servers. Up to 64 players. Man, I could go on and on.

FACT: BF3 is the better game.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

OF course MW3 is better... nothing is better than CoD games imo

arto1223

Your opinion is dumb and you should feel bad.

Thank you for saying that.

BF3 is better. It offers so much more content and there are so many mroe ways to play it. You can be a lone wolf but teamwork is key. Vehicles cause people to adapt to every new situation and work together to take them out. DESTRUCTION!!! Better graphics and sound design. Dedicated servers. Up to 64 players. Man, I could go on and on.

I wouldn't go that far. BF3 is the better game but when it comes to content CoD is pretty much unmatched.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah guys, lets all get angry that Gamespot likes one game over another, very similar game. This is totally worthy of rage, and there is no such thing as an "opinion".

SPYDER0416

Yeah, two modern day, mainstream, arcadey multiplayer focused shooters are NOTHING alike. I mean sure they both have scripted campaigns, are on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360, have multiplayer focused on shooting people to earn XP and unlock new weapons, and are considered competitors, but other then all those things they are nothing alike.

I must be crazy for thinking they are remotely similar, and you must somehow be sane for missing the entire point over one word.

Yes, because MW3 has vehicles, classes, destructable environments and support roles. :roll:

MW3 is better in every way except graphics and sound.Androvinus

Wow, there is no contest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1pqHog5D2U&annotation_id=annotation_757042&src_vid=1hJ5gKcsDQc&feature=iv

Wow, there is no contest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1pqHog5D2U&annotation_id=annotation_757042&src_vid=1hJ5gKcsDQc&feature=iv

Zaibach

GS also bashed Zelda for "not really changing toe core formula." Meanwhile, they praised MW3, essentially saying that it delivers more of the same fun...

I love inconsistency.

GS also bashed Zelda for "not really changing toe core formula." Meanwhile, they praised MW3, essentially saying that it delivers more of the same fun...

I love inconsistency.

turtlethetaffer

These guys don't really seem to know what they're talking about. That being said BF3 does need a lot of work.

Both have different styles.

Mw3 is fast, close quarter "arcade shooter" (can be tactical too, but not pubs, like counter-strike).

Bf3 is sluggish compared to mw3, but fast still. More tactical since bigger maps and vehicles. "Hardcore".

Also people are still hating (especially pc fans), because what trainwreck mw2 was. Mw3 is alot better.

Edit: is it arcade or arcane?

Enough of thepseudo elitists bashing on anything and everything popular these days. CoD is popular for a reason: it's fun. What's your reason for hating? It's "noob friendly"? If it's that easy then you should be able to jump on there and be in the top ten players in the world. Admit it. You don't like it cuz you suck. Because you played Counter Strike for too many years and now you want every game to be exactly like that. Well guess what times have changed. People like CoD and you should get over it.

http://www.gamespot.com/battlefield-3-close-quarters/videos/the-state-of-the-war-modern-warfare-3-vs-battlefield-3-feature-6370306/

Wha... what is this I don't even

Master_ShakeXXX

Both have different styles.

Mw3 is fast, close quarter "arcade shooter" (can be tactical too, but not pubs, like counter-strike).

Bf3 is sluggish compared to mw3, but fast still. More tactical since bigger maps and vehicles. "Hardcore".

Also people are still hating (especially pc fans), because what trainwreck mw2 was. Mw3 is alot better.

Nohtnym

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Both have different styles.

Mw3 is fast, close quarter "arcade shooter" (can be tactical too, but not pubs, like counter-strike).

Bf3 is sluggish compared to mw3, but fast still. More tactical since bigger maps and vehicles. "Hardcore".

Also people are still hating (especially pc fans), because what trainwreck mw2 was. Mw3 is alot better.

PC4lifeman2233

Yes it is.

[QUOTE="PC4lifeman2233"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Both have different styles.

Mw3 is fast, close quarter "arcade shooter" (can be tactical too, but not pubs, like counter-strike).

Bf3 is sluggish compared to mw3, but fast still. More tactical since bigger maps and vehicles. "Hardcore".

Also people are still hating (especially pc fans), because what trainwreck mw2 was. Mw3 is alot better.

Nohtnym

Yes it is.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="PC4lifeman2233"] I never understood this "pace" thing. Does it really matter that much? Also, Mw3 really is no better then Mw2 on PC.PC4lifeman2233

Yes it is.

Servers were much better, not hacked like every 2nd mw2 games was or lagged. Far less hackers too.

Mouse movements respons better in mw3 than mw2. More stable movements.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

GS also bashed Zelda for "not really changing toe core formula." Meanwhile, they praised MW3, essentially saying that it delivers more of the same fun...

I love inconsistency.

Javos_25

MW3 is better in every way except graphics and sound.Androvinus

They even added a deathstreak out of a mw2 glitch with dead mans hand

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Wow, there is no contest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1pqHog5D2U&annotation_id=annotation_757042&src_vid=1hJ5gKcsDQc&feature=iv

campzor

MW3 vs. BF3 is nothing but a marketing battle. "Omg 2 games where you shoot people are released around the same time, let's compare them ad nauseam!" I'd have thought we'd gotten over this by now, but apparently not.

[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Wow, there is no contest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1pqHog5D2U&annotation_id=annotation_757042&src_vid=1hJ5gKcsDQc&feature=iv

BrunoBRS

It's their opinion. *shrugs*

timmy00

[QUOTE="PC4lifeman2233"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Yes it is.

Nohtnym

Servers were much better, not hacked like every 2nd mw2 games was or lagged. Far less hackers too.

Mouse movements respons better in mw3 than mw2. More stable movements.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="PC4lifeman2233"] Then explain. PC4lifeman2233

Servers were much better, not hacked like every 2nd mw2 games was or lagged. Far less hackers too.

Mouse movements respons better in mw3 than mw2. More stable movements.

Yes, that makes mw3 alot better, since its pretty much same as mw2 (with updates graphics, animations, new guns+gadgets and perk systems). Plus there is probably more, dont remember now since its 2 or so years since I played mw2 on pc.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="campzor"] i like how that video doesnt show a couple players c4'n a jeep and kamikazing themselves like what happens in battlefieldcampzor

Whilst BF 3 is glorified somewhat, the things you see are there because they are possible.

you can actually HELP your team mates in BF, whereas if you try and help someone in MW3, you'll get hate inbox for stealing kills

GS also bashed Zelda for "not really changing toe core formula." Meanwhile, they praised MW3, essentially saying that it delivers more of the same fun...

I love inconsistency.

turtlethetaffer

Everyone should rememeber that that the games are reveiwed by diferrent people.

[QUOTE="ActionRemix"]

BF3 got so much better after the patch. It's like they tripled the playercount.

Master_ShakeXXX

I'm the opposite. I actually find myself loathing the game a lot more now post-patch. For some f*cked up reason DICE increased the suppression and recoil effects which, and I'm not kidding, have practically broke the game, especially on PC. Just have a look at these two videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsbTjPe2fs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp2OHFL52Is

That said, it's still better than MW3 :lol:

they are trying to make it more realistic...ive been shot at (army mp) and trust me...you really dont think about sticking your head out too much when there is hot lead flying...and real guns recoil...alot...just saying...but being that as it may...its also a video game and you have to give the player some freedom to be able to compete and suppression on the pc...from what ive played...really has made the experience worse for me...but for me i still take bf2>bf3>cod4>all other modern cod's

bad company 2 >>>>>>> everything else

I'm inclined to agree,even though I haven't played BF3.

I'm more of COD guy anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0YWc1wjCW0

This is my experience with BF3 for the most part.

Same thing with MW3, though different due to it's lower health/less recoil, thus it's a lot easier to spot in CoD.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

Exactly, which is why that particular map is better on consoles :P

It's not exploitable.

BrunoBRS

It's an excellent rush map

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] You can do 24 player on Metro on PC too you know. Why you'd want to play a map that crappy for anything other than point whoring though is beyond me.seanmcloughlin

It's an excellent rush map

COD is better than BF, seriously Bad Company 2 was one of the biggest rip offs I ever wasted money on. It's just so boring, the campaign sucks, the MP has too big of maps so you rarely ever come across anyone to kill.

Destrucatble enviornments and dropping bullets are cool and all, but they don't make up for the boring ass gameplay.

It comes to no surprise that MW3 is the better game, sure COD may not have changed much but at least it's fun!

[QUOTE="PC4lifeman2233"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Servers were much better, not hacked like every 2nd mw2 games was or lagged. Far less hackers too.

Mouse movements respons better in mw3 than mw2. More stable movements.

Nohtnym

Yes, that makes mw3 alot better, since its pretty much same as mw2 (with updates graphics, animations, new guns+gadgets and perk systems). Plus there is probably more, dont remember now since its 2 or so years since I played mw2 on pc.

To be honest I found both games to be pretty soulless. Chrome-

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="PC4lifeman2233"] That's it?PC4lifeman2233

Yes, that makes mw3 alot better, since its pretty much same as mw2 (with updates graphics, animations, new guns+gadgets and perk systems). Plus there is probably more, dont remember now since its 2 or so years since I played mw2 on pc.

You are wrong, or near blind.

Mw3 is alot better than mw2.

Hey, its their opinion. This gen all of my go-to shooters has been Battlefield games.