There is still a chance for MW3 to beat BF3 in reviews.

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"] How is the game play that different in MW series, that makes it not boring? Wasdie

It's intense, fast, action-packed and entertaining. Not slow and boring. This separates CoD from BF.

Did you even watch the BF3 video?

Yup. I watched the gameplay video. Very slow and looks very boring. The only good thing about it is that it looks good. Nothing else.

And let us just assume that DICE would copy the MODERN WARFARE gameplay (fast, intense, addictive)--they would still be miles behind COD.

What makes a lot people go back to COD is the customization--they get their own personal style which heavily influences them to play that game, killstreak rewards--rewards for kills makes it much more satisfying to play, perks, their own classes and the Modern setting (military, SEALS etc.)

If you only think about it for a second, BF3 will never manage to even compete with CoD in quality.

Well, the entire story has been leaked, and it looks pretty crappy, so not a good start. Of course it's all about the multiplayer...

[QUOTE="Heil68"][QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]Huh, how am I insecure about the new BF3 videos? The gameplay looks mega-boring. :?RRTTWAAA

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Did you even watch the BF3 video?

l-lord

Yup. I watched the gameplay video. Very slow and looks very boring. The only good thing about it is that it looks good. Nothing else.

And let us just assume that DICE would copy the MODERN WARFARE gameplay (fast, intense, addictive)--they would still be miles behind COD.

What makes a lot people go back to COD is the customization--they get their own personal style which heavily influences them to play that game, killstreak rewards--rewards for kills makes it much more satisfying to play, perks, their own classes and the Modern setting (military, SEALS etc.)

If you only think about it for a second, BF3 will never manage to even compete with CoD in quality.

Say this after the gameplay video is hopefully shown next week, and looks bad (something which will never happen).

[QUOTE="l-lord"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

Yup. I watched the gameplay video. Very slow and looks very boring. The only good thing about it is that it looks good. Nothing else.

And let us just assume that DICE would copy the MODERN WARFARE gameplay (fast, intense, addictive)--they would still be miles behind COD.

What makes a lot people go back to COD is the customization--they get their own personal style which heavily influences them to play that game, killstreak rewards--rewards for kills makes it much more satisfying to play, perks, their own classes and the Modern setting (military, SEALS etc.)

If you only think about it for a second, BF3 will never manage to even compete with CoD in quality.

RRTTWAAA

Say this after the gameplay video is hopefully shown next week, and looks bad (something which will never happen).

Yeah surely ign.

Also i am amazed on how much some people hate cod here that they will result into crazy analgies to "make their point"

Sure in their world cod is fail, but in this word, the rest of us dont have to read their WRONG "facts"

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="timmy00"]No. Fact.

Also fact.

timmy00

Fact: I did not lose.

Fact: You didn't provide a good enough argument.

Fact: You made stuff up.

Fact: I won.

Fact: I say fact a lot.

Fact: Cool story bro.

Fact: I accept your defeat in this random, stupid argument that I'm too stubborn to drop. One of my faults really.

Oh yeah and Fact: I'm done. We should do this again sometimes. Maybe you'll win next time. :)

LOL im breathless. COD a game that was pulled out of the developers @SS for the 8th time is better in quality.

l-lord

Ass ass ass. You can say ass. If you couldn't you'd get suspended for censor bypass.

Say this after the gameplay video is hopefully shown next week, and looks bad (something which will never happen).

RRTTWAAA

Who said that's going to happen?

while we shouldn't judge dev's on past games, i think its safe to predict the future based on trends, as in activision milking a game with yearly releases until people stop buying it...savagetwinkie

Activision is copying BF3.

Safe to say the imitator isnt going to do a better job then the original.

COD is a garbage franchise that is now the Madden of shooters.

Activision is copying BF3.

Safe to say the imitator isnt going to do a better job then the original.

COD is a garbage franchise that is now the Madden of shooters.

Fizzman

If anything I think the reviewers are going to be blind fanboys again and give MW3 9's, would make my day if reviews were in the 7 and 8's.

i dont care which one i better im gettin em both

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="l-lord"]LOL im breathless. COD a game that was pulled out of the developers for the 8th time is better in quality.

DroidPhysX

Say this after the gameplay video is hopefully shown next week, and looks bad (something which will never happen).

Not even close. BO was in the 70's or something, this is on the other hand MODERN WARFARE and much more appealing to the majority of military gamers.

Don't judge devs's future games based on the past. That is being ignorant. You haven't seen SQUAT about the game, how do you know that B3 will beat it in reviews? Because Bf3's graphics?

For all we know MW3 could be entirely different than past cods. Until you see gameplay vids, you have no right to prematurely declare BF3 the winner.

xxhoosierdaddyx

Of course it has a chance.

[QUOTE="xxhoosierdaddyx"]

Don't judge devs's future games based on the past. That is being ignorant. You haven't seen SQUAT about the game, how do you know that B3 will beat it in reviews? Because Bf3's graphics?

For all we know MW3 could be entirely different than past cods. Until you see gameplay vids, you have no right to prematurely declare BF3 the winner.

DraugenCP

Of course it has a chance.

What I don't understand, is, how can people favour BF3 in reviews when the previous MW games have all outscored any BF game ever released on MC and GR?

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="xxhoosierdaddyx"]

Don't judge devs's future games based on the past. That is being ignorant. You haven't seen SQUAT about the game, how do you know that B3 will beat it in reviews? Because Bf3's graphics?

For all we know MW3 could be entirely different than past cods. Until you see gameplay vids, you have no right to prematurely declare BF3 the winner.

RRTTWAAA

Of course it has a chance.

What I don't understand, is, how can people favour BF3 in reviews when the previous MW games have all outscored any BF game ever released on MC and GR?

What I don't understand is why anyone should give a damn about review scores in the first place.

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

Of course it has a chance.

DraugenCP

What I don't understand, is, how can people favour BF3 in reviews when the previous MW games have all outscored any BF game ever released on MC and GR?

What I don't understand is why anyone should give a damn about review scores in the first place.

BF fanboys turn to reviews when you bring up sales to defend themselves, but what they dont know, is that they get beaten in quality too

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

Of course it has a chance.

DraugenCP

What I don't understand, is, how can people favour BF3 in reviews when the previous MW games have all outscored any BF game ever released on MC and GR?

What I don't understand is why anyone should give a damn about review scores in the first place.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

What I don't understand, is, how can people favour BF3 in reviews when the previous MW games have all outscored any BF game ever released on MC and GR?

RRTTWAAA

What I don't understand is why anyone should give a damn about review scores in the first place.

BF fanboys turn to reviews when you bring up sales to defend themselves, but what they dont know, is that they get beaten in quality too

Neither sales nor reviews provide factual information on whether or not game A is actually better than game B. Reviews are still opinions and video game journalism as a whole is not very reliable, so again, I don't see why anyone should rely upon anything else than their own judgment.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

What I don't understand, is, how can people favour BF3 in reviews when the previous MW games have all outscored any BF game ever released on MC and GR?

RRTTWAAA

What I don't understand is why anyone should give a damn about review scores in the first place.

BF fanboys turn to reviews when you bring up sales to defend themselves, but what they dont know, is that they get beaten in quality too

87
81

88.02
78.27

Critics are finding CoD is growing stagnant. Especially on PC, where DICE is focusing their effort, the version most Battlefield fans care about. Barring some significant creative or technological effort out of Activision, I'm confident BF3 will outscore MW3 on Metacritic on all platforms. Based on Bacom 2 outperforming Blops and the mandate made for quality.

And lastly, while it admittedly would feel nice to be proven right, I really don't care if I end up being wrong. In fact I can only imagine that being a good thing for everyone involved.

Don't judge devs's future games based on the past. That is being ignorant. You haven't seen SQUAT about the game, how do you know that B3 will beat it in reviews? Because Bf3's graphics?

For all we know MW3 could be entirely different than past cods. Until you see gameplay vids, you have no right to prematurely declare BF3 the winner.

xxhoosierdaddyx

When determining whether a game is better than another, reviews are leagues better to use than sales. Even though reviews are an opinion, once you look at a big group of reviews from a lot of different sources, you can still get an average opinion about the game that can help determine whether or not it is a good game. It's what we have to do here in SW in order to keep things fair. Since enjoying a game is completely subjective, we can't just say Game A is good while Game B is bad because someone else might feel differently. In SW, using your own judgement doesn't fly.

Reviews are a better parameter than sales, yes, but even then their use is mostly limited to serving as fuel for **** measuring contests between fanboys. Yes, the enjoyment of a game is largely subjective, but that doesn't mean that you can back that opinion up instead of giving into your own insecurity and just refering to opinions voiced by others. If voicing your own opinion doesn't fly in SW, then we might as well close the place down as there is no point in discussing or debating anything.

From the leaked script the story sounds the exact same as all other COD's so im not interested

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

What I don't understand is why anyone should give a damn about review scores in the first place.

McStrongfast

BF fanboys turn to reviews when you bring up sales to defend themselves, but what they dont know, is that they get beaten in quality too

87
81

88.02
78.27

Critics are finding CoD is growing stagnant. Especially on PC, where DICE is focusing their effort, the version most Battlefield fans care about. Barring some significant creative or technological effort out of Activision, I'm confident BF3 will outscore MW3 on Metacritic on all platforms. Based on Bacom 2 outperforming Blops and the mandate made for quality.

And lastly, while it admittedly would feel nice to be proven right, I really don't care if I end up being wrong. In fact I can only imagine that being a good thing for everyone involved.

Why not compare to previous entries from the MODERN WARFARE series?

Reviews are a better parameter than sales, yes, but even then their use is mostly limited to serving as fuel for **** measuring contests between fanboys. Yes, the enjoyment of a game is largely subjective, but that doesn't mean that you can back that opinion up instead of giving into your own insecurity and just refering to opinions voiced by others. If voicing your own opinion doesn't fly in SW, then we might as well close the place down as there is no point in discussing or debating anything.DraugenCP

Stop it. COD is a higher rated franchise than Battlefield.Mozelleple112

at least the MW series is, by far.

Stop it. COD is a higher rated franchise than Battlefield.Mozelleple112

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]Stop it. COD is a higher rated franchise than Battlefield.SoraX64

He could be correct, would Treyarch not (INITIALLY) ruined the franchise. :P

[QUOTE="SoraX64"][QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]Stop it. COD is a higher rated franchise than Battlefield.RRTTWAAA

He could be correct, would Treyarch not (INITIALLY) ruined the franchise. :P

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="SoraX64"] Prove it. Compare all of the CoD games ever made to all of the Battlefield games ever made. Then I will believe such a statement.McStrongfast

He could be correct, would Treyarch not (INITIALLY) ruined the franchise. :P

One of the best games of 2010, no doubts.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"][QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

He could be correct, would Treyarch not (INITIALLY) ruined the franchise. :P

RRTTWAAA

One of the best games of 2010, no doubts.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

BF fanboys turn to reviews when you bring up sales to defend themselves, but what they dont know, is that they get beaten in quality too

RRTTWAAA

87
81

88.02
78.27

Critics are finding CoD is growing stagnant. Especially on PC, where DICE is focusing their effort, the version most Battlefield fans care about. Barring some significant creative or technological effort out of Activision, I'm confident BF3 will outscore MW3 on Metacritic on all platforms. Based on Bacom 2 outperforming Blops and the mandate made for quality.

And lastly, while it admittedly would feel nice to be proven right, I really don't care if I end up being wrong. In fact I can only imagine that being a good thing for everyone involved.

Why not compare to previous entries from the MODERN WARFARE series?

Compare previous entries? Lets compare the real Battlefield series

Battlefield 2 - GRMC

MW2 - GRMC

"bu...bu...but dats on PC! console have way higher score!!1"

PC has higher standards. It wins. Not fair? MW1 beats it by one point for MC and GR. Why? It actually had a single player campaign. Battlefield 2 won by its multiplayer alone. That, and it didn't require a beast rig at the time of its release. Bringing back Battlefield 2 multiplayer and actually making a single player this time? Might have the next game of the century right here with Battlefield 3.

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]I don't remember having done that. You are doing that though, and it's kind of a bad idea.

87
81

88.02
78.27

Critics are finding CoD is growing stagnant. Especially on PC, where DICE is focusing their effort, the version most Battlefield fans care about. Barring some significant creative or technological effort out of Activision, I'm confident BF3 will outscore MW3 on Metacritic on all platforms. Based on Bacom 2 outperforming Blops and the mandate made for quality.

And lastly, while it admittedly would feel nice to be proven right, I really don't care if I end up being wrong. In fact I can only imagine that being a good thing for everyone involved.

ChubbyGuy40

Why not compare to previous entries from the MODERN WARFARE series?

Compare previous entries? Lets compare the real Battlefield series

Battlefield 2 - GRMC

MW2 - GRMC

"bu...bu...but dats on PC! console have way higher score!!1"

PC has higher standards. It wins. Not fair? MW1 beats it by one point for MC and GR. Why? It actually had a single player campaign. Battlefield 2 won by its multiplayer alone. That, and it didn't require a beast rig at the time of its release. Bringing back Battlefield 2 multiplayer and actually making a single player this time? Might have the next game of the century right here with Battlefield 3.

Lol. MW3 and CoD4 have 94 on consoles. Why not compare the best versions to each other, afriad to lose?

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]You're implying Blops isn't garbage?McStrongfast

One of the best games of 2010, no doubts.

More balanced ARs

More balanced SMGs

More balanced Perks, no OMA, Commando

No overpowered noobtube, no cheap cross the map kills

No overpowered killstreaks, CG.

Yup.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"][QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

One of the best games of 2010, no doubts.

RRTTWAAA

More balanced ARs

More balanced SMGs

More balanced Perks, no OMA, Commando

No overpowered noobtube, no cheap cross the map kills

No overpowered killstreaks, CG.

Yup.

Yet, its the same old boring fast pace linear gameplay.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

Why not compare to previous entries from the MODERN WARFARE series?

RRTTWAAA

Compare previous entries? Lets compare the real Battlefield series

Battlefield 2 - GRMC

MW2 - GRMC

"bu...bu...but dats on PC! console have way higher score!!1"

PC has higher standards. It wins. Not fair? MW1 beats it by one point for MC and GR. Why? It actually had a single player campaign. Battlefield 2 won by its multiplayer alone. That, and it didn't require a beast rig at the time of its release. Bringing back Battlefield 2 multiplayer and actually making a single player this time? Might have the next game of the century right here with Battlefield 3.

Lol. MW3 and CoD4 have 94 on consoles. Why not compare the best versions to each other, afriad to lose?

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"] You think it improves on MW2?Jebus213

More balanced ARs

More balanced SMGs

More balanced Perks, no OMA, Commando

No overpowered noobtube, no cheap cross the map kills

No overpowered killstreaks, CG.

Yup.

Yet, its the same old boring fast pace linear gameplay.

Fast pace is what makes it entertaining. Not boring, slow and generic like BF.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

More balanced ARs

More balanced SMGs

More balanced Perks, no OMA, Commando

No overpowered noobtube, no cheap cross the map kills

No overpowered killstreaks, CG.

Yup.

RRTTWAAA

Yet, its the same old boring fast pace linear gameplay.

Fast pace is what makes it entertaining. Not boring, slow and generic like BF.

Why boring, fast and generic like cod?

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Yet, its the same old boring fast pace linear gameplay.

Jebus213

Fast pace is what makes it entertaining. Not boring, slow and generic like BF.

Why boring, fast and generic like cod?

Simply you think its boring just because you get nuked all the time.

It's only a matter of time before people stop caring about CoD.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

Fast pace is what makes it entertaining. Not boring, slow and generic like BF.

RRTTWAAA

Why boring, fast and generic like cod?

Simply you think its boring just because you get nuked all the time.

cuz I get nuked? There is no nuke in Mw2, theres no spec ops, or Captain Price either.

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Why boring, fast and generic like cod?

Jebus213

Simply you think its boring just because you get nuked all the time.

cuz I get nuked? There is no nuke in Mw2, theres no spec ops, or Captain Price either.

I assume you meant Black Ops, since MW2 has all of those things :P

Honestly, I can't believe people thought Black Ops was better than MW2 :?

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="RRTTWAAA"]

Simply you think its boring just because you get nuked all the time.

UnrealLegend

cuz I get nuked? There is no nuke in Mw2, theres no spec ops, or Captain Price either.

I assume you meant Black Ops, since MW2 has all of those things :P

Honestly, I can't believe people thought Black Ops was better than MW2 :?

I can't believe somebody would even think both games are remotely good. But hey....

[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

cuz I get nuked? There is no nuke in Mw2, theres no spec ops, or Captain Price either.

Jebus213

I assume you meant Black Ops, since MW2 has all of those things :P

Honestly, I can't believe people thought Black Ops was better than MW2 :?

I can't believe somebody would even think both games are remotely good. But hey....

Meh. I enjoyed MW2. It's nowhere near as bad as SW makes it out to be, but at the same time it's nowhere near as good as the fanboys make it out to be.

Why not compare to previous entries from the MODERN WARFARE series?

RRTTWAAA

More balanced ARs

More balanced SMGs

More balanced Perks, no OMA, Commando

No overpowered noobtube, no cheap cross the map kills

No overpowered killstreaks, CG.

Yup.

One of the best games of 2010, no doubts.RRTTWAAA

That's why. Blops is considered an improvement over MW2, a better game, yet the critical reception was more tepid. From 94 down to 87. Which goes to prove my point that critics are getting weary of the CoD formula.

BC2 on the other hand increased its MC score from BC1.

Like I said I am not expecting MW3 to fully counteract this feeling of stagnation. The wee information that's out there points towards it being exactly what it is, a sequel to MW2. Even the teaser trailers evoke the MW brand. Think Activision is a bit wary of losing the fanbase they've built up and are playing it safe to keep those sales up. No doubt that'll succeed.

I am however expecting DICE and EA to make good on their promise of focusing on quality in order to hurt the competition and delivering a proper Battlefield sequel.

I'm predicting MW3 will do about as well as Blops and BF3 to do better than BC2.
MW3: 81-87
BF3: 88-92