• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

COD MW3 or BF3

Which FPS game is the best?

  • Total voters
    353
J

jonneymendoza

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
6,415
Which one do u prefer and why?

i prefer BF3 because it offers more options gameplay wise then COD and the graphics and sound are sensational as well as the animations as well.

i have added a poll to this thread
 
How about another option of both?

Personally I like both series depending on my mood. If I feel like having a quick match of some run and gun fun then I load up COD or if I feel like stalking my prey then it's BF.
 
Yeah...in all honesty the only similarities between the two is that they're based in modern settings and first person.

Ones run n' gun arcade-ish and the other is more squad based realism.

Sorry but I gotta say poll fail :-/
 
Neither, MW3 sucks because the changes suck, and BF3 sucks because it is a buggy pos.
 
I feel its way more worth it to invest your money and time in BF3

See, Activision have announced another new COD title next year. At most the majority of the MW3 community is just going to stick around for a year then the game will be left to rot.
"As we focus on 2012, we have a strong product pipeline which features a minimum of two highly-anticipated new titles from Blizzard Entertainment, including Diablo III, and a new Call of Duty game from Activision Publishing," Activision CEO Bobby Kotick said in a statement accompanying the publisher's quarterly report.
Click to expand...
http://us.gamespot.com/news/new-call-of-duty-confirmed-for-2012-6344525?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B2

BF3 will definitely be around much longer than a year!
 
03grandam said:
How about another option of both?

Personally I like both series depending on my mood. If I feel like having a quick match of some run and gun fun then I load up COD or if I feel like stalking my prey then it's BF.
Click to expand...

Whats ironic is that you can have a quick run and gun game on BF3 mate. you seriously think BF3 doesnt have small CODish maps and gamemodes? think again because it does.

But does COD have large open maps with vehicles? nope it doesnt.
 
Hornet said:
I feel its way more worth it to invest your money and time in BF3

See, Activision have announced another new COD title next year. At most the majority of the MW3 community is just going to stick around for a year then the game will be left to rot.

BF3 will definitely be around much longer than a year!
Click to expand...

I know they're different games, and BF3 isn't its direct sequel, but BFBC2 only came out about 18 months ago compared to BF3.

I doubt I'll be playing either game in much more than a year or 2 anyway, and its not like COD just dies out every time a new one comes around. There's still enough people playing MW1 to have it on the top 100 list for steam, and 7.4 times more people playing MW2 than BFBC2 (though MW2 is steamworks, that's still shows a pretty damn large number playing MW2) and more people playing MW2 than BLOPS (the numbers are a bit screwy right now thanks to the 30k people playing MW3). Its part of the reason I didn't buy MW2, in addition to the removal of dedicated servers, MW1 was still good and kicking after its release.

Personally I dont think of times playing game as an "investment" anyway. I play what I think is fun and that's about it.

Personally, I prefer the COD game style. I prefer the "idea" of driving around in vehicles, but in the long term I get bored of it fast and just end up foot slogging anyway, so vehicles become an annoyance more than anything.

As far as MW3 vs BF3 goes, meh, I haven't bought either yet. I'll end up buying either one or both of them when I can be bothered and have free time to kill. So I'm not gonna vote for anything, if you'd included a "both" option, I would have selected that, as "neither" doesn't seem appropriate when I do intend to get them eventually, just not right now.
 
probably the wrong way to ask the question.. i prefer BF3 over MW3 by a long shot but no i don't think either of them are the best. to be honest i think BF2 is the best even with its out dated graphics.
 
I voted neither

BF3 requires you to install spyware/malware

MW3 is just a rehash of MW1
 
different game styles. if you want fast paced action with killing streaks bonus go for MW3, if you preffer a more tactical/teamplay approach go for BF3.
 
You didn't specify which platform...

I bought BF3 and I game passed MW3 last night. if you are into the single player storyline then MW3 if not then BF3 wins in just about every other category..

The differences in graphics & sound design are huge.. BF3 wins.. I vote both.. MW3 left me wanting more, BF3 wowed me.
 
It's like comparing a BMW to a Yugo.

[x] Jessica Alba

[ ] Rosie O'Donnell

[X] Both at the same time

10 + 0 still equals 10
 
I might get BF3 once Back to Karkand gets released if 24/7 Karkand I/O servers become big again like they were in BF2.

Just doesn't make sense in my case to sell out $60 right now (plus whatever the Karkand DLC will cost) if I only enjoy a very limited subset of BF3's gameplay. I don't think DICE is doing enough to cater to players that prefer a more "boots on the ground" gameplay style. At least that was my feeling when I moved to BFBC2 from BF2.
 
Even though it's a poll thread technically I think it can service well for a real discussion about these two series vs each other and the overall broad ramifications thereof.




This is a good article with some items to chew on:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577024512478892168.html?KEYWORDS=activision


Bullets Fly as Game Rivals Compete for Holiday Sales
By STU WOO and IAN SHERR

A holiday sales war is shaping up between Activision Blizzard Inc.'s "Call of Duty" and Electronic Arts Inc.'s "Battlefield," two of the videogame industry's billion dollar game franchises.



As the holiday shopping season kicks into gear, two of the videogame industry's biggest publishers are facing off. On Tuesday, Activision Blizzard released its latest Call of Duty shooting game, which will go head-to-head against Electronic Arts's competing title, Battlefield 3. WSJ's Stu Woo has the details.

On Tuesday, Activision released the latest version in its durable "Call of Duty" series, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3." It goes head to head against EA's just-released "Battlefield 3." Both are expected to be among the industry's top sellers this year. The companies released prior versions at different times of the year.

The stakes in this holiday face-off are high.

Activision earns half its annual revenue in the year's final quarter. Both have adopted strategies of releasing fewer, better-quality titles each year, said ITG Investment Research analyst Matthew Jacob, forcing each to lean heavily on the new launches.

"Call of Duty" has the upper hand, estimates Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter. He and other analysts believe the newest version could collect more than $1 billion in revenue and become the highest-selling game of all time. The last two games in the series, "Modern Warfare 2" in 2009 and "Black Ops" in 2010, set sales records for the week after their release.



EA's 'Battlefield 3,' shown above, beat 'Modern Warfare 3' to market.

Activision on Tuesday raised its outlook for 2011 after reporting third-quarter profit nearly tripled to $148 million on a 1% revenue gain, to $754 million. It predicted full-year sales of $4.33 billion and per-share earnings of 76 cents. It reported 2010 sales of $4.45 billion and earnings of 33 cents a share. It didn't provide initial sales data for "Modern Warfare 3."

"We're going to have record results this year," said Activision Chief Executive Bobby Kotick. The firm is investing in mobile gaming and games for social-networks, he said.

EA has a more diversified games lineup than its rival, with hits such as the "Madden" football and "FIFA" soccer games. But it lacks a blockbuster in the shooting-game category on the scale of "Call of Duty" and needs "Battlefield 3" to flourish to make inroads in that genre this holiday season.

In a mark of the intensifying rivalry, EA isn't shying away from ribbing "Call of Duty" in "Battlefield" marketing. EA's campaign promoting "Battlefield 3" features TV commercials and billboards with the tagline: "Above and Beyond the Call."

"We're having some fun," said EA Labels President Frank Gibeau. "We can't completely isolate ourselves from the fact that we're shipping in the same window as 'Call of Duty.'"

Activision has avoided responding to EA's barbs. "I have absolutely no comment on it and could care less about it," said Eric Hirshberg, head of the publishing unit of Activision, which has launched a "Call of Duty" marketing blitz with ads featuring actors Sam Worthington and Jonah Hill and basketball star Dwight Howard.

Copies of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are shown during a launch event in North Las Vegas.



The games arrive at a time when videogame sales industrywide could use a little firepower. In September, total U.S. game sales—including videogame-console hardware and games—were $1.16 billion in the year to date, down 6% from $1.23 billion a year earlier, according to market researcher NPD Group.

Traditional videogame makers such as Activision and EA have seen their revenues stagnate as they struggle to plug into the fast-growing, online social-gaming business that Zynga Inc. has dominated. Zynga, founded in 2007, has filed for an initialpublic offering that could value it at $20 billion—close to the combined market capitalization of Activision and EA.

As a result, the videogames industry is banking on "Call of Duty" and "Battlefield" to reverse its fortunes. Mr. Pachter predicts that games released last month, including "Battlefield 3" and "Batman: Arkham City," could lift October sales by 14% compared with a year earlier.

"Battlefield 3," which debuted Oct. 25, has had the most successful launch in EA's 29-year history, said Mr. Gibeau, selling five million copies in its first week.


But "Call of Duty" is a juggernaut. Activision has said the first-day sales of the last two titles in the series were five million copies each. While hard-core gamers will buy copies of both, most will stick to just one—likely "Call of Duty," said Wedbush's Mr. Pachter.



Mr. Gibeau conceded his rival's dominance. "At no point did I say we're going to take them out this year, but we're going to compete with them," he said.

Mr. Hirshberg said Activision's only competition "is ourselves" and said that "Modern Warfare 3" was ahead of last year's record-breaking "Call of Duty" title by preorders and other metrics. He declined to make unit-sales predictions.

Analysts say Activision has another special weapon in its "Elite" service that goes with its game. For $50 a year, "Call of Duty" players can access a social network that keeps track of statistics like which gun players have the most success with. The "Elite" subscription also comes with downloadable maps. EA's "Battlefield 3" has similar services but doesn't have a subscription model.

Still, some gamers say they plan to open their wallets for both. Maria Ori, a 20-year-old college student in suburban Vancouver, British Columbia, said she plans to give "Battlefield 3" a shot because she wants to play that game with one of her friends. But Ms. Ori is more excited about playing "Modern Warfare 3" because she is familiar with the franchise. And, she says of the action game: "I like to go around and knife people."
Click to expand...


You know what's ironic about all of this?

If you changed out game titles for ESPN NFL 2K and Madden football respectively, you basically have EA wearing the other shoe here.

In sports games, EA is easily in the place where Activision is here with the COD series. What's unfortunate is: In a number of ways, the 2k games were/are better sports titles but familiary, habit, whatever you want to call it gave EA Sports complete dominance without competition at all for both pro football and college football. Thankfully not for the other sports yet.

But it's the same thing except EA is on the other side of the fence here. I even see some of the rhetoric and talking points except obviously you take out football and sports references and put in FPS references instead.

I can't say I have any sympathy for EA here. I find it doubly ironic that I have to cheer them on here for the same of creating competition because I can't stomach the idea of giving someone like Kotick my money but on the same token I've watched EA destroy competition, creativity, and innovation in other areas like the aforementioned football area.

Lots to chew on here.
 
Warl0rd said:
different game styles. if you want fast paced action with killing streaks bonus go for MW3, if you preffer a more tactical/teamplay approach go for BF3.
Click to expand...

I don't know how the above point isn't brought up more than it is, really. MW3 is practically Quake 3 with an instagib mod, but with a military theme and some different game modes to compliment it.

Battlefield 3, again with a military theme, tends to lean much more toward tactical movement and situational awareness, and far less on the manic deathmatch-feel of a true twitch game.

Aside from the theme, the games have almost nothing in common. Both have an element of skill - though, that what constitutes that particular element is, again, completely opposite from title-to-title.

I own both, and rather enjoy the pair - when I want a lightning-fast twitch game, I'll load MW3, when I want a deeper element of strategy and scale, I'll load Battlefield 3. Turns out you're allowed to like more than one sub-genre of gaming at once. Fancy that.
 
squishy said:
It's like comparing a BMW to a Yugo.

[x] Jessica Alba

[ ] Rosie O'Donnell

[X] Both at the same time

10 + 0 still equals 10
Click to expand...

:D ha funny way to look at it. i'd suffer through Rosie O'Donnell for a shot at Jessica Alba. and regarding the thread topic, since i own and like both games....i guess i like getting down and dirty with Rosie.
 
piscian18 said:
Neither. Don't like buying games with content held hostage.
Click to expand...

If you're refering to the B2K expansion for BF3 you should know that it is a full blown expansion pack, and not just some dlc map pack. It's like bitching that you didn't get Vietnam with BFBC2.
 
Liqq said:
If you're refering to the B2K expansion for BF3 you should know that it is a full blown expansion pack, and not just some dlc map pack. It's like bitching that you didn't get Vietnam with BFBC2.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was a map pack. What are you considering an expansion?
 
I like both games (haven't played BF3 yet, but I have BC2) but I prefer COD MW3 (I own this game on 360). I prefer COD simply because I don't have a lot of time to play video games and I think you can jump in and out of a game quickly while getting a sense of accomplishment. BF maps are so huge and the squads I'm in usually suck so bad that it's hard to get anything done in a 10-20 minute sitting.

Also, the overall formula of COD is just right the way it is; it's not perfect but really close IMO. Plus, a lot more people on XBL playing MW3 than BF3.

I'm not a PC gamer anymore so I'm not orgasmal about graphics. ;)
 
MW3!!! Because it's the more polished of the two!!!
 
erf said:
MW3!!! Because it's the more polished of the two!!!
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect, BF3 is far superior to MW3 as a game, however I don't like or approve of the "extras" that come with BF3.
 
both.

Gonna play Mw3 tonight, if it sucks, well then, back to BF3.

really waiting on Karkand.

REAAAAAAAALLY WANT
 
Wait, how are people voting on this? Did everyone who voted play both? Or are they just being fanboys?

(or you can read what Brent told Kyle on the front page news section)
 
piscian18 said:
Vietnam was a map pack. What are you considering an expansion?
Click to expand...

Vietnam had different weapons and vehicles, which is what Karkand is purporting to be.

I don't know that I'd call either a map pack, but BC2:V was a whole different menu option/player base because it was completely different than the main game, I'm hoping they don't pull that with Karkand.
 
Fail said:
That would be incorrect, BF3 is far superior to MW3, however, it requires you to install Origin.
Click to expand...
I'm only going off of the beta experience I had with BF3 so you may be right...however from what I'm reading I'm not sure much has changed.

These games are entirely different anyhow...as it stands and considering my perception of BF3(beta) and my experience with the retail version of MW3...MW3 is the more polished game atm.

Your butt hurt towards Activsion/IW/Treyarch is causing you to miss out on a great game. That's cool though, you can still play MW1 and get the same excitement/experience, or.........you could be a cool guy and leave the butt hurt in the past and accept the fact that over 6 million people are actually willing to spend a measly $65 dollars on a video game that has the ability to provide hours of entertainment over the next year.
 
erf said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

I vote with my wallet, I'm very biased. I'm biased against shitty games like Call of Duty and biased towards great games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Defense Grid, Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike Source and the list goes on.
 
Fail said:
I vote with my wallet, I'm very biased. I'm biased against shitty games like Call of Duty and biased towards great games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Defense Grid, Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike Source and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
WYour logic is flawed here homie. I know I've seen you laud MW1 on these forums. If MW1 was/is a great game, and MW3=MW1 like you say then how can MW3 logically be viewed as a p.o.s? Like I said, your butt hurt towards the reality of greedy corporations is keeping you from enjoying something that is not only relatively cheap entertainmen but a blast for.those that enjoy a polished fast paced FPS experience. Logic my friend, look it up if you need to...because you have obviously lost your grasp on not only what it means to be a gamer, you keep making illogical assumptions based on skewed information, in the process you're robbing me of the oppurtunity to own your ass on the digital battle field.
 
[ QUOTE=Fail;1038000706]Why would I want to pay annually for the same exact game I've already played in 2007?

That's what makes ZERO sense.[/QUOTE]I can think of one reason that will probably shoot straight over your head, but here goes...because it's a relatively cheap form of entertainment that happens to be fun?
 
erf said:
[ QUOTE=Fail;1038000706]Why would I want to pay annually for the same exact game I've already played in 2007?

That's what makes ZERO sense.
Click to expand...
I can think of one reason that will probably shoot straight over your head, but here goes...because it's a relatively cheap form of entertainment that happens to be fun?[/QUOTE]

There's other games that are better which provide a fresher experience and aren't annual rehashes of the same thing I've already paid for and played in 2007.

Sorry man, not everyone's gonna buy into the hype machine and maintain a general lack of standards as far as getting quality for your gaming dollar.

Every Call of Duty since MW1 has been less than mediocre.
 
bf3 should have an advantage on this forum because this is primarily a PC forum and BF3 is primary a PC game.

I would be curious to on console which is better BF3 or MW3 because bf3 on PC wins hands down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top