Im sure this poll has been done before. What are your thought? I played BF3 for a month before I tried COD MW3. I can honestly say... I hate COD MW3 .. It seems so cheesy and arcade like. I feel ripped off
I don't think X vs. Y rivalries in gaming are useful, because the games are almost always trying to do different things and are aimed at different people. There's also nothing stopping you owning both; the only way this comparison would be necessary is if buying one made it impossible to buy the other, ever. The only useful comparisons of this kind are between titles in the same series, or remakes/reboots, because they often are trying to do the same thing. CoD and Battlefield? Some like one, some like the other. I don't think CoD sets out to steal Battlefield players, or vice versa, and I know a lot of people play both, so I can't see why the entire gaming industry is getting its pants in a twist over which is 'better'.
personally i do like both i play cod alot more than bf due to the simple reason that i dont get on well with bf online. i was really put off the game due to picking it up late and not knowing the maps / guns / tactics means you die ALOT. and when your kicked from servers coz 'we dont play with F*****g NOOBS' ( there is ALOT more of the message, mostly concerning my parents genitals explaining why i was banned ) but i do like the 'prettyness' and openess of bf. guess its more about WHO your playing with as opposed to the game itself. both games have good / bad points. like comparing apples to oranges
They are so different, MW3 is a 12 vs 12 shooter where you listen for footsteps etc. BF3 is a full-scale battle simulation. I own both and wouldn't have bought MW3 if I had BF3 first!
Funny... I played all the COD on Box and PS3.. Wish I never purchased it on PC. Can't use the 360 Razer controller nor play split screen survival mode. Although you cannot play those moved in BF3. I guess you cannot compare the two. I think BF3 blows COD out of the water. COD feels much to childish.. Its like comparing EA NHL hockey to NHL Hits...
Cannot be compared, you will always get someone who will prefer one type of game because they prefer the way its played. But for the amount of work and effort put into the game, BF3 is way above MW3. MW3 is not worth the money even at the widely available price of £20 now. If it dropped to £10 or maybe £15 I might pick it up, as sometimes I feel like playing the run-and-gun arcade style for half hour or so
Can totally be compared! Both in the same overarching genre ‘first person shooter’. I could understand not comparing, F1 2011 and Dungeon Keeper 2, but these are two games from very different genres and very different times. COD and BF3 are two games both released at the same time, on the same platforms, from the same genre. Its good that people are being reasoned, and not jumping in with ‘OMG COD Cheesecake BF3 SUX’, but at the same time, we shouldn’t be afraid to make comparisons due to the risk of sounding like a fanboi. Remember, also, that comparisons don’t necessarily mean you have to say definitively that one is better than the other. Objectively, an intelligent group of individuals can make valid points about where one game excels and where another fails. If in one instance, most people feel one game excels in many ways over another similar game, and you can sensibly demonstrate why that is, then it is fair to say that one game is better than the other. In this particular regard, I personally feel that BF3 is better than MW3. Why? MW3 to me, has an arcade style gameplay that I have played many times before, and therefore no longer excites me in the way it once did. The physics, vehicles, graphics, sounds, player counts and map sizes of BF3 bring something to the genre that I haven’t seen before, and as such makes for a truly exhilarating experience. MW3 does not promote teamwork in same way BF3 does (though we can always hope for more of this), and its online system lacks dedicated servers, which can make for frequent laggy games. Based on the points above, I prefer Battlefield 3, but I’ll also readily admit that MW3 has a fantastic netcode and tight gameplay. Essentially I can see why certain demographics love it. Overall though, as the results of our Game of the Year poll show, most people on Bit Tech at least, prefer BF3, and as such, it’s not outlandish to say that in most respects, BF3 is a better game that MW3.
This is incorrect in principle (there is no objective standard of quality in games, nor could games be treated and compared as singular entities by any of the popular metrics of quality.)
I've never played a COD game so can't comment on how I fell about them. I have played BF3 for 100+ hours and have loved every minute of it .
Yes, of course a valid point, like every form of art, there is no objective standard of quality. But, it’s not realistic to live in a society where all forms of art are treated equal. Most would agree my two year old cousins painting of a poo monster is not as good a painting as Michelangelos ‘universal judgement’ . Wouldn’t you agree that overall ‘level of enjoyment’ is a good way of rating games, and if a one game includes more features that increase ‘level of enjoyment’, in the eyes of players who have experienced both, and the other does not, then it can, by the above standard at least, be considered a ‘better’ game. My point is, that while I’ll readily admit there is no definitive way to say that BF3 is a better game than MW3 (sales figures suggest otherwise, but many people have been raised on a diet of COD, and haven’t tried both, Metacritic on the other hand has a total score for COD as 80, whilst BF3 has a score of 89), it doesn’t make sense to totally avoid comparison, and avoid using the (limited) tools we have in order to rank similar games as better or worse than one another.
@Parge Well put.. You pretty much nailed that answer solid. After years of the COD franchise Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk
...thumb slipped. Franchise .. Im sick of the same gameplay. Action arcade warfare. Not to say there is no strategy but there seems to be very little in COD. Where BF3 seems more "realistic". COD to me has faded and has nothing new nor exciting to offer. I use to love COD.. It seems I've grown out of it. Not to mention the 12 yr old kid that'screaming "I BLEW YOUR MOTHER**KING HEAD OFF YOU NOOB POS GO HANG YOURSELF" yada yada yada.
Call of Duty: You can call in an airstrike. Battlefield: You are the airstrike. While both games are compareable because they fall into the same genre, there is a tonne of difference as to how they are played. For example Call of Duty is focused on small and intense battles very often. Battlefield is what occurs during warfare... a severe case of "Jesus christ what the hell just fired at me..."
I play and love BF3 but I got the opportunity to Play COD:MW3 over the festive period and I was impressed that you could play split-screen multiplayer online. I thought it would have allowed for more coordination and teamwork but the maps so small that there's no time to plan, no time to hide. It felt like shooting fish in a barrel and, unfortunately, I was usually a fish, dying over and over again, seconds after spawning. And don't get me started on the knifing mechanic...
I hate these BF3 vs MW3 polls, imo they are completly dif games and should not be compared its only been because they were released close to gether and gaming press has turned it into a BF3 vs MW3 debate.
Just because the two games are in the same Genre and released at the same time doesn't mean they should be compared. Skyrim and KOTOR are both RPG's in a sense, but also radically different. Although MW3 has its pitfalls; BF3 has the same. The steep learning curve on Battlefield games does make it difficult to access from the outside, but CoD is hardly any better. I do harbour a deep, undying hatred for whomever thought it would be a good idea to develop the Peer to Peer gaming system used in Modern Warfare 2&3, That leads to hours of frustration due to lag issues.
