Battlefield 3 Vs Modern Warfare 3

Irwinwastheking

Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
37,067
Location
@jasonmc19
To stop all the slagging and comparisons that go on in the main game threads maybe it's about time to put up a comparison thread for players of either franchise to air their views.

Also I will only be buying one of them and need to be told the pros and cons of each.
 
I have only played Black Ops in the newest gen console fps games and I have to say that I love it. However, I'm not very good and at times get totalled. I play mainly Domination or Pure Team Deathmatch. I like the tactical side of Domination but tend to end up with an average Kill/Death ratio of about 0.8 whereas on Pure Team Deathmatch I would be 1.8.

I am getting better at it, but a lot f times I find the most frustrating thing is you respawn and with in 2-3 seconds you are dead again. Would the bigger (apparently more tactical) maps of Battlefield suit me better?
 
Depends what you like. I prefer short matches and only play team deathmatch. I like getting loads of kills, so this is probably why Battlefield is not for me
 
CoD got boring for me, been doing the same thing since modern warfare now, no real changes to it. I'll rent CoD first see if the multiplayer is as much fun as bf3.
 
Battlefield 3 maps

Operation Metro

operation-metro-620x348.jpg


Caspian Border

caspian-border-layout-620x455.jpg


What sort of scale are we looking at here. In comparison to Black ops maps how big would these be? eg. Launch x4.
 
Something interesting to add to the argument. I'll only quote the closing paragraphs.

Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3 • Eurogamer.net

So if the first fracas between the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchises has resulted in such an overwhelming sales victory for the Activision franchise, what evidence is there to suggest that the battle is far from over? What's to stop the same situation repeating for years to come?

The answer is simple: run Battlefield 3 on any reasonably powerful PC on high settings, and something wonderful happens. Not only are the visuals drastically improved, but you can play at 60 frames per second too, with no tearing. Try out Modern Warfare 3 on PC after a few rounds of Battlefield 3 in all its DirectX 11 splendour and you'll realise that the underlying Infinity Ward technology is of an age that is swiftly drawing to a close. Pared-back lighting, effects work and low-resolution textures made for machines based on vintage 2005 technology just won't cut the mustard - especially when scaled up to 1080p and beyond.

Today's high-spec PC is tomorrow's games console, and the smart money says we're just two years away from the arrival of a DirectX 11-powered next-generation Xbox. EA and DICE's investment in Frostbite 2's more high-end technology isn't just for hardcore PC enthusiasts - it is laying the groundwork for the mainstream games of tomorrow. Even more exciting is the fact that Battlefield 3 is just its first game on the new engine, so by the time the new consoles arrive, Frostbite 2 will be even better than it is now. Certainly, despite the undoubted majesty of Battlefield 3 on PC, there are still improvements that we'd really like to see. For example, input lag, even on a high-end PC, wasn't hugely improved over what we saw on Xbox 360, unless we disabled v-sync and ran the game well in excess of 60FPS (with all the tearing that inevitably ensues).

If the BF3/MW3 conflict tells us anything it's that we're dealing with developers and publishers with two very different agendas: the COD studios clearly have their focus on the present day, while DICE is looking to the future. Frostbite 2 works well on current-gen consoles, but it's built to challenge for the next-gen. How will Activision's collection of talented COD-focused studios respond? Now that's the battle we're really looking forward to witnessing.
 
While both of these games are good and all. I'm more interested in what Respawn Entertainment(the fired IW staff) will bring out tbh. I expect itll be shown at E3.