Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3

#1 Posted by ZGoon (272 posts) -

I have been keeping away from this type of game since MW2 but want to pick up BF3 or MW3.

I like the BF3 graphics a lot better (and semi-realistically destructible environments) but I haven't played a Battlefield game since 2142. I also hear that the single player isn't good.

As for MW3, the graphics are looking dated but I am interested to see what happens with the story. I am also more accustomed to the multiplayer, but is it still just 13-year-olds throwing grenades everywhere?

Any advice would be appreciated.

#2 Posted by GS_Dan (1405 posts) -

What platform? What are your friends playing?

I wouldn't buy either game based on the single player.

#3 Edited by Potter9156 (943 posts) -

Honestly, if you aren't a dropshot tweaker or quickscoper, MW3 multi has nothing for you. BF3 has been nothing but fun as shit online. But yeah, don't buy either of these games for the single-player.

#4 Posted by AndyMacneil (76 posts) -

Battlefield 3, doesn't matter what platform.

Better graphics, better gameplay, better everything except campaign (CoD4 to MW3 campaigns are so over-the-top. It's awesome).

#5 Posted by Evilsbane (4654 posts) -

BF3 for multi I like COD a lot but I can't even get into Spec Ops on this one seems way more difficult and less focused, and while the campaign was fun and bombastic it feels shorter than the rest, feels like a huge waste of 60 bucks.

#6 Posted by shivermetimbers (780 posts) -

As someone who's played both (on consoles), Id go with MW3, just because I find it more entertaining in short bursts. Spec ops and survival mode are fun too. However, if I had a PC capable of running it and had a group of people to play with, Id definitely go with Battlefield.

#7 Posted by ZGoon (272 posts) -

Yeah I'm gonna be getting whatever I get on 360. I really want BF3 but everyone I know is gonna be playing MW3. Is the MW3 muliplayer pretty much exactly the same as MW2?

#8 Posted by Wuddel (2098 posts) -

Played a bunch of CODs on consoles, excluding MW3, though. I played both Bad Company titles on consoles and BF3 on PC now.

Well the big differentiator are the vehicles. If you like them, go BF3. If not ... i do not know. BF is slower and more tactical. I am having tons of fun.

Why just not go BF3 for the multiplayer and rent MW3 for the story at some point? That's what I am doing.

#9 Posted by shivermetimbers (780 posts) -

@ZGoon said:

Yeah I'm gonna be getting whatever I get on 360. I really want BF3 but everyone I know is gonna be playing MW3. Is the MW3 muliplayer pretty much exactly the same as MW2?

The killstreak system has been overhauled. It's more flexible now and you can even build up a killstreak by capturing objectives. It's actually really good because there's something for every type of player. There's also the awesome kill confirmed game mode. Other than that, it's the same old multiplayer. It's up to you to decide whether or not that's good or bad.

In your situation I would go with MW3, because Battlefield simply isn't as fun without people to play with and it's slow paced on consoles due to the lower player count.

#10 Posted by Wuddel (2098 posts) -

@ZGoon: Well, if your real life friends are playing MW3 BF3 is a though sell. I give you that. The MP of MW3 really seems to be quite similar. Just watch the quick look and the tnt on the site.

#11 Edited by MetalMoog (908 posts) -

I have both games and find I play MW3 more solo and don't even attempt BF3 unless my friends are online playing it. BF3 is fun with friends and a good squad but terrible to play solo. The maps are huge and there are Snipers camping everywhere. I find it really difficult to see where I'm being shot from most of the time in BF3 due to the size of the maps and the non distinct looking teams.

CoD is easier to play, faster and a lot more accessible but it's highs are never near as good as the highs you get from BF3 running in a good squad and having a good match.

Both games have good points and bad points. One is certainly not better than the other imo.

#12 Posted by ZGoon (272 posts) -

Thanks for the advice everyone. Think I am gonna grab MW3 and maybe get BF3 in a few months if I am still interested. I would love to get BF3 if I had friends to team up with... I have fond memories of BF2 with friends. But, since none of my friends have BF3 it is hard to consider.

#13 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

100 hours in. Still only scratching the surface. Looking forward to 'Back to Karkand' and the upcoming big balance and bugfix patch for Battlefield 3. Definitely Battlefield 3 for me.

That said, I'm not into arena shooters like CoD, though I did appreciate me some Black Ops last year. There's just so little diversity in those games, where-as Battlefield is overwhelmingly rich.

Just yesterday I went on my first extreme long range sniping session in BF3 and it was good. You just can't shoot people a 500+ meters away in CoD. Can't go hunting snipers in a scout chopper. Or go after tanks in a attack chopper. Have epic dog fights in supersonic fighterjets. And so forth and so forth.

#14 Posted by Lumley (962 posts) -

I've played a fair bit of MW3 as my uni flatmate has it, even as a fan of MW2 and Blops I don't like MW3. Unless you're playing well you don't feel like you're having fun and it feels really unbalanced compared to Blops.

#15 Posted by BawlZINmotion (714 posts) -

@AndyMacneil said:

Battlefield 3, doesn't matter what platform.

Better graphics, better gameplay, better everything except campaign (CoD4 to MW3 campaigns are so over-the-top. It's awesome).

Holy fuck, someone to agree with!

#16 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

BadCompany 2 if you're on console.

#17 Posted by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

Star Wars: Battlefront 3.

#18 Posted by phrali (646 posts) -

mw3 plays the same as mw2. everyone camps in a corner.

bf3 plays the same as bfbc2. everyone hides in a bush.

mw3 because you can go right back to the corner and smoke him 5 seconds later after your instant respawn. in bf3 it takes like 30 minutes to get back across the stupid map after your 30 second respawn timer.

#19 Posted by senorfuzzeh (385 posts) -

@ZGoon said:

Yeah I'm gonna be getting whatever I get on 360. I really want BF3 but everyone I know is gonna be playing MW3. Is the MW3 muliplayer pretty much exactly the same as MW2?

Yes.

BF3 is a nice fresh of air even for long term CoD fans.

Although I've been playing Battlefield since 1942 on the PC so I might be a bit biast.

#20 Edited by Ocean_H (290 posts) -
#21 Posted by huntad (1956 posts) -

Modern Warfare 2 does the faster-pace Team Deathmatch-style of gameplay the best. Battlefield 3 has it, but the aiming makes it hard to shoot people that fast sometimes. However, Battlefield 3 has larger, more epic battles.

If you want to play as part of a team, buy Battlefield 3. If you want to run and gun by your lonesome, buy Modern Warfare 3.

#22 Posted by LibertyForAll (34 posts) -

phrali have you even played bf3? The respawn time is 3 seconds. And I frequently spawn nearby to hunt down the guy who just killed me. I enjoy the tactical/realistic nature or the open world maps immensely. The running around smallish maps spamming all the known spawns COD style is boring to me...

#23 Posted by TheHBK (5508 posts) -

@AndyMacneil said:

Battlefield 3, doesn't matter what platform.

Better graphics, better gameplay, better everything except campaign (CoD4 to MW3 campaigns are so over-the-top. It's awesome).

I disagree. COD is a different kind of game. It is today's Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament, fast paced twitch gun play. Battlefield is still Battlefield and the graphics on the 360 and PS3 to me are downright awful. I could see they had to scale back a lot of stuff but the 60 fps on COD makes a big difference. And with a 24 player limit, some maps just become a barren wastelands, see Caspian Border and you just pull your hair out. I haven't gotten MW3, but loved the others before, I am just short on money to get another game and start ranking up again. But I got BF3 on the console when it came out, not sure if my PC would run it, big mistake. Traded it in for Skyrim. But then did get BF3 on the PC with my brother sharing his Origin account with me. It plays ok and even at the lowest settings, still looks miles better than the 360 version. 64 and 32 player games are much better than the crappy 10 vs 10 games I have seen on the 360 where you don't see anyone, teammates included for minutes on end.

#24 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

You sound like you would enjoy modern warfare more

#25 Posted by LibertyForAll (34 posts) -

if you're not seeing teammates, you're not playing it right

#26 Posted by cav86 (83 posts) -

BF3 is way more fun online

#27 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Played both and got to say Battlefield 3 is more satisfying to me despite some frustration.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.