MW3 beats BF3 in every way

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"] bf3 got an 8.5 on here and mw3 got a 9

26whitewolf

Apparently, you missed it. so I'll repeat it.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3

BF3 - 89

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

MW3 - 80

Fanboys are so dense. :roll:

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

i don't get that.

1. BF3 isn't about the campaign, or Co op or w/e.
BF3 is all about multiplayer.

Those facts that i've stated show which game is superior on a technical standpoint.

However, You're free to like MW3 for what ever reasons, don't get me wrong.

IT would be foolish to think that MW3 is better than bf3 because of a linear campaign (in my opinion) because BF isn't about campaigns, etc.

Let me give you a hypothetical example:

I don't like neither of the campaigns because i don't like linear story modes. Now what?

Please find other reasons as to why MW3 beats BF3 on a technical stand point..

The reasons i stated are facts.

DragonfireXZ95

I think Yahtzee said it best, but you can't ignore the flaws because "it wasn't the point".

By adding in the co-op and campaign, DICE took less time to work on the multiplayer and made a product that is decidedly average in many respects.

When judges and reviewers look at a game, they don't look at one part. They look at a whole thing, and in that regard MW3 surpasses BF3 in what it offers to some people.

BF3's multiplayer may be the point, but it doesn't make the other parts any better, and by adding those other parts it certainly reduces the quality of the multiplayer.

Its like MW3 is a Big Mac. You've eaten them before, they're alright, pretty popular and some people love them, some don't. Overall though, the whole sandwich does what its intended and a food critic might not like the whole thing, but none of it is particularly "terrible", and some people might love it or hate it.

BF3 is like a Whopper, except the bread(co-op) is stale and the cheese(campaign) is moldy. Sure the beef might be WAY better, but it has a crappy bread and cheese. Someone eating only the beef (multiplayer BF fans) will love it way over the Big Mac when they only eat the Big Mac's beef, but somone like the public or a gaming journalist tries the whole thing and its not that great.

Honestly, like I said, I like both games, but BF3 is not objectively better then MW3. It has some serious flaws, flaws DICE decided to put in there when they could have just focused on a singular aspect instead.

Plus saying its graphically better doesn't mean a thing. I care about gameplay, and I don't care if the beef looks like a sirloin if it tastes like generic gameplay and missed polish.

So saying BF3 is better because you ignore the parts of it that are worse (claiming they "aren't the point"), then that is pretty foolish.

And yes I may have come off as a fanboy before, but I never said I preferred MW3 or point out "facts" that are simply my opinion before did I? Can't say the same for some of you guys, who pretty much are no better then TC.

Plus considering how the focus on MW3 was on co-op and campaign over the multiplayer, then by your logic MW3 is 2x better since it put focus on two aspects that are better then BF3's, while BF3's only focus is just one part of MW's focus. Its terrible logic however you look at it, and you have to judge the whole package, not just how pretty it is and ignoring how crappy the parts you don't care for are.

Right... And your logic makes perfect sense. :roll:

MW3 is a Big Mac.

BF3 is a Whopper with moldy cheese and stale bread.

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. And a crappy analogy to boot.

CoD fanboys are awful. Just because you like playing the same games over and over every year does not make them a good thing. The MP in CoD is awful. So while the SP is better in CoD than the SP in BF3, the MP in BF3 far outshines the MP in CoD. So therefore, your logic makes no sense.

Its good to know I'm a CoD fanboy and my logic is terrible just because a BF fanboy can't refute what I say and disagrees.

I guess all those hours I have enjoying BF3 make me the worst CoD fanboy in the world, just because I can enjoy BF and CoD and just because I can point out the crap in BF3 without sweeping it under a rug and pretending it doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I think Yahtzee said it best, but you can't ignore the flaws because "it wasn't the point".

By adding in the co-op and campaign, DICE took less time to work on the multiplayer and made a product that is decidedly average in many respects.

When judges and reviewers look at a game, they don't look at one part. They look at a whole thing, and in that regard MW3 surpasses BF3 in what it offers to some people.

BF3's multiplayer may be the point, but it doesn't make the other parts any better, and by adding those other parts it certainly reduces the quality of the multiplayer.

Its like MW3 is a Big Mac. You've eaten them before, they're alright, pretty popular and some people love them, some don't. Overall though, the whole sandwich does what its intended and a food critic might not like the whole thing, but none of it is particularly "terrible", and some people might love it or hate it.

BF3 is like a Whopper, except the bread(co-op) is stale and the cheese(campaign) is moldy. Sure the beef might be WAY better, but it has a crappy bread and cheese. Someone eating only the beef (multiplayer BF fans) will love it way over the Big Mac when they only eat the Big Mac's beef, but somone like the public or a gaming journalist tries the whole thing and its not that great.

Honestly, like I said, I like both games, but BF3 is not objectively better then MW3. It has some serious flaws, flaws DICE decided to put in there when they could have just focused on a singular aspect instead.

Plus saying its graphically better doesn't mean a thing. I care about gameplay, and I don't care if the beef looks like a sirloin if it tastes like generic gameplay and missed polish.

So saying BF3 is better because you ignore the parts of it that are worse (claiming they "aren't the point"), then that is pretty foolish.

And yes I may have come off as a fanboy before, but I never said I preferred MW3 or point out "facts" that are simply my opinion before did I? Can't say the same for some of you guys, who pretty much are no better then TC.

Plus considering how the focus on MW3 was on co-op and campaign over the multiplayer, then by your logic MW3 is 2x better since it put focus on two aspects that are better then BF3's, while BF3's only focus is just one part of MW's focus. Its terrible logic however you look at it, and you have to judge the whole package, not just how pretty it is and ignoring how crappy the parts you don't care for are.

SPYDER0416

Right... And your logic makes perfect sense. :roll:

MW3 is a Big Mac.

BF3 is a Whopper with moldy cheese and stale bread.

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. And a crappy analogy to boot.

CoD fanboys are awful. Just because you like playing the same games over and over every year does not make them a good thing. The MP in CoD is awful. So while the SP is better in CoD than the SP in BF3, the MP in BF3 far outshines the MP in CoD. So therefore, your logic makes no sense.

Its good to know I'm a CoD fanboy and my logic is terrible just because a BF fanboy can't refute what I say and disagrees.

I guess all those hours I have enjoying BF3 make me the worst CoD fanboy in the world, just because I can enjoy BF and CoD and just because I can point out the crap in BF3 without sweeping it under a rug and pretending it doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Right... And your logic makes perfect sense. :roll:

MW3 is a Big Mac.

BF3 is a Whopper with moldy cheese and stale bread.

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. And a crappy analogy to boot.

CoD fanboys are awful. Just because you like playing the same games over and over every year does not make them a good thing. The MP in CoD is awful. So while the SP is better in CoD than the SP in BF3, the MP in BF3 far outshines the MP in CoD. So therefore, your logic makes no sense.

DragonfireXZ95

Its good to know I'm a CoD fanboy and my logic is terrible just because a BF fanboy can't refute what I say and disagrees.

I guess all those hours I have enjoying BF3 make me the worst CoD fanboy in the world, just because I can enjoy BF and CoD and just because I can point out the crap in BF3 without sweeping it under a rug and pretending it doesn't exist.

Being unable to understand an analogy =/= its terrible. Its not the best analogy, but you got my point (which really is the reason for an analogy)

BF3 has flaws, but so does CoD, but BF3 fanboys are ignoring the flaws by saying "its not the point of the game" or "doesn't matter then the multiplayer is THIS good". As a whole package BF3 was flawed. If MP was the point, they shouldn't have wasted time putting in a crappy campaign, and they should have spent more time balancing the multiplayer.

Both are different in enough ways that one isn't an objectively better game. Honestly though, I don't expect fanboys to ever believe in something such as different opinions, or people liking more things then teh graphix and large maps.

If MW fanboys did the same thing and mentioned how terrible the campaign and co-op were all the time to the campaign and co-op IW spent much more time making, while ignoring flaws in balance and engine ("its not the point, mannnn") it would be the same thing I'm hearing BF fans do here.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

i don't get that.

1. BF3 isn't about the campaign, or Co op or w/e.
BF3 is all about multiplayer.

Those facts that i've stated show which game is superior on a technical standpoint.

However, You're free to like MW3 for what ever reasons, don't get me wrong.

IT would be foolish to think that MW3 is better than bf3 because of a linear campaign (in my opinion) because BF isn't about campaigns, etc.

Let me give you a hypothetical example:

I don't like neither of the campaigns because i don't like linear story modes. Now what?

Please find other reasons as to why MW3 beats BF3 on a technical stand point..

The reasons i stated are facts.

26whitewolf

I think Yahtzee said it best, but you can't ignore the flaws because "it wasn't the point".

By adding in the co-op and campaign, DICE took less time to work on the multiplayer and made a product that is decidedly average in many respects.

When judges and reviewers look at a game, they don't look at one part. They look at a whole thing, and in that regard MW3 surpasses BF3 in what it offers to some people.

BF3's multiplayer may be the point, but it doesn't make the other parts any better, and by adding those other parts it certainly reduces the quality of the multiplayer.

Its like MW3 is a Big Mac. You've eaten them before, they're alright, pretty popular and some people love them, some don't. Overall though, the whole sandwich does what its intended and a food critic might not like the whole thing, but none of it is particularly "terrible", and some people might love it or hate it.

BF3 is like a Whopper, except the bread(co-op) is stale and the cheese(campaign) is moldy. Sure the beef might be WAY better, but it has a crappy bread and cheese. Someone eating only the beef (multiplayer BF fans) will love it way over the Big Mac when they only eat the Big Mac's beef, but somone like the public or a gaming journalist tries the whole thing and its not that great.

Honestly, like I said, I like both games, but BF3 is not objectively better then MW3. It has some serious flaws, flaws DICE decided to put in there when they could have just focused on a singular aspect instead.

Plus saying its graphically better doesn't mean a thing. I care about gameplay, and I don't care if the beef looks like a sirloin if it tastes like generic gameplay and missed polish.

So saying BF3 is better because you ignore the parts of it that are worse (claiming they "aren't the point"), then that is pretty foolish.

And yes I may have come off as a fanboy before, but I never said I preferred MW3 or point out "facts" that are simply my opinion before did I? Can't say the same for some of you guys, who pretty much are no better then TC.

Plus considering how the focus on MW3 was on co-op and campaign over the multiplayer, then by your logic MW3 is 2x better since it put focus on two aspects that are better then BF3's, while BF3's only focus is just one part of MW's focus. Its terrible logic however you look at it, and you have to judge the whole package, not just how pretty it is and ignoring how crappy the parts you don't care for are.

Still better maps then BFBC2.

BF has always been unpolished when first released... It's like people are quick for forget how BF2 was on day one.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its good to know I'm a CoD fanboy and my logic is terrible just because a BF fanboy can't refute what I say and disagrees.

I guess all those hours I have enjoying BF3 make me the worst CoD fanboy in the world, just because I can enjoy BF and CoD and just because I can point out the crap in BF3 without sweeping it under a rug and pretending it doesn't exist.

SPYDER0416

Being unable to understand an analogy =/= its terrible. Its not the best analogy, but you got my point (which really is the reason for an analogy)

BF3 has flaws, but so does CoD, but BF3 fanboys are ignoring the flaws by saying "its not the point of the game" or "doesn't matter then the multiplayer is THIS good". As a whole package BF3 was flawed. If MP was the point, they shouldn't have wasted time putting in a crappy campaign, and they should have spent more time balancing the multiplayer.

Both are different in enough ways that one isn't an objectively better game. Honestly though, I don't expect fanboys to ever believe in something such as different opinions, or people liking more things then teh graphix and large maps.

If MW fanboys did the same thing and mentioned how terrible the campaign and co-op were all the time to the campaign and co-op IW spent much more time making, while ignoring flaws in balance and engine ("its not the point, mannnn") it would be the same thing I'm hearing BF fans do here.

Except the campaign and co-op is terrible in both games.

Especially compared to other SP and co-op games out there.

So while BF3 at least has good MP, CoD doesn't have any redeeming value.

Saying CoD has the best SP is like saying you've just tasted the best Big Mac at Mcdonald's. That's a much better analogy. Why? Because Mcdonald's is a horrible fast food restaurant to begin with.

And yes, your analogy was terrible. Sorry to say, but you failed on that part. Why does it fail? Because it doesn't make sense in terms of context with the games that you're describing.

[QUOTE="26whitewolf"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I think Yahtzee said it best, but you can't ignore the flaws because "it wasn't the point".

By adding in the co-op and campaign, DICE took less time to work on the multiplayer and made a product that is decidedly average in many respects.

When judges and reviewers look at a game, they don't look at one part. They look at a whole thing, and in that regard MW3 surpasses BF3 in what it offers to some people.

BF3's multiplayer may be the point, but it doesn't make the other parts any better, and by adding those other parts it certainly reduces the quality of the multiplayer.

Its like MW3 is a Big Mac. You've eaten them before, they're alright, pretty popular and some people love them, some don't. Overall though, the whole sandwich does what its intended and a food critic might not like the whole thing, but none of it is particularly "terrible", and some people might love it or hate it.

BF3 is like a Whopper, except the bread(co-op) is stale and the cheese(campaign) is moldy. Sure the beef might be WAY better, but it has a crappy bread and cheese. Someone eating only the beef (multiplayer BF fans) will love it way over the Big Mac when they only eat the Big Mac's beef, but somone like the public or a gaming journalist tries the whole thing and its not that great.

Honestly, like I said, I like both games, but BF3 is not objectively better then MW3. It has some serious flaws, flaws DICE decided to put in there when they could have just focused on a singular aspect instead.

Plus saying its graphically better doesn't mean a thing. I care about gameplay, and I don't care if the beef looks like a sirloin if it tastes like generic gameplay and missed polish.

So saying BF3 is better because you ignore the parts of it that are worse (claiming they "aren't the point"), then that is pretty foolish.

And yes I may have come off as a fanboy before, but I never said I preferred MW3 or point out "facts" that are simply my opinion before did I? Can't say the same for some of you guys, who pretty much are no better then TC.

Plus considering how the focus on MW3 was on co-op and campaign over the multiplayer, then by your logic MW3 is 2x better since it put focus on two aspects that are better then BF3's, while BF3's only focus is just one part of MW's focus. Its terrible logic however you look at it, and you have to judge the whole package, not just how pretty it is and ignoring how crappy the parts you don't care for are.

Bebi_vegeta

Still better maps then BFBC2.

BF has always been unpolished when first released... It's like people are quick for forget how BF2 was on day one.

BC2 wasn't too bad on release. EA actually did an alright job, so the only issues were the OP M60 and teammates getting kicked out of their squad onto the other side. Surprisingly the issues cropped up later (during the summer, there was some terrible lag).

BF3 felt kind of rushed to me though. I do love that DICE knows to fix these issues and make it a better package over time.

Also, I think while Caspian Border is one of the best maps in any BF game, I have a soft spot in my heart for Harvest Day's amazing Rush. I hope they can make a Back to Bad Company pack, so I can get back to using my beloved XM8.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="26whitewolf"] Well said mate Overall as a package MW3 is better. the fans are satisfied with all the content for sure. As Battlefield fan, i'm satisfied with 4/9 of the game I paid full price. With B2k things will get better, and patches are improving the balance.. but the thing is that BF3 was rushed, unpolished and needs a lot of work from the devs still. And OP metro, Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, Damavand Tunnel are excuses of maps and the worst maps of BF history. With that in mind, yes, was a disapointment on launch. But it has potential to improve.. only time will tell. SPYDER0416

Still better maps then BFBC2.

BF has always been unpolished when first released... It's like people are quick for forget how BF2 was on day one.

BC2 wasn't too bad on release. EA actually did an alright job, so the only issues were the OP M60 and teammates getting kicked out of their squad onto the other side. Surprisingly the issues cropped up later (during the summer, there was some terrible lag).

BF3 felt kind of rushed to me though. I do love that DICE knows to fix these issues and make it a better package over time.

Also, I think while Caspian Border is one of the best maps in any BF game, I have a soft spot in my heart for Harvest Day's amazing Rush. I hope they can make a Back to Bad Company pack, so I can get back to using my beloved XM8.

BFBC2 is way more polish then other games... IMO probably because it was the simplest one... small maps and mostly linear... limited vehicules.

To me, BFBC2 was really all about console crowd... they skipped PC fans on that one.

But BF3 revived did... but feels like a mix of both BF2 and BFBC2.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] And I can point out the crap in CoD. So what's your point? Also, I did just refute what you say. BF3 MP > CoD MP CoD SP > BF3 SP Your analogy was awful.DragonfireXZ95

Being unable to understand an analogy =/= its terrible. Its not the best analogy, but you got my point (which really is the reason for an analogy)

BF3 has flaws, but so does CoD, but BF3 fanboys are ignoring the flaws by saying "its not the point of the game" or "doesn't matter then the multiplayer is THIS good". As a whole package BF3 was flawed. If MP was the point, they shouldn't have wasted time putting in a crappy campaign, and they should have spent more time balancing the multiplayer.

Both are different in enough ways that one isn't an objectively better game. Honestly though, I don't expect fanboys to ever believe in something such as different opinions, or people liking more things then teh graphix and large maps.

If MW fanboys did the same thing and mentioned how terrible the campaign and co-op were all the time to the campaign and co-op IW spent much more time making, while ignoring flaws in balance and engine ("its not the point, mannnn") it would be the same thing I'm hearing BF fans do here.

MW3's campaign isn't the best FPS campaign ever, but compared to the crap put out in Medal of Honor and Homefront and other FPS games, its a very damn well done campaign. You can say its terrible, but that's pretty much 100% your opinion when so many people can praise it over BF3's crap campaign.

Honestly, you pretty much just bash CoD at every turn, but in the end it does what it sets out to do and does a good job of it. The campaign is fun, hectic and polished and the co-op is damn fun, better then the co-op most games tend to have outside of ones with a pure co-op focus. I mean, can you tell me how exactly MW3's co-op is terrible? You can't? What a shocker.

MW3 does a much better job of providing a more rounded out package. The campaign isn't perfect, the co-op isn't the main focus, and the multiplayer is similar to before, but they all work, and not everyone likes to spend 5 minutes running in a desert from their spawn only to get sniped. Some people prefer MW3's multiplayer to BF3's, and you can't say its worse just because it puts a different focus because that would be ignorant. From a purely objective standpoint though, MW3 does a better job of what it adds in the game, and no part of it is straight up terrible like BF3's campaign pretty much is.

Regardless of what I say though, you'll just go ahead and keep on believing BF3 beats MW3 in every way. It doesn't, and I could argue my point but I'm guessing the thoughts of others and scores on both games can do it for me.

Both of those games are fun, but in the end, MW3 isn't catering for you specifically. You don't like it, fine, but it doesn't change the minds of all those buyers and journalists who thought it was great, and it definitely doesn't make BF3's shlocky campaign and co-op any better then MW3's more focused on fun campaign and co-op.

[QUOTE="26whitewolf"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I think Yahtzee said it best, but you can't ignore the flaws because "it wasn't the point".

By adding in the co-op and campaign, DICE took less time to work on the multiplayer and made a product that is decidedly average in many respects.

When judges and reviewers look at a game, they don't look at one part. They look at a whole thing, and in that regard MW3 surpasses BF3 in what it offers to some people.

BF3's multiplayer may be the point, but it doesn't make the other parts any better, and by adding those other parts it certainly reduces the quality of the multiplayer.

Its like MW3 is a Big Mac. You've eaten them before, they're alright, pretty popular and some people love them, some don't. Overall though, the whole sandwich does what its intended and a food critic might not like the whole thing, but none of it is particularly "terrible", and some people might love it or hate it.

BF3 is like a Whopper, except the bread(co-op) is stale and the cheese(campaign) is moldy. Sure the beef might be WAY better, but it has a crappy bread and cheese. Someone eating only the beef (multiplayer BF fans) will love it way over the Big Mac when they only eat the Big Mac's beef, but somone like the public or a gaming journalist tries the whole thing and its not that great.

Honestly, like I said, I like both games, but BF3 is not objectively better then MW3. It has some serious flaws, flaws DICE decided to put in there when they could have just focused on a singular aspect instead.

Plus saying its graphically better doesn't mean a thing. I care about gameplay, and I don't care if the beef looks like a sirloin if it tastes like generic gameplay and missed polish.

So saying BF3 is better because you ignore the parts of it that are worse (claiming they "aren't the point"), then that is pretty foolish.

And yes I may have come off as a fanboy before, but I never said I preferred MW3 or point out "facts" that are simply my opinion before did I? Can't say the same for some of you guys, who pretty much are no better then TC.

Plus considering how the focus on MW3 was on co-op and campaign over the multiplayer, then by your logic MW3 is 2x better since it put focus on two aspects that are better then BF3's, while BF3's only focus is just one part of MW's focus. Its terrible logic however you look at it, and you have to judge the whole package, not just how pretty it is and ignoring how crappy the parts you don't care for are.

Bebi_vegeta

Still better maps then BFBC2.

BF has always been unpolished when first released... It's like people are quick for forget how BF2 was on day one.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Being unable to understand an analogy =/= its terrible. Its not the best analogy, but you got my point (which really is the reason for an analogy)

BF3 has flaws, but so does CoD, but BF3 fanboys are ignoring the flaws by saying "its not the point of the game" or "doesn't matter then the multiplayer is THIS good". As a whole package BF3 was flawed. If MP was the point, they shouldn't have wasted time putting in a crappy campaign, and they should have spent more time balancing the multiplayer.

Both are different in enough ways that one isn't an objectively better game. Honestly though, I don't expect fanboys to ever believe in something such as different opinions, or people liking more things then teh graphix and large maps.

If MW fanboys did the same thing and mentioned how terrible the campaign and co-op were all the time to the campaign and co-op IW spent much more time making, while ignoring flaws in balance and engine ("its not the point, mannnn") it would be the same thing I'm hearing BF fans do here.

SPYDER0416

MW3's campaign isn't the best FPS campaign ever, but compared to the crap put out in Medal of Honor and Homefront and other FPS games, its a very damn well done campaign. You can say its terrible, but that's pretty much 100% your opinion when so many people can praise it over BF3's crap campaign.

Honestly, you pretty much just bash CoD at every turn, but in the end it does what it sets out to do and does a good job of it. The campaign is fun, hectic and polished and the co-op is damn fun, better then the co-op most games tend to have outside of ones with a pure co-op focus. I mean, can you tell me how exactly MW3's co-op is terrible? You can't? What a shocker.

MW3 does a much better job of providing a more rounded out package. The campaign isn't perfect, the co-op isn't the main focus, and the multiplayer is similar to before, but they all work, and not everyone likes to spend 5 minutes running in a desert from their spawn only to get sniped. Some people prefer MW3's multiplayer to BF3's, and you can't say its worse just because it puts a different focus because that would be ignorant. From a purely objective standpoint though, MW3 does a better job of what it adds in the game, and no part of it is straight up terrible like BF3's campaign pretty much is.

Regardless of what I say though, you'll just go ahead and keep on believing BF3 beats MW3 in every way. It doesn't, and I could argue my point but I'm guessing the thoughts of others and scores on both games can do it for me.

Both of those games are fun, but in the end, MW3 isn't catering for you specifically. You don't like it, fine, but it doesn't change the minds of all those buyers and journalists who thought it was great, and it definitely doesn't make BF3's shlocky campaign and co-op any better then MW3's more focused on fun campaign and co-op.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="26whitewolf"] Well said mate Overall as a package MW3 is better. the fans are satisfied with all the content for sure. As Battlefield fan, i'm satisfied with 4/9 of the game I paid full price. With B2k things will get better, and patches are improving the balance.. but the thing is that BF3 was rushed, unpolished and needs a lot of work from the devs still. And OP metro, Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, Damavand Tunnel are excuses of maps and the worst maps of BF history. With that in mind, yes, was a disapointment on launch. But it has potential to improve.. only time will tell. 26whitewolf

Still better maps then BFBC2.

BF has always been unpolished when first released... It's like people are quick for forget how BF2 was on day one.

Oh cool, so you listed a bunch of games with features you thought were better features then the ones Call of Duty had to offer? Good to know you think that, but it doesn't make it true does it?

Its also good that you know Call of Duty didn't put a singular focus on just one aspect and still manages to succeed without making a purely objectively terrible mode (which BF3 did in its co-op and campaign). So while it doesn't have the co-op Left 4 Dead has, Left 4 Dead also does not have any sort of pure single player mode or any focus on content and competitive multiplayer, but if you want to use one sided examples to try and seem right that's cool.

And hey, if you have all that time to try and prove me wrong and find other games, great. Its not proving your point that BF3 is better then MW3, and its especially not proving all those journalists and purchasers wrong, or any of the judges that voted it as a better shooter.

But I guess if you're willing to ignore the terrible aspects of BF3 to try and win an argument, you can just go ahead and block out all those other people who liked MW3 and anyone who didn't like BF3 to try and prove your point. It honestly wouldn't be any different then what I've been seeing you try here.

Also good you consider all of CoD to be terrible. I mean, its a very nice opinion, but none of it is a fact now is it? Especially not when so many people disagree, but I guess maybe one day all those people will be gone and you can be right without anyone else around. Just maybe.

MW3's campaign isn't the best FPS campaign ever, but compared to the crap put out in Medal of Honor and Homefront and other FPS games, its a very damn well done campaign. You can say its terrible, but that's pretty much 100% your opinion when so many people can praise it over BF3's crap campaign.

Honestly, you pretty much just bash CoD at every turn, but in the end it does what it sets out to do and does a good job of it. The campaign is fun, hectic and polished and the co-op is damn fun, better then the co-op most games tend to have outside of ones with a pure co-op focus. I mean, can you tell me how exactly MW3's co-op is terrible? You can't? What a shocker.

MW3 does a much better job of providing a more rounded out package. The campaign isn't perfect, the co-op isn't the main focus, and the multiplayer is similar to before, but they all work, and not everyone likes to spend 5 minutes running in a desert from their spawn only to get sniped. Some people prefer MW3's multiplayer to BF3's, and you can't say its worse just because it puts a different focus because that would be ignorant. From a purely objective standpoint though, MW3 does a better job of what it adds in the game, and no part of it is straight up terrible like BF3's campaign pretty much is.

Regardless of what I say though, you'll just go ahead and keep on believing BF3 beats MW3 in every way. It doesn't, and I could argue my point but I'm guessing the thoughts of others and scores on both games can do it for me.

Both of those games are fun, but in the end, MW3 isn't catering for you specifically. You don't like it, fine, but it doesn't change the minds of all those buyers and journalists who thought it was great, and it definitely doesn't make BF3's shlocky campaign and co-op any better then MW3's more focused on fun campaign and co-op.

SPYDER0416

All three of those games have crap campaigns. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's 100% opinion in the first place.

I don't see what's wrong with bashing it. They try to make it out to be something it isn't, and in the end it's just a piece of casual garbage. The campaign is most certainly not fun, and is one of the worst FPS campaigns you can find. Crap like Brink is even better than that. It is also not hectic and it's a far cry from polished. Being corridor and taking away all options does not equal polished. Co-op I cannot comment on, as I refuse to play Spec Ops. I've seen videos, it looks poor. I don't want to play it.

Bull. Sh*t. It's main focus is a broken piece of crap that should've been thrashed to hell and back critically. Giving the edge to laggers and using P2P connections in this day and age is pathetic. Its multiplayer does not work. Running around in the desert getting kills, and then getting sniped, is a hell of a lot better than being spawn killed three times by the same dual-Uzi wielding punk. Every part of MW3 is straight up terrible. While BF3's campaign is nowhere near being called good, it provided one hell of a graphical showcase.

Too bad it does. Graphics are absolutely poor, sound is insultingly bad, and the gameplay is painfully slow and clunky. Oh, please fall back more on paid, unfair, and biased opinions. It really helps your argument. That doesn't help either especially when BF3 has the higher average.

No they aren't. BF3 is fun. I'm sure all those journalists who were enjoying their vacations while writing the reviews, thanks to those in charge at Activision, really don't give a damn what we have to say either. MW3 does not focus on it's campaign nor does it focus on fun.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] Heavy metal, is one of the most boring maps I've played... There's not enough vehicles, it's horrible and long. Laguna, was ok if people didn't start snipping from there base... then I had to best rape people to let them know how cheap they were. Panama Canal and Atacama Desert were fun... most open maps. But most RUSH modes where horrible...26whitewolf

Back to Karkand is going to be perfect for Conquest lovers, but I definitely think Rush needs some love in a Back to Bad Company pack,

I know Karkand will have Rush too, but it probably won't be as great as it would be on the BC2 maps that had more of a Rush focus. Plus I'd love to try Port Valdez with 64 players, that would be prety epic.

[QUOTE="26whitewolf"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] Heavy metal, is one of the most boring maps I've played... There's not enough vehicles, it's horrible and long. Laguna, was ok if people didn't start snipping from there base... then I had to best rape people to let them know how cheap they were. Panama Canal and Atacama Desert were fun... most open maps. But most RUSH modes where horrible...SPYDER0416

Back to Karkand is going to be perfect for Conquest lovers, but I definitely think Rush needs some love in a Back to Bad Company pack,

I know Karkand will have Rush too, but it probably won't be as great as it would be on the BC2 maps that had more of a Rush focus. Plus I'd love to try Port Valdez with 64 players, that would be prety epic.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="26whitewolf"] i'm not a very fan of RUSH either, but I had great times playing rush on arica harbor (wich is atrocious on conquest), valparaiso, laguna presa and isla inocentes. Theran highway and Damavand Peak (except the tunnel part) are very good for rush, play similar to these BC2 maps. But as a conquest fan, I only play 24/7 Kargh/Firestorm/Canals/Caspian server.. I played on the meatgrinders only on the first week, to never play again. I just can't stand BF maps not focused on vehicle warfare. Karkand I/O was fast paced, but its way more open and big than BF3 meatgrinders.Bebi_vegeta

Back to Karkand is going to be perfect for Conquest lovers, but I definitely think Rush needs some love in a Back to Bad Company pack,

I know Karkand will have Rush too, but it probably won't be as great as it would be on the BC2 maps that had more of a Rush focus. Plus I'd love to try Port Valdez with 64 players, that would be prety epic.

Valdez was actually a pretty fun and moderately open map, but it was focused on Rush so it won't be a big circular field. It was very well balanced for both modes though, since when they made it for Conquest they added another chopper and some speedy vehicles.

I'd say its one of my top BF maps because of how fun Rush was on it and how not terrible Conquest was. Better then Metro and Damavand Peak I think, though I actually really like Damavand Peak, its not that great on Conquest and is a little unbalanced in one section for Rush.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Back to Karkand is going to be perfect for Conquest lovers, but I definitely think Rush needs some love in a Back to Bad Company pack,

I know Karkand will have Rush too, but it probably won't be as great as it would be on the BC2 maps that had more of a Rush focus. Plus I'd love to try Port Valdez with 64 players, that would be prety epic.

SPYDER0416

Valdez was actually a pretty fun and moderately open map, but it was focused on Rush so it won't be a big circular field. It was very well balanced for both modes though, since when they made it for Conquest they added another chopper and some speedy vehicles.

I'd say its one of my top BF maps because of how fun Rush was on it and how not terrible Conquest was. Better then Metro and Damavand Peak I think, though I actually really like Damavand Peak, its not that great on Conquest and is a little unbalanced in one section for Rush.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] Port valdez with the 2 choke points??? Bebi_vegeta

Valdez was actually a pretty fun and moderately open map, but it was focused on Rush so it won't be a big circular field. It was very well balanced for both modes though, since when they made it for Conquest they added another chopper and some speedy vehicles.

I'd say its one of my top BF maps because of how fun Rush was on it and how not terrible Conquest was. Better then Metro and Damavand Peak I think, though I actually really like Damavand Peak, its not that great on Conquest and is a little unbalanced in one section for Rush.

Sure if you only followed the roads instead of taking any of the woods or side paths, then I guess you could say its totally linear, but then you really weren't playing it right.

Its not meant for Conquest, its meant for Rush, and pretty much every point in that map has several ways to the M-COM stations. If you don't like it great, but it was a well done map and meant for Rush more then anything, and it succeeded pretty well and ended up being one of the most balanced Rush maps in the game.

Dont think either did well considering all the hype. And comparing COD to BF is stupid.

Try harder.

el3m2tigre

to be honest, IDGAF anymore. im just tired of military shooters. im ready for someone to bring new life to gaming through a different genre. im getting back into RPGs again with skyrim, and will be picking up the witcher 2 when it comes to consoles and i need dues ex too.

taterfrickintot

Only on opposite day

/hurrrr

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Try harder.

WickoSicko

But can you do this in Modern Warfare 3?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOaGhE_sejI&feature=g-logo&context=G1e76bFOAAAAAAAUAA

So does it beat BF3 in every way? I don't think so....

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Try harder.

WickoSicko

Lol wat? BF3 sold much more than that.

Also, I'm fairly sure BF3 destroyed MW3 in PC sales (the only platform that matters).

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Try harder.

WickoSicko

Troll more fake sales

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Try harder.

WickoSicko

Those are some completely accurate facts( No they aren't actually, BF3 sold more than 1mil). But how does that suggest COD is better than BF3? Does 20million sales = better graphics? does 20million sales = better story? does 20million sales = better gameplay? The only thing those sales prove is that COD sold more than BF3.

Again, try harder.

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"][QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Try harder.

el3m2tigre

Those are some completely accurate facts( No they aren't actually, BF3 sold more than 1mil). But how does that suggest COD is better than BF3? Does 20million sales = better graphics? does 20million sales = better story? does 20million sales = better gameplay? The only thing those sales prove is that COD sold more than BF3.

Again, try harder.

Both games are (gasp!) good games for different reasons and audiences. End topic.

If only that worked... well BF and CoD fanboys can keep trying to one up each other on stupid reasons why they think they are right, nothing will stop that I guess.

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3

bf3 runs at 60fps or near 60 fps for me

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun

bf3 has a large quanity of unlocks as well

3. Better Singleplayer

agreed, however both are poor

4. Better Co-Op

agreed, however both are poor

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode

agreed, however there are much better alternatives such as Killing Floor or Left 4 Dead

6. More game modes

agreed, however 64 player conquest large > than anything game mode in cod

7. More maps, guns

last I checked bf3 actually had more guns than mw3. When it comes to maps I hear from most people that all the maps in mw3 are bad while bf3 at least has three good ones

8. Killstreaks

this isn't a good thing

9. Perks and more customization

perks aren't a good thing.

10. COD elite.

this isn't a good thing

shahilsyed

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3

bf3 runs at 60fps or near 60 fps for me

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun

bf3 has a large quanity of unlocks as well

3. Better Singleplayer

agreed, however both are poor

4. Better Co-Op

agreed, however both are poor

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode

agreed, however there are much better alternatives such as Killing Floor or Left 4 Dead

6. More game modes

agreed, however 64 player conquest large > than anything game mode in cod

7. More maps, guns

last I checked bf3 actually had more guns than mw3. When it comes to maps I hear from most people that all the maps in mw3 are bad while bf3 at least has three good ones

8. Killstreaks

this isn't a good thing

9. Perks and more customization

perks aren't a good thing.

10. COD elite.

this isn't a good thing

SAGE_OF_FIRE

So wow... that was a pretty terrible comeback.

Did you really use Left 4 Dead as an excuse for why MW3's co-op isn't better then BF3's? Yeesh, I thought BF fanboys were GOOD at debate, especially with all the reasons everyone else threw in this thread you could have copied.

So wow... that was a pretty terrible comeback.

Did you really use Left 4 Dead as an excuse for why MW3's co-op isn't better then BF3's? Yeesh, I thought BF fanboys were GOOD at debate, especially with all the reasons everyone else threw in this thread you could have copied.

SPYDER0416

Oh you probably just played the console version of Left 4 Dead because anybody who's played L4D 1 and 2 on the PC knows that the co-op in those games is far superior to MW3.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3

bf3 runs at 60fps or near 60 fps for me

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun

bf3 has a large quanity of unlocks as well

3. Better Singleplayer

agreed, however both are poor

4. Better Co-Op

agreed, however both are poor

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode

agreed, however there are much better alternatives such as Killing Floor or Left 4 Dead

6. More game modes

agreed, however 64 player conquest large > than anything game mode in cod

7. More maps, guns

last I checked bf3 actually had more guns than mw3. When it comes to maps I hear from most people that all the maps in mw3 are bad while bf3 at least has three good ones

8. Killstreaks

this isn't a good thing

9. Perks and more customization

perks aren't a good thing.

10. COD elite.

this isn't a good thing

SPYDER0416

So wow... that was a pretty terrible comeback.

Did you really use Left 4 Dead as an excuse for why MW3's co-op isn't better then BF3's? Yeesh, I thought BF fanboys were GOOD at debate, especially with all the reasons everyone else threw in this thread you could have copied.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

So wow... that was a pretty terrible comeback.

Did you really use Left 4 Dead as an excuse for why MW3's co-op isn't better then BF3's? Yeesh, I thought BF fanboys were GOOD at debate, especially with all the reasons everyone else threw in this thread you could have copied.

Wasdie

Oh you probably just played the console version of Left 4 Dead because anybody who's played L4D 1 and 2 on the PC knows that the co-op in those games is far superior to MW3.

No I got L4D2 on Steam, and yeah I'd place it higher then MW3 (since its one of my personal faves this gen), but its weird he uses that in his reasoning for BF3 vs MW3.

Its like saying Tacos from Jack in the Box are WAY better then Subway sandwiches, and that is why Quiznos is better then Subway. Just, not a good, debate comeback, especially with all the other good ones.

Plus I never said MW3's co-op was better then Left 4 Dead's at all, which you make it seem like I said.

CoD has no strategy element, it's vapid.

Its funny because every COD fanboy has the same few reasons as to why MW3 is better than BF3.

1. its better.
2. SP is better.
3. CO op is better.
4.Its an overall better package.
5. It has better gameplay.

You see the pattern: "it has better (insert Opinion here)". Keyword OPINIONS! We on the otehr side have opinions as well.

But opinions aside, please tell me how MW3 is on a technical basis, better than BF3?
Have fun?!


Here are facts that i'll post again.

BF3 graphics are better. technically

BF3 destruction is better.

BF3 maps are larger.

BF3 sound quality is better.

BF3 let's you be the kill streak , thus no need to kill to be able to call in stuff.

BF3 has vehicles. Helis, different jets, water vehicles, bulldozer, jeeps, atvs, tanks, anti air, more gadgets MAV, UAV.

BF3 has better physics. Bullet drop require mroe skill than no bullet drop.

BF3 allows one to play with 24 players on consoles, and upto 64 on PC.

BF3 has DEDICATED servers.

BF3 has scripted events in MP. Huge tower on Caspian border falling down.

THESE are all facts

Seriously, DICE needs to give up this battle. COD have won this battle. BF3 is clearly the inferior versions, reason behind:

1. MW3 is 60fps at all times unlike BF3

I'll give you this one

2. Unlocks, Addictive and More fun

Subjective, I think BF3 is more fun

3. Better Singleplayer

I agree

4. Better Co-Op

I agree

5. Survival mode, BF3 has no survival mode

Combine this with #4

6. More game modes

BF3 has conquest and rush, beats out everything in MW3 imo

7. More maps, guns

BF3 has plenty of guns, and the maps they have are giant and are all good.

8. Killstreaks

lol

9. Perks and more customization

BF3 has good customization also

10. COD elite.

Battlelog.

shahilsyed

Overall I think BF3 is much better than MW3

Its funny because every COD fanboy has the same few reasons as to why MW3 is better than BF3.

1. its better.
2. SP is better.
3. CO op is better.
4.Its an overall better package.
5. It has better gameplay.

You see the pattern: "it has better (insert Opinion here)". Keyword OPINIONS! We on the otehr side have opinions as well.

But opinions aside, please tell me how MW3 is on a technical basis, better than BF3?
Have fun?!


Here are facts that i'll post again.

BF3 graphics are better. technically

BF3 destruction is better.

BF3 maps are larger.

BF3 sound quality is better.

BF3 let's you be the kill streak , thus no need to kill to be able to call in stuff.

BF3 has vehicles. Helis, different jets, water vehicles, bulldozer, jeeps, atvs, tanks, anti air, more gadgets MAV, UAV.

BF3 has better physics. Bullet drop require mroe skill than no bullet drop.

BF3 allows one to play with 24 players on consoles, and upto 64 on PC.

BF3 has DEDICATED servers.

BF3 has scripted events in MP. Huge tower on Caspian border falling down.

THESE are all facts

Ribnarak

You have literally deleted your post and reposted this several times. Do you not expect anyone to notice or do you really just want the attention after copy pasting what everyone else has said about the matter?

Even I'm not THAT lazy and attention seeking.

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

Its funny because every COD fanboy has the same few reasons as to why MW3 is better than BF3.

1. its better.
2. SP is better.
3. CO op is better.
4.Its an overall better package.
5. It has better gameplay.

You see the pattern: "it has better (insert Opinion here)". Keyword OPINIONS! We on the otehr side have opinions as well.

But opinions aside, please tell me how MW3 is on a technical basis, better than BF3?
Have fun?!


Here are facts that i'll post again.

BF3 graphics are better. technically

BF3 destruction is better.

BF3 maps are larger.

BF3 sound quality is better.

BF3 let's you be the kill streak , thus no need to kill to be able to call in stuff.

BF3 has vehicles. Helis, different jets, water vehicles, bulldozer, jeeps, atvs, tanks, anti air, more gadgets MAV, UAV.

BF3 has better physics. Bullet drop require mroe skill than no bullet drop.

BF3 allows one to play with 24 players on consoles, and upto 64 on PC.

BF3 has DEDICATED servers.

BF3 has scripted events in MP. Huge tower on Caspian border falling down.

THESE are all facts

SPYDER0416

You have literally deleted your post and reposted this several times. Do you not expect anyone to notice or do you really just want the attention after copy pasting what everyone else has said about the matter?

Even I'm not THAT lazy and attention seeking.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

Its funny because every COD fanboy has the same few reasons as to why MW3 is better than BF3.

1. its better.
2. SP is better.
3. CO op is better.
4.Its an overall better package.
5. It has better gameplay.

You see the pattern: "it has better (insert Opinion here)". Keyword OPINIONS! We on the otehr side have opinions as well.

But opinions aside, please tell me how MW3 is on a technical basis, better than BF3?
Have fun?!


Here are facts that i'll post again.

BF3 graphics are better. technically

BF3 destruction is better.

BF3 maps are larger.

BF3 sound quality is better.

BF3 let's you be the kill streak , thus no need to kill to be able to call in stuff.

BF3 has vehicles. Helis, different jets, water vehicles, bulldozer, jeeps, atvs, tanks, anti air, more gadgets MAV, UAV.

BF3 has better physics. Bullet drop require mroe skill than no bullet drop.

BF3 allows one to play with 24 players on consoles, and upto 64 on PC.

BF3 has DEDICATED servers.

BF3 has scripted events in MP. Huge tower on Caspian border falling down.

THESE are all facts

Ribnarak

You have literally deleted your post and reposted this several times. Do you not expect anyone to notice or do you really just want the attention after copy pasting what everyone else has said about the matter?

Even I'm not THAT lazy and attention seeking.

Um... what?

Not trying to add to this stupid argument, but I could probably give some real technical, non opinion reasons if you wanted them so badly. Not because I'm an MW3 fanboy (prefer BF3), but because I feel the responses to this overwhelmingly stupid fanboy topic are even worse then what the TC said himself.

Its all ignorance and fanboyism, and desperately trying to get someone to read what you said is kind of a sad way to contribute to an already terrible and overdone argument.

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

You have literally deleted your post and reposted this several times. Do you not expect anyone to notice or do you really just want the attention after copy pasting what everyone else has said about the matter?

Even I'm not THAT lazy and attention seeking.

SPYDER0416

Um... what?

unless you can't ofcourse :D

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

thats one amazing! reason you got there as to why mw3 is techincally better.!

Ribnarak

Um... what?

Alright, well aside from being much better optimized to work on consoles and on not as high end PC's (where BF3 stumbles and glitches on consoles more), its also significantly more polished with less launch issues on the engine, supports split screen play on consoles and has significantly better AI opponents and allies.

Honestly, I prefer Battlefield 3, and I'd say it is technically superior in what it offers, but the MW series has its merits. Honestly I don't need to defend it (and I wish I didn't feel like I had to), but I think that technical superiority doesn't mean anything. A game like Amnesia is far from a technical masterpiece, but its better then most AAA horror games, and like that I think MW3 is still a fun and enjoyable game, that while not as graphically impressive, has a big host of other features that would make it a legitimately better game for a lot of people.

Of course, I like both, for different reasons of course.

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Um... what?

SPYDER0416

Alright, well aside from being much better optimized to work on consoles and on not as high end PC's (where BF3 stumbles and glitches on consoles more), its also significantly more polished with less launch issues on the engine, supports split screen play on consoles and has significantly better AI opponents and allies.

Honestly, I prefer Battlefield 3, and I'd say it is technically superior in what it offers, but the MW series has its merits. Honestly I don't need to defend it (and I wish I didn't feel like I had to), but I think that technical superiority doesn't mean anything. A game like Amnesia is far from a technical masterpiece, but its better then most AAA horror games, and like that I think MW3 is still a fun and enjoyable game, that while not as graphically impressive, has a big host of other features that would make it a legitimately better game for a lot of people.

Of course, I like both, for different reasons of course.

ok great. see it works out. It's okay to like mw3 based on personal choices. But then its also ok to like BF3.

So my point is BF3 >MW3 in terms of a technical standpoint.
That's all i wanted to say.

In the end it comes down to opinion, but graphics, sound quality, destruction, physics in games can be used to compare games (putting opinions aside).

im done bye.

the only thing mw3 has on bf3 is that there is no online pass bs

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

read again... im saying cod fan boys base their reasons as to why MW3>BF3 by inserting their own opinions..etc...etc.

However, someone whos a bF fan can do the same. Doesn't make one opinion greater than the other.

Thus, it's better to compare the games based on a technical standpoint.

where clearly. BF3 shines.

now im asking, give me points as to how mw3 is "technically" better than BF3.

Ribnarak

Alright, well aside from being much better optimized to work on consoles and on not as high end PC's (where BF3 stumbles and glitches on consoles more), its also significantly more polished with less launch issues on the engine, supports split screen play on consoles and has significantly better AI opponents and allies.

Honestly, I prefer Battlefield 3, and I'd say it is technically superior in what it offers, but the MW series has its merits. Honestly I don't need to defend it (and I wish I didn't feel like I had to), but I think that technical superiority doesn't mean anything. A game like Amnesia is far from a technical masterpiece, but its better then most AAA horror games, and like that I think MW3 is still a fun and enjoyable game, that while not as graphically impressive, has a big host of other features that would make it a legitimately better game for a lot of people.

Of course, I like both, for different reasons of course.

ok great. see it works out. It's okay to like mw3 based on personal choices. But then its also ok to like BF3.

So my point is BF3 >MW3 in terms of a technical standpoint.
That's all i wanted to say.

In the end it comes down to opinion, but graphics, sound quality, destruction, physics in games can be used to compare games (putting opinions aside).

im done bye.

If you want to get technical, you could say MW3 is 2/3 better for having more polished, more worked on, and more content filled co-op and campaign.

I mean, we are being technical here right?