SWM Fall Issue 2011 is coming soon - SWM

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]Nice review Fabz. UCF_Knight

Battlefield has Jets, therefore it shall win everything.

Battlefield has Jets, therefore it shall win everything.

el3m2tigre

Therefore it shall win everything.

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Battlefield has Jets, therefore it shall win everything.

illmatic87

Therefore it shall win everything.

DarkLink, you're a good man, and the best warrior to be produced on these forums.

First of all, Quake 3 is better than Unreal Tournament. Fact.

Halo 3 is better than CoD4. Fact.

BF3 and MW3 both look the same to me. I've seen the gameplay and they look the same. I played BC2 and this so-called teamwork is nothing special. I was still capturing locations by myself on numerous occassions.

The first time I played CoD4 I didn't fall for it. I played UT and I didn't fall for it.

Gimme Rage. Gimme BioShock Infinite. Gimme something competent. Gimme something well-made. Yeah, BF3's graphics look nice, but if the game features a super-scrited campaign it better look nice. CoD doesn't even get that far these days.

Also, I had a good laugh at how Zelda is an RPG. That was one of the funnier discussions on SW. :lol:

i agree also about the BF3 VS MW3 thing.. FPS games getting too tiring ( which is why i havent bought one for so long! ). no matter how crappy or pretty each game is, their both the exact same thing, their all about ( killing ). this is why i buy JRPGs no matter how good or bad they are, try to support games that are not about killing things. to be honest at the same time games like call of duty are indeed too addicting because its both funny and fun to play with friends, friends are the number 1 reason why MW3 will for sure be my next FPS purchase, all my friends and their dogs are getting MW3. they couldnt care less about BF3 and i enjoy playing with friends :P. anyways the upcoming games im getting are disgaea 4, atelier totori, ico collection and god of war orgin! notice not a single FPS!

I tend to do most of my thinking in here, feel free to hop in.

Jynxzor

Is...is that what I think it is!?

YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!

[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]

I tend to do most of my thinking in here, feel free to hop in.

ChubbyGuy40

Is...is that what I think it is!?

YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!

Oh boy! I get to play battlefield inside a box!

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]

I tend to do most of my thinking in here, feel free to hop in.

el3m2tigre

Is...is that what I think it is!?

YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!

Oh boy! I get to play battlefield inside a box!

And it doesn't cost $500!

These 2 games will be great to GB on...Idk if BF3 is going to be on there though??

oh please this is the worst article on bf3 vs mw3 ive seen yet.

yes they are shooters, what do you you really expect to see... its obviously going to be kill kill kill. But how BF does it, isway different. its team based and even if one player gets 30 kills, you won't be guaranteed a win (in conquest, rush, etc).

BF isn't pushing the FPS genre anywhere?? are you kidding me, we're at a time where FPS isn't really going to get durastic changes (yet), so smaller changes and innovations is the main target that DICE is going after.

What have they improved from one game to the next.
1. Destruction (changes the way you play FPS, you can destroy enemy cover, walls, etc). Its gotten way amped up in BF3.

2. Sound quality: whether you like to believe it or not. Sound quality is an integral part of a game. No music, no sound = a boring game. Dice has already impressed us with amazing sound quality in BC2 and im sure that its going to be the same in BF3 (probably better).

3. General game tech: DICE is developing and constantly improving their game engine with every game (BC to BC2, to BF3). Graphics are a huge part of the gaming industry andit's pretty clear that BF3 is going to be superior in terms of graphics.

I do agree that there is no point in comparing these two games. It's just not fair because BF3 would obliterate MW3 in every technical aspect. NExt i'd like to point out the different gameplay each has: one is fast paced, and the other isn't.

Overall:

BF3 is more innovative than MW3. (from what ive seen)
BF3 Has better tech (sound quality, destruction, graphics) than MW3

I found the MW3 vs Bf3 part a bit unfair. The photos supplied looks terrible. BF3 has a very distinct style from MW3. Bf3 has a cleaner look, more white and blues, MW3 is more dirty. And calling them generic is pure naivity. Sure none of them are really innovative, but BF3 really is a great online experience from what I've seen, the battles are huge, and not just that, but feel like an actual proper war, not some deathmatch. The audio in Bf3 and graphics are amazing.

Call me a Bf3 fanboy, but thats just my opinion

oh please this is the worst article on bf3 vs mw3 ive seen yet.

yes they are shooters, what do you you really expect to see... its obviously going to be kill kill kill. But how BF does it, isway different. its team based and even if one player gets 30 kills, you won't be guaranteed a win (in conquest, rush, etc).

BF isn't pushing the FPS genre anywhere?? are you kidding me, we're at a time where FPS isn't really going to get durastic changes (yet), so smaller changes and innovations is the main target that DICE is going after.

What have they improved from one game to the next.
1. Destruction (changes the way you play FPS, you can destroy enemy cover, walls, etc). Its gotten way amped up in BF3.

2. Sound quality: whether you like to believe it or not. Sound quality is an integral part of a game. No music, no sound = a boring game. Dice has already impressed us with amazing sound quality in BC2 and im sure that its going to be the same in BF3 (probably better).

3. General game tech: DICE is developing and constantly improving their game engine with every game (BC to BC2, to BF3). Graphics are a huge part of the gaming industry andit's pretty clear that BF3 is going to be superior in terms of graphics.

I do agree that there is no point in comparing these two games. It's just not fair because BF3 would obliterate MW3 in every technical aspect. NExt i'd like to point out the different gameplay each has: one is fast paced, and the other isn't.

Overall:

BF3 is more innovative than MW3. (from what ive seen)
BF3 Has better tech (sound quality, destruction, graphics) than MW3

Ribnarak

No one said shooters aren't about killing.

It did address the fact that the multiplayer for BF isn't as special as people make it out to be, how barebones CoD is and how from what we've seen both games are going to have very heavily scripted and linear campaigns.

And no, BF3 is not innovative. Destructible enviroments, sound quality and tech are nothing new for them to be innovative.

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

oh please this is the worst article on bf3 vs mw3 ive seen yet.

yes they are shooters, what do you you really expect to see... its obviously going to be kill kill kill. But how BF does it, isway different. its team based and even if one player gets 30 kills, you won't be guaranteed a win (in conquest, rush, etc).

BF isn't pushing the FPS genre anywhere?? are you kidding me, we're at a time where FPS isn't really going to get durastic changes (yet), so smaller changes and innovations is the main target that DICE is going after.

What have they improved from one game to the next.
1. Destruction (changes the way you play FPS, you can destroy enemy cover, walls, etc). Its gotten way amped up in BF3.

2. Sound quality: whether you like to believe it or not. Sound quality is an integral part of a game. No music, no sound = a boring game. Dice has already impressed us with amazing sound quality in BC2 and im sure that its going to be the same in BF3 (probably better).

3. General game tech: DICE is developing and constantly improving their game engine with every game (BC to BC2, to BF3). Graphics are a huge part of the gaming industry andit's pretty clear that BF3 is going to be superior in terms of graphics.

I do agree that there is no point in comparing these two games. It's just not fair because BF3 would obliterate MW3 in every technical aspect. NExt i'd like to point out the different gameplay each has: one is fast paced, and the other isn't.

Overall:

BF3 is more innovative than MW3. (from what ive seen)
BF3 Has better tech (sound quality, destruction, graphics) than MW3

NeonNinja

No one said shooters aren't about killing.

It did address the fact that the multiplayer for BF isn't as special as people make it out to be, how barebones CoD is and how from what we've seen both games are going to have very heavily scripted and linear campaigns.

And no, BF3 is not innovative. Destructible enviroments, sound quality and tech are nothing new for them to be innovative.

Bf3 mutliplayer is special. Well judging by Bc2's gameplay, no other game has actually come close to feeling like a real war, all others feel like random deathmatchs. Also the maps are superbly designed, the mechanics are great aswell.

I agree with the reality check. Battlefield 3 does not look like anything special at all. But I think you should have mentioned ARMA 3 and Red Orchestra 2. And you forgot to mention how BF3 does not have an ingame server browser.

I agree with the reality check. Battlefield 3 does not look like anything special at all. But I think you should have mentioned ARMA 3 and Red Orchestra 2. And you forgot to mention how BF3 does not have an ingame server browser.

Maroxad

Console versions do.

So much content and all people care about is someones opinion on a FPS....*sigh*Jynxzor

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

oh please this is the worst article on bf3 vs mw3 ive seen yet.

yes they are shooters, what do you you really expect to see... its obviously going to be kill kill kill. But how BF does it, isway different. its team based and even if one player gets 30 kills, you won't be guaranteed a win (in conquest, rush, etc).

BF isn't pushing the FPS genre anywhere?? are you kidding me, we're at a time where FPS isn't really going to get durastic changes (yet), so smaller changes and innovations is the main target that DICE is going after.

What have they improved from one game to the next.
1. Destruction (changes the way you play FPS, you can destroy enemy cover, walls, etc). Its gotten way amped up in BF3.

2. Sound quality: whether you like to believe it or not. Sound quality is an integral part of a game. No music, no sound = a boring game. Dice has already impressed us with amazing sound quality in BC2 and im sure that its going to be the same in BF3 (probably better).

3. General game tech: DICE is developing and constantly improving their game engine with every game (BC to BC2, to BF3). Graphics are a huge part of the gaming industry andit's pretty clear that BF3 is going to be superior in terms of graphics.

I do agree that there is no point in comparing these two games. It's just not fair because BF3 would obliterate MW3 in every technical aspect. NExt i'd like to point out the different gameplay each has: one is fast paced, and the other isn't.

Overall:

BF3 is more innovative than MW3. (from what ive seen)
BF3 Has better tech (sound quality, destruction, graphics) than MW3

OB-47

No one said shooters aren't about killing.

It did address the fact that the multiplayer for BF isn't as special as people make it out to be, how barebones CoD is and how from what we've seen both games are going to have very heavily scripted and linear campaigns.

And no, BF3 is not innovative. Destructible enviroments, sound quality and tech are nothing new for them to be innovative.

Bf3 mutliplayer is special. Well judging by Bc2's gameplay, no other game has actually come close to feeling like a real war, all others feel like random deathmatchs. Also the maps are superbly designed, the mechanics are great aswell.

Yeah, I reviewed BC2 and gave it a 4.5, so comparing that shooter's gameplay to say BF3's gameplay as something special doesn't exactly convince me. I also gave MW2 a 4.5 so CoD isn't off the hook either.

There is nothing I love reading more than a collumn full of swear words and hot air without any real content... I mean really, was there so little to write about that you decided that you should write about how fanboys disagree with each other in system wars? That's outside the box :roll:.

Leejjohno

So much content and all people care about is someones opinion on a FPS....*sigh*Jynxzor

oh please this is the worst article on bf3 vs mw3 ive seen yet.

yes they are shooters, what do you you really expect to see... its obviously going to be kill kill kill. But how BF does it, isway different. its team based and even if one player gets 30 kills, you won't be guaranteed a win (in conquest, rush, etc).

BF isn't pushing the FPS genre anywhere?? are you kidding me, we're at a time where FPS isn't really going to get durastic changes (yet), so smaller changes and innovations is the main target that DICE is going after.

What have they improved from one game to the next.
1. Destruction (changes the way you play FPS, you can destroy enemy cover, walls, etc). Its gotten way amped up in BF3.

2. Sound quality: whether you like to believe it or not. Sound quality is an integral part of a game. No music, no sound = a boring game. Dice has already impressed us with amazing sound quality in BC2 and im sure that its going to be the same in BF3 (probably better).

3. General game tech: DICE is developing and constantly improving their game engine with every game (BC to BC2, to BF3). Graphics are a huge part of the gaming industry andit's pretty clear that BF3 is going to be superior in terms of graphics.

I do agree that there is no point in comparing these two games. It's just not fair because BF3 would obliterate MW3 in every technical aspect. NExt i'd like to point out the different gameplay each has: one is fast paced, and the other isn't.

Overall:

BF3 is more innovative than MW3. (from what ive seen)
BF3 Has better tech (sound quality, destruction, graphics) than MW3

Ribnarak

And calling them generic is pure naivity. OB-47

Where is thei info from thread title....."Nintendo loses LKS to Vita...." ????

Where is thei info from thread title....."Nintendo loses LKS to Vita...." ????

jdmpastor

Where is thei info from thread title....."Nintendo loses LKS to Vita...." ????

jdmpastor

i am actually surprised how quick consider the news is like 30 minute ago

I'm pretty excited to play The 3rd Birthday 2. I mean FF Type-0.

I'm pretty excited to play The 3rd Birthday 2. I mean FF Type-0.

hakanakumono

What is LKS? Im not good with the acronyms.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I'm pretty excited to play The 3rd Birthday 2. I mean FF Type-0.

Luxen90

Maybe my remark was off, but I expect it to feel very similar to T3B. It looks like the gameplay feels similar. Then again, I should probably get around to actually playing the demo.

What is LKS? Im not good with the acronyms.

quaappybla

Little King's Story gets a sequel?

YES!!!

I'm pretty excited to play The 3rd Birthday 2. I mean FF Type-0.

hakanakumono

lol@people all of a sudden caring about lks now its on vita.. sony fanboys for you. Rahnyc4

it's nice to have game on your favorite system :D

All I want to know is when they will announce the new Patapon for the PSVita....because the system has to have a new Patapon!Jynxzor

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]MW3 & BF3 analysis by DL: "They both suck." Shocking. Can he do the Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 analysis next?! :PDarkLink77