My viewpoint is that BF3 is a better play for me than Black Ops, which I enjoyed too.

There are boring multi player maps, and it goes to crock, I am running around saving points, planting explosives, defusing and wondering where everyone else is. But then we finish and I am MVP, or use spawn time to see I am playing with a bunch of snipers....doh!!!!

Game works best with a balanced squad.

MW3 will be something I play in the New Year once it has dropped in price, and I find BF3 too easy.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

MW3 will be something I play in the New Year once it has dropped in price, and I find BF3 too easy.

You haven't played against me and my mates then

I've tried so hard on my PC to like this game, it looks beoot to me and sounds great too. But, as you say T2D, it runs like treacle. ANd then, just seconds away from completing a Co-op mission, the game crashes! E-v-e-r-y single time! [censored]?! I've persevered for 3 weeks now, and not scored a single point (though killed many and supported team mates...)

I'm also hard at work in SkyRim and tho I miss the multiplayer side of it, it's a great game

Oh OK, now it seems that I have been credited with points for kills... the first step along the way

BUt I'm still suffering crashes and lock-ups?? For example, I don't see any mini-map function, I stray out of the battle field, and then I have 3 seconds to get back into play... [censored]! ... bang, I'm dead and the game freezes and eventually dies... [censored]?

I guess, as everyone else is having fun, that I'm doing something wrong...lol

I just prefer Cod games in general and i just dont seem to take to Battlefield and i might as well trade it for something i will play because i am not that interested.

Edited by time2die (Sun 11-Dec-11 01:28:19)

I own both BF3 and MW3 on the PC, along with a number of the older titles from both series.

They're essentially two completely different games. The only relation is the fact both have guns.

I admire the look and sound of Battlefield. Tanks and Aircraft tend to be popular. I don't particularly like any of the maps that include aircraft however. The ones with vehicles are generally acceptable though. I like Conquest mode and generally only play it. I appreciate the squad element (even if it is annoying to be limited to just 4 players when 6 or 8 would be more useful for myself and mates). I like joining solid dedicated servers and playing the 500+ ticket type ones that allow long battles. I can appreciate the slower, somewhat tactical elements.

I admire the smoothness and superior movement in Call of Duty. It's just more refined and fluid. Simple stuff like climbing over objects is done better in COD. I like the variety of game modes. As mentioned I only really like Conquest in BF but in COD I can play about 5 or 6 fairly regularly. I like the fast paced games. I enjoy the choice of kill/point streaks.

I dislike the number of crashes in Battlefield. It's definitely improving as each patch comes along but it certainly suffers from more that it's fair share of cryptic "You've been disconnected" type messages. I had a complete crash earlier where the game just closed. No error message or anything. The game just disappeared. Battlelog is a bit of a faff. It could easily been implemented into the game rather than as a standalone in the browser.

I dislike the increasingly dated graphics in COD. I dislike the tendency of the developers to pander to consoles. I generally view the playing of first person shooters on consoles to be the height of idiocy so stupid pollution stuff from consoles like matchmaking and locked field of view on the PC is very irritating.

As you can see I like both and can see advantages and disadvantages in each game.

Which do I play more? Probably 60% COD, 40% Battlefield.

In reply to a post by Jaxx281:

If they do bring out MW2 maps for MW3 then that will be hilarious, surely they can't do that?! It's the same engine and nothing has changed, at least with the BF stuff it's on the new Frostbite engine and they have been brought up to speed with modern day but MW2 was only a couple of years ago if that!

er...

BC2, Frostbite 1.5
BF3, Frostbite 2
Back To Karkand - all old maps re-hashed for BF3

Don't fool yourself. The engine in BF3 is not new. It's an updated version of the same engine.

Same goes for the Call of Duty games. MW2 ran on the IW4 engine. The one in MW3 is essentially the next iteration of it. Sure it might not be as good graphically but that's not the point. I'd be interested in what you mean by "nothing has changed" with relation to Modern Warfare. Feel free to go into depth about what *has* changed in BF3 if it's helps you out. I think you'll find it a bit more difficult to answer the longer you think about it.

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

MW just seems so pointless, nothing to do but constantly kill and be killed

Supremely confusing comment there. What exactly is the point of *any* shooting game? To kill...and obviously be killed.

In reply to a post by Gzero:

Have you tried the spam tastic maps that are basicly CoD cluster<you know what>? Metro Conquest, Damavand Peak Conquest and Rush, Grand Bazaar TDM?

There are no comparable maps between the two games.

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

Good point but I have the Ltd edition so it's free

False. You bought the game and paid £££ for it. Delaying the "release" of content which was completed at the same time as the rest of the game is just a marketing trick designed to fool you into thinking you are getting it for free. Nothing is free in this context. Unless of course you believe you were sold an incomplete, and therefore broken, game when you bought it? In others words "ripped off".

You're being tricked. Snap out of it.

Edited by orly (Sun 11-Dec-11 04:11:15)