[video=youtube;coiTJbr9m04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiTJbr9m04&feature=channel_video_title[/video][video=youtube;2zw8SmsovJc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc&feature=channel_video_title[/video] Obviously MW3 will sell more copies, but what game do you guys think will be a better game. Hard to really say until E3 and both games showing multiplayer, but right now bf3 has the edge in my book.
This is one hell of a premature poll. Also, why does one have to be better than the other? Why can't each do specific things well? Why can't both be fun to play in their own ways? I've never understood why gamers tend to reduce everything to binary choices.
wo wo wo, this is all in good fun. Yes it is premature like i said since E3 is not here yet. But since both games gave a bit of a preview I wanted to here some opinions. Obviously both games have their own specific qualities and attributes, thats what makes them different. Although, they are both fps, both focused on modern military and have similar game categories like death match. Also these games seem to be on a crash course with each other as far as release dates go. Honestly I will buy both, I expect BF3 to be the better though, because it seems to me that ea but a lot of time into this game. Where as mw3 seems to have came right after black ops. Its just my opinion, no need to get your panties in a bunch.
I am looking forward to BF3 more than any other game this year, by far. BF2 was/is awesome, best multiplayer game in ages IMHO.
Couple of fundamental misunderstandings here. 1. EA put a lot of time into Medal of Honor. They had two development teams working on it: DICE made the multiplayer, Danger Close made the singleplayer. Didn’t work. People were bored with the singleplayer and didn’t stick with the multiplayer. 2. Treyarch, developers of Black Ops and World at War, are not making MW3. The reconstituted Infinity Ward, with help from Sledgehammer (Dead Space) and Raven Software, is making MW3. Saying that MW3 “seems to have come right after black ops” is only chronologically correct, since COD is now on an annual release schedule. But it’s not factually correct, since there are now three different teams working on COD games releasing one every three years. Treyarch kicked off the new schedule with Black Ops last year, Infinity Ward continues it this year, and Sledgehammer will have a COD game next year. 3. No panties, no bunch. But I do think this is silly. There’s a cycle to COD games: a new game is announced, everyone complains and says it’ll suck, it comes out, it sells millions, people love it, repeat six months later. I have no expectations that Battlefield 3 will be better than Modern Warfare 3 or vice-versa. It’s impossible to form any sort of comparison since we don’t actually know enough about Battlefield 3, let alone Modern Warfare 3. Here’s what we know about BF3, for example: Destructible environments Occurs in real places across the world in a defined period of time Has multiple types of playable units, from foot soldiers to armored units You know what game also fits that criteria? Age of Empires. So let’s cool it on the comparisons until we actually have something substantial to compare. And let’s further cool it on the judgments of quality until both games are actually out.
Well I like the fact that BF3 isn't afraid to show actual game footage instead of lousy cut scenes from a campaign that will blow goats. But I haven't played the BF games so I won't vote. I'll probably buy MW3, and either love or at least enjoy multiplayer, hate the campaign as per usual with CoD games.
you know, I think it's a matter of personal preference in that I prefer the campaigns over multiplayer... I'm going with historical evidence from MW2 and BF2. Campaign in MW2 was better... Multiplayer in BF2 was better. MW3 gets my vote.
I've always liked the BF series. Although BF3 is supposed to be tailored closer to the roots of BF2 and the PC community, I have a feeling it is gonna be a huge disappointment. Only 4-5 classes and a crappy SP campaign (the first for a BF game) all lead me to believe it will be a Bad Company 2 retrofit console port. Multiplayer better be good Dice....and I mean BF2 scale/good !!!! I will still buy it day one. As for MW3, seems the same to me, just a different setting (major cities) and a whole bunch of Hollywood cinematics with explosions going about you every step of the way, etc. Multiplayer won't change but it isn't broken. It is a fun fast paced arena style shootout that suits many people's style.
Really can't compare the 2 since they're nothing alike aside from shooting guns and throwing grenades... However for me, it will be BF3 as I feel the COD series is terrible, both SP and MP. I much prefer Battlefield experience, specifically Battlefield 2 which was much better and different than the Bad Company games. Can't stand the small maps, tons of campers, immature kids, and no teamwork of COD. Also, the run and gun style of the campaign is not for me either. Then you have BF3, which if it's anything like BF2, has exactly what I like. HUGE maps, tons of vehicles, including jets, a lot of teamwork, a damn good squad system that consists of squad leaders and a commander who get special abilities. Most important thing of course is the modding. I have yet to play anything that even comes remotely close to my experiences with Battlefield 2 with the Project Reality mod. Arma 2 comes close, and will be even better when Project Reality is released for it. Call of Duty could never come close to the experience I'm looking for, but BF3 can, granted it sticks to its roots, and doesn't consolize it like it's done for the Bad Company series.
Its been confirmed that there will be no commanders in MP. Only 4-5 classes max, looking more and more like a bigger version of BC2 I'm afraid.
Meh. Doesn't really make a huge difference to me. Unless of course they allow everyone to call in UAV's/Artillery, that would be just dumb. If they give that feature to Squad Leaders only, I won't mind it too much. Besides, maybe we'll commanders in Project Reality: Battlefield 3 Edit - Maybe it's just me, but I prefer the physically controlled arty from BF: 1942/BF: Vietnam. Maybe they add something like that to the game, who knows.
I worked pretty hard in school but still had infinitely more time to play video games when I was in college than I do these days.
[video=youtube;PXaFw7aC9GE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaFw7aC9GE&feature=player_embedded[/video] Has some new stuff on BF3 and it looks really good, check out the movement of the soldier @ 2:14.
Good motion capture, but the animations are too quick and too smooth. No one moves that quickly or that precisely, especially getting up from prone. That’s my biggest complaint with animation in gaming: despite all the work put into it and all the motion capture, it still winds up looking unnatural because it’s not paced. Also… they slipped some new details in there. I think 2:55-2:58 is New York City. Edit: Yep, they’ve sprinkled NYC throughout the trailer. Looks like MW3 and BF3 will both have NYC levels.
Yes I agree, they seem to be getting better with motion though and I believe all this stuff is pre alpha so it will look a bit better when its all said and done. I just love these graphics it looks sick, as well as the smaller destructions aspects @ 2:46 - 2:52.
I doubt very much this is pre-alpha. From the sound of it, they’re already in beta or nearing beta. (Alpha = feature testing, beta = feature complete, bugfixing.) Also, there’s a clip from the fault line trailer where the player character is crawling on the ground… but not really. He’s sliding along at a fixed rate, his arms are moving, but they aren’t really pulling him.
Ooops, meant to say Alpha not pre Alpha. They're probably near the end of alpha but I don't think they have begun testing yet. It's kinda hard to say because E3 is coming in 2 weeks and I'm expecting a multi-player sneak peak for both BF3 and MW3. The beta for BF3 will be open to those who pre-ordered M.O.H., but I don't think mW3 will have an open beta. I'm ready to be done with bad company. I'm wishing for the old maps that they bring back a part of the sound track from 1942 da da da daaa daaa dan.
Dirty little secret: open betas aren’t beta. “Beta” is the new word for “demo”, as if the companies are giving you a sneak peak. They’re not. They are using us to playtest, though. But they’re not letting us playtest something that’s not bugfixed. The footage we’re seeing and the features being talked about are definitely either beta (feature complete, not bugfixed) or near beta (almost feature complete, buggy), though. We agree on that at least.
Yea, most recent betas I can think of (at least on consoles) are definitely more like demos than actual beta access.
