Battlefield 3 Vs. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

If I only had to go on E3 2011 presentations alone, I'd say that Modern Warfare 3 wins one round of what looks to be a pretty long prizefight (one that could last even after both respective games come out). While the "Thunder Run" tank assault demo for Battlefield 3 at EA's Press Conference looked visually amazing and realistic, it wasn't as impressive as MW3's level titled, "Hunter Killer" -- a campaign stage that involves the targeting and subsequent takeover of an underwater submarine. It's a shame EA chose Thunder Run over something that would have better highlighted the destructive atmosphere and typical ground combat of Battlefield -- especially considering that these malleable environments are one of Battlefield's strongest assets and something that Call of Duty just can't do without a scripted event. I'm glad that DICE and EA decided to strike first on the multiplayer front by showing off Operation Metro, a 32-player mutliplayer map -- but only Tina and Scooter can tell you what it felt like to play it . Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer played it safe at E3 by showing another impressive campaign level behind closed doors, but no one's seen MW3's multiplayer offerings up until this point.
Luckily, I don't have to go only on what was shown at the press conferences to decide who I think is winning at this point (and neither should you). The larger fight between these two big brands shows both games going toe-to-toe on all fronts; Modern Warfare 3 has a social networking service. So does Battlefield 3. Both are promising action-packed campaign missions and addictive multiplayer experiences. For some the winner could be decided on a technical basis -- the dreaded 30 versus 60 frames-per-second debate. But I think the deciding feature that's a big winner is the implementation of Frostbite 2.0, and the dynamic elements that destructibility of that scale brings to every facet of Battlefield's core game. If you've played Battlefield: Bad Company, or it's sequel, you already know just how much that plays into it those games. Only now you get to see it look much better visually, and on a level that finally competes with Activisiion's powerful Call of Duty brand.

 

Should be moved to console gaming.

 

Sorry bout that. If someone may move it. Thanks in Advance.

 

mw3 at first until IW gets stingy and knocks back on the power of their servers like they always do [ as does treyarch] so long run = battlefield. For the first 6-12 months = MW3

 

Agreed. Well, My past experiences with all the Call of Duty games was great, But...

I played 24/7 for couple months, Switched between that and Runescape. Once I reached near max prestige. I got really bored. But I would find it a bit boring to switch to another shooter. *Battlefield 3*.

Well with Ea has great servers to be honest. They are already hosted unlike Call of Duty.

 

BF3 will be a much better built game simply for the fact it is running on a much more advanced engine and has a lot more intuitive and cutting edge features that the COD series simply doesn't. COD is built from essentially a reused engine that is like 5 years old. The graphics lag so far behind that of BF, especially on the PC. I'm like 90% sure MW3 will still be using DX9. Like... really? DX11 has been out for like 3 or 4 years. It's time for an upgrade. BF3 is going in the right direction by designing the game from the ground up for PCs, where the better tech is. Ultimately, which game will have more success is really just random guesses. BFBC2 was lined up to make an upset to the COD series, and it did pretty well, but it wasn't a COD-killer despite it being a much better game than MW2/BO. With BF3 being released earlier, having more advanced features, and all the hype surrounding the game, I think it has as good of a chance as it possibly could have at destroying MW3. I know already that a lot of my friends are leaning towards BF3. I guess in the end we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Mw3. Battlefield 1 was gay. Two was a little bit better but I like the Call Of Duty Series alot more than I do Battlefield.

 

Agreed, Agreed..

However, I played BFBC2 today, While high... That might of made a huge difference.. But I sucked at it.
At Call of Duty, Easily go 40-5 K/D. While playing Battlefield, I managed to go like 2-15.. Im not sure if its just getting use to, I like the graphics alot more, Along with the gameplay features it has. But Im not sure if I can switch shooters so easily.

 

Honestly, it depends what your used to. its hard switching shooter games, it takes a while to get used too..

 

They're completely different gamestyles is why you went 2-15 rather than 40-5. Battlefield isn't a mindless run and gun shooter. It's a heavily team based game. If you don't help your squad out you'll get owned and vice versa. It's much more representative of actual modern warfare than COD is.

 

As much as I played Call of Duty, I went 40-5 because in Call of Duty * No one* goes for the objective. Its all about who gets to call in the air support first.
Isn't it the complete opposite on Battlefield?

 

It's the maps happens to me all the time when I play a new shooter will do close to what you say you do in cod then I play a new game and get rocked barely breaking even I'm like wtf? lol

 

Lol, Yeah it might be, But I am a really good gamer, So I am not sure whether its the game or being under influence =p.

Well, the Call of Duty series have not progressed much, Just new maps each game.

 

I simply say, BF3, It will be much more fun, nevermind the graphics.

 

I'm getting BF3.

 

Im getting Battlefield 3.