BF3 vs MW3

[rra117]

no just bf3 is state of the art, and yes it is as fun and might even be more fun than quake 3

[dingostolemyipod]

no just bf3 is state of the art...

i dunno, dice seem to put major resources into the destructible environments and overall prettiness, but almost everything else is left lacking.

This is not saying i like MW3, as I don't own it and won't buy it, pretty much given up on COD - the game hasn't really changed since MW1, except getting slightly more pretty, and the number of good online maps goes down, and the number of d$#kheads & exploiters goes up.

[rra117]

the sound is great, graphics are beautiful and game-play is very addictive

[ryan]

i dunno, dice seem to put major resources into the destructible environments and overall prettiness, but almost everything else is left lacking.

Destruction seems to have regressed; In BC2, tactical destruction was important eg. if someone was camping a doorway, you could either just make a new 'doorway' or simply bring the building down on them. With the new engine in BF3, not all walls can be destructed and there's no visible clue as to which ones can be blown apart so it's down to trial and error. I'm yet to see a building collapse in BF3 and don't know if it's even possible. I agree that, sure, the explosions themselves look nicer, with smoke and rubble flying everywhere, but they are no longer a usable part of the gameplay. I'd much rather that time was spent ironing out the rest of the problems even if that meant they missed the shipping date. Seems DICE were so intent on getting it released before MW3 that QC went out the window. "Shift x million units and patch it later" seems to be the approach to most games these days.

[dingostolemyipod]

the sound is great, graphics are beautiful and game-play is very addictive

the individual sounds are top notch, but the positional sound is not that great, and the amount of sound bugs is very high
Graphics are good, but good graphics are only ever the icing on the cake of a good game, they never make the game
the squad/class/objective based gameplay is good, but its just the same battlefield formula, nothing new
This is what i was getting at, there was so much hype over BF3 being the best thing ever, redefining a genre, but the only real improvements are graphics.

A lot of the core elements of an fps, BF3 is still behind decade old games. This leads to random frustrations while playing, that just needn't occur.
Still has horrid netcode & hit registration, damage models are simplistic and imbalanced. Bullet penetration physics are a joke.
They implement some real world ballistics like "bullet drop", but in a completely non real world way (linear effect, not acceleration due to gravity).

I like BF3, and have pumped over 100 hours into it, and will put in 100 more. But it could have been so much more.

Destruction seems to have regressed; In BC2, tactical destruction was important eg. if someone was camping a doorway, you could either just make a new 'doorway' or simply bring the building down on them. With the new engine in BF3, not all walls can be destructed and there's no visible clue as to which ones can be blown apart so it's down to trial and error. I'm yet to see a building collapse in BF3 and don't know if it's even possible. I agree that, sure, the explosions themselves look nicer, with smoke and rubble flying everywhere, but they are no longer a usable part of the gameplay. I'd much rather that time was spent ironing out the rest of the problems even if that meant they missed the shipping date. Seems DICE were so intent on getting it released before MW3 that QC went out the window. "Shift x million units and patch it later" seems to be the approach to most games these days.

Maybe destruction is different on PS3 to PC for BF3.
On pc, its easy to blow holes in almost anything, but a lot harder to bring whole buildings down - but everytime a building comes down there always seems to be a few destruction deaths(inc. friendly), as nobody expects it anymore

[ryan]

Maybe destruction is different on PS3 to PC for BF3.
On pc, its easy to blow holes in almost anything, but a lot harder to bring whole buildings down - but everytime a building comes down there always seems to be a few destruction deaths(inc. friendly), as nobody expects it anymore

That's a possibility considering the hardware limitations of the consoles. I'll have to try finding a near empty server and play around with C4.

[rra117]

okay, the destruction was reduced because one, people complained that there was too much destructibility in bc2, second, the consoles and some pc's wouldnt be able to handle it and third, thhey wanted to try it out. Now with dingo, they have to compete with MW3, which is hard, because there are millions of people who just buy the game not caring if it better than the last one, DICE had to finish their game fast or they will not get the many sales they need, also unlike MW3, their dlcs improve gameplay, eg b2k has a lot destructibility.

In the end,
MW3=more sales
BF3= more satisfied customers

[blackhawk]

i agree with rra here all the way....screw the cod noobs, they are the type of people with little knowledge of technology. As you can see with the vote..90% of the total receiving votes went to bf3...you know y tht is? Its because the type of people on forums aren't just the general public (sorry for generalizing here), they are actual intellectual people, with the right to know what good music is, with the right mind to know what headphones ACTUALLY can do. With the right mind to know tht a PC can do more then just open up java based internet games. And with the right mind to know what is a good game and what is not. KUDOS TO THE RIGHT MINDED PEOPLE AND GO BF3!!

[rra117]

^like^

[matt_d_19]

^like^

It's not Facebook! That's become a habit of yours from spending too much time on that unintelligent, waste-of-time website.

[blackhawk]

^like^

It's not Facebook! That's become a habit of yours from spending too much time on that unintelligent, waste-of-time website.

hahahahhahahahha.....and yet im getting by with my stupid internet language and abbreviations!!! LFMAO, LOL, ROFL,

[blackhawk]

btw, did u notice my notice?

[ihasmario]

I think I said this in the gaming thread, but
If BF3 / MW3 is so state-of-the-art is it as fun as Quake3?

Quake 3 is my second vote

[rra117]

So it is settled, Battlefield is the superior game!

[tetsuma]

I think I said this in the gaming thread, but
If BF3 / MW3 is so state-of-the-art is it as fun as Quake3?

Not even close. BF3 isn't a skill based game, it's a social team-oriented game.

Take away the obscure lens flares and the few 'mud in your eyes/glasses' moments and it's a so-so game graphically.
It's all style and no substance, if looking at it as a generic point and shoot FPS. It's the other misc. elements that've kept me addicted, like running over people with the MAV/chopper/jet. C4ing all vehicles. C4ing camping players. 800 kills with the MAV so far.

MAV Kills

If we're talking campaign, BF3 is laughable by comparison.