‘Battlefield 3’ allows you to take control of tanks, Jeeps and jets. The single-player mode takes the backseat to more interactive multiplayer and co-op modes. However, it falls short to ‘Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’, which was released on Tuesday. | EA Games
It’s clear that Electronic Arts is sticking its neck out and showing its spirit of competition against Acitivision’s juggernaut title “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3”, but with the lackluster single-player campaign mode and a seemingly fun but short lived online multiplayer mode, “Battlefield 3” falls short of the competition.
Indeed, the story and gameplay in the single player campaign mode is disturbingly boring and nonsensical. Players take on the role of Sergeant Blackburn, a Marine who is being interrogated by the CIA after being accused of being a traitor.
Throughout the single-player mode, you’ll be able to play through all of Blackburn’s flashbacks as he tries to clear his name. Despite having a somewhat interesting plot, players will find a disconnection with all of the characters in the story — and confusion as to what’s supposed to be going on in the story itself.
While the sound effects are an exquisite touch in terms of how the Dolby Sound system in the game compliments gunfire and explosions, the entire single player campaign is neither engaging nor thrilling because it follows a common formula for the first-person shooter.
The tanks and jet plane missions are refreshing, but the control mechanics hold it back from being phenomenal — players might find that maneuvering takes some getting used to. It’ll be hard to enjoy blowing up enemy buildings and tanks when you’re trying to figure out which way to aim or trying to back out of a stuck area.
The single-player campaign mode is more likely to be ignored by most “Battlefield” fans because the game really shines in multiplayer and co-op experiences.
Like the single-player mode, the co-op mode is introduced for the first time in this game, which allows you to play several levels with a friend and unlock weapons and perks for the multiplayer online mode. These levels are no easy feat and require a lot of teamwork, which in the end offers some value of accomplishment in unveiling new features for online matches.
Multiplayer mode offers a variety of ways to play. Conquest, Rush, Squad Deathmatch, Squad Rush, Team Deathmatch and Capture the Flag are all there. In addition to combat on foot, players will be able to take control of tanks, fighter jets and Jeeps. There are a total of 12 open-ended maps for multiplayer mode, but you have the option to play in one map for various modes.
The biggest downside of the whole scenario is that “Battlefield 3” is competing against the recently-released “Modern Warfare 3” — something that EA might not have thought all the way through. Had they released “Battlefield 3” at another time, it probably would have received better reception from gamers across the nation, but that isn’t the case.
“Battlefield 3” is a good first-person shooter game in its own right by offering a full-fledged online multiplayer mode in a way that has never been done before. However, it falls short in the quality of the campaign mode, which inevitably makes the game feel incomplete.
With “Modern Warfare 3” already in the hands of gamers everywhere, it looks like the 15 minutes of fame for “Battlefield 3” have run out.
bf 3 is far from perfect but then again mw3 is a copy and paste of mw2 just with much smaller online maps , no pyhsics engine for the bullets, nothing is "breakable" hit a tin shed with a rocket and it doesnt move, hardly any weapons recoil and a sp that i completed in 3 hours , mind you its the best £40 ive paid for a disk release DLC for mw2 …..oh wait its called mw3 .
and no i dont play bf3 but atleast they tried new things………….theres vids of the reclcyed stuff they used from mw and mw2 in mw3 on youtube if no one believes me.
bf 3 is far from perfect but then again mw3 is a copy and paste of mw2 just with much smaller online maps , no pyhsics engine for the bullets, nothing is "breakable" hit a tin shed with a rocket and it doesnt move, hardly any weapons recoil and a sp that i completed in 3 hours , mind you its the best £40 ive paid for a disk release DLC for mw2 …..oh wait its called mw3 .
and no i dont play bf3 but atleast they tried new things………….theres vids of the reclcyed stuff they used from mw and mw2 in mw3 on youtube if no one believes me.
So what if it's a copy and paste of MW2, that's like saying Back to the Future Part II and III is just another Back to the Future Part I. If the society that exists today existed 20 years ago, people would be like "DON'T GO SEE Back to the Future Part II or III!, it sucks cause it's just Doc and Marty traveling through time again tryin to fix the problems they caused!". MW3 kicks butt because it stays loyal to the original. A lot of people today forgot what that means.
Hardly the case. filmmaking technology improved exponentially over the life of the BTTF franchise as did the budget for subsequent films which lent itself to better special effects, scale, wardrobe etc. Although the COD franchise has had massive hits over the past half decade, the formula is getting stale with hardcore gamers which by in large lead the casual gamers into the most deserving games and genres. I admit the most bothersome aspect in my opinion with the MW franchise is it's lack of reinvestment. WIth the massive success of the series I would hope they'd funnel profits into development of a new cutting edge engine. The success of the game is based purely on the mass of casual gamers who find the lack of realism and quick mindless engagements all they can handle. I consider it a breeding/training ground for more advanced and skill-minded FPS games. They sure can move units and market correctly though, I can't argue there.
MW3 is really pathetic. I beat the single player mode in about 4 hours, and that was without trying to beat it in 4 hours. The multiplayer is an exercise in frustration. It's glitchy, the characters hang up on the slightest of edges and don't you try to walk down the path at the same time as someone else, because the screen shakes and you get nowhere. I wish I had known how bad it was going to be so I wouldn't have bought it.
And yet even MW2 is still better than BF3. Why would CoD change something that works and sells. They just needed to improve something thats already great. Sales don't lie.
It's fine that you reviewed the gameplay side of BF3, but as far as state-of-the-art hardware/software technology implementation, you touched only on the audio and made no mention of the graphics differences between the two games.
Gears of War 3
…..end of conversation.
Have you even played Battlefield 3? Short live online multiplayer? Uh, whatever you say. Also, capture the flag is nowhere to be found in the game.
Seriously, Based off the title of the article you would think this guy would have played the multiplayer, or at least done his research? There is no capture the flag. This article is a joke.
conquest; is capture the flag
No, it isn't. you might compare it to Domination or anex but capture the flag? You never see a due running with a flag on. I thing you are confused.
Its one thing to talk smack about a game, its another to actually play it for several hours. Yes I believe mw3 is copy and paste no doubt, that what happens when Activision goes on budget, take it from EA they implemented a lot into this game and certainly have done a great job perfecting it. The story may not make much sense but the game just got released, and I am sure there will be several expansions compared to what MW had.
Besides, the storyline made sense on SP in MW but you can't be in many places at once, thats why you played as a diff toon on each SP map on MW, it works the same way in BF3, You play a diff toon in different squads, there are many wars in the world and I would rather experience it through a game understanding the storyline, though it may not be true, from the squads POV. BF3 Rocks, when can you fly a plane in MW, excluding the helicopter, compared to all tthe vehicles and equipment you can use in BF3. This article is crap.. I see tons of critics online disrepecting games when they actually haven't even played.
The guy who wrote this story is really pathetic and never really took the time to learn either game. The number of flaws in the article and major efforts by developers the author overlooked are mind numbing. And the author is pursuing a college degree? I know a few HS students who could write a better article. How embarrassing?
Obvious Call of Duty fanboy author is obvious. If you had ever read even one review of BF3 you would know its not meant to be played as a single player game, yet you spend over half the article writing about single player and the rest about MW3. I'm not even upset about the MW3 vs BF3 debate, I'm just upset how the author took absolutely no effort in explaining anything. The multiplayer critique was literally two words, "short lived". How is it short lived? What did you actually like or dislike about it? I see no substance here at all. And if you're going to claim how MW3 is so much better and has already effectively killed BF3, then explain, use your words, I thought that's what journalists are suppose to do. Or did Bryan Dupont-Gray fail to pay attention in High School English class on the day they went over how to write persuasive essays?
Who plays the campaign? It's about multiplayer!
This article is complete BS. Battlefield is worse because it actually takes SKILL? Is that it? I put about 15 days total playtime into MW and MW2 combinedand played MW3 all day yesterday so I know first hand that MW3 doesn't hold a candle to Battlefield. Who cares about the campaign? They are BOTH interactive movies and nothing more. Battlefield tries to innovate and Call of Duty is just the same thing every year. Yeah it's one hell of a polished product…the menus are far superior in CoD but the gameplay is the same old small maps with people camping, spawn killing blind-siding and coming up behind you constantly. If you think MW3 is superior to Battlefield you need to give your head a shake!
That is such BS. It's so easy to camp and snipe all day on BF3's oversized maps. BF fanboys are former MW players who kept getting owned. Takes more skills my ass.
Oh and also the audio/video in BF3 is above and beyond MW3, but that should go without saying. Every gun actually sounds different, the guns LOOK like they do in real life, and there is a realistic amount of recoil.
Wow… what a tasteless review. I can most certainly say that you sir fall short of a respectable reviewer lol… Where did you find this guy? I like both games, and if you even consider bf3's mp to be short lived you're ignorant or like one guy said, you've never even played the game. I can't speak for others but when it comes to replay value of a game its mostly about the mp and bf3 definitely excels in that category. I should thank you Bryan. I now know not to trust THE DAILY COUGAR for a credible review on anything.
Author doesn't explain HOW MW3 is better, he basically just states it as a fact while giving a negative review of BF3. It's okay to have an opinion about a game, but if you're trying to make an article comparing both, then give the 'deets on BOTH games. Actually compare and contrast. MW3 just came out anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to do a review on that instead of BF3?
However wrote this article is an idiot!! He clearly doesn't know anything about video games!! You should be fired!!
I agree with you completely. BF3>MW3. At the very least you should learn how to spell "whoever."
Another ignorant review by another stupid son of a bitch journalist. You people are so biased and it clearly shows in this article. I have played all cod and bf games and the only reason why cod has beaten it in sales is because of lazy stupid fucks like you who don't bother to learn anything or challenge themselves. I couldn't fly the helo's and jets for shit when I started out and now after PRACTICE I do very well in both (especially the little bird!) Did you expected some computer controlled device like in MW2? Yes you have to earn your kills in bf3, that much is clear and more rewarding. BF3 evolves as a game online because most people haven't even come close to unlocking a lot of shit and/or they don't know how to use it. Every game I play online is never the same; therefore, its a lot more exciting never knowing what's going to hit you. Respond to my post if you have the LEAST amount of courage since you haven't bothered to respond to anyone else, coward.
"…and a seemingly fun but short lived online multiplayer mode" —> you're an idiot haha
Oh yea. Another thing is BF3 has DLC expansion coming this December. A true EXPANSION pack with not only extra maps, but new vehicles and weapons to upgrade, and a new game mode. Its $15 dollars if you didn't buy the limited edition, but so many stores have the ltd edition on their shelves. If you get the game while supplies last, then you still get it for free. If you don't, then it's $15 well spent on hours upon hours of fun. Only thing COD has ever and will have is overpriced map packs that produce the same game modes and player strategy (wait….what strategy?) New maps that require the same strategy are not really new maps at all, they just change the outlay. Once again reply to me if you have the balls.
PS: When I was in college ( I graduated and you haven't) I did dumb things but the ignorance you have displayed trumps anything I did for one reason, you are easily persuaded and won't look at the big picture. Good luck getting hired, but I guess being hired as a journalist ( if thats what you want to be) requires no honor, honesty, or courage of any kind. I'm sure there is a job for someone like you though (Walmart).
short lived online multiplayer mode? Wow! Trolling at it's finest.
battle field is a bad ass game. call of duty sucks my nutz. thats a no skill game. you have to think like a G.I when playing BF. i would pick bf over mw3 any day
People who play Battlefield rarely play the single player. It's pretty much just a bonus part of battlefield so it really has no relevance when it comes to reviewing it. Battlefield is a MULTI-PLAYER game not a campaign game!
It's sad to see articles like this being written and to think about how many people might not even try Battlefield 3 because the authors of articles like this make Battlefield 3 sound like it's worse than Modern Warfare 3. it's a real shame because people who didn't get the opportunity to play Battlefield 2 wouldn't really know any better.
MW3 has not even come close to BF3! Who cares about team deathmatch on MW3, you dont work as a team like you do when you play rush in BF3. When MW has anything close to the frostbite tech i will look into MW again but every year it is the same old thing. BF3 is as good as it gets and more realistic than MW has ever been.
This review was a fail and that's coming from a cod fan. The author is just pathetic. But I have to admit, I have been playing bf3 non stop since its release. its a better game IMO
Short lived multiplayer? you clearly don't know what your talking about
bad 'review'
Fuck all these pussy ass fan boys. They're alll just jealous cuz the war has ended with MW3 on top. Living in denial.
seriously why is this terrible article the first news item on google news for 'battlefield 3'.
the author has no idea what he is talking about and shouldn't be writing about video games since he clearly has no understanding of them….
What I find best about Battlefield vs MW (Playing BF1942 until BF3 and original COD onward) is this: When you're up against a hardened enemy position, in MW you have to try to kill multiple soldiers in a row to get support for attack via helo, etc. In BF, you can take matters into your own hands and jump behind the stick of a tank, or helo and attack a position yourself. Make that sh*t happen.
here is a very hot review of call of duty mw3 with a hot girl in a bikini, this is one for the guys and yeah one for some of the women too.
I haven't played either BF3 or MW3, but really, the low blows coming from the BF3 community is just mind blowing, I thought all the kids were playing MW3? What happend with contructive criticism? You guys sound like you've been personally insulted. I think I'll stay clear of BF3, if this is the community I'd be playing the game with in Multiplayer
"Calling You Out"'s posts just made my day. I feel ashamed I bought MW3…ughh, I'll probably play it for a few more days then back to Battlefield.
Battlefield 3 is superior and way more fun than MW3 in my opinion. Sales does not define quality.
this is seriously a poorly written article
When it comes down to it you have your CoD fan boys and your BF fan boys. Each are going to try and talk shit about the other. Fact is, both games are great in their own right.
I personally own both and would much rather play BF3 online (bigger maps, more team based, destructible environment) over MW3. Unfortunately EA has let a lot of people down outside of that (can't call yourself the most realistic looking shooter ever when in SP you have enemies bodies disappearing after a few seconds). Sorry, just can't.
See, I have 'real' friends too. Not just virtual friends (actually only have 1 on PS and 0 on Live). That's just where I have most of my fun. When I can get some friends together, system link and go hard at some gaming. I can trash talk to their face instead of hiding behind some username. And that's where CoD nails it and BF3 totally ignores it. People are going to say shit about BF3 isn't made to be played offline. Then why the f*ck is there a SP mode? Answer that one genius.
I don't mind MW3 sticking to what the other games did right. If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. Yeah, CoD needs some major help in the graphics department compared to BF3. It doesn't even come close. I love having the environment around me being destroyed, that's what happens it the real world.
So, saying all that, I love both games and will continue to play both. Those who want to take sides and be nasty about it simply need to grow up. The competition is a good thing. CoD hasn't had it for years, maybe BF3 makes them open their eyes. They need to make a few changes to stay ahead. And on the flip side, EA needs to realize that not everyone plays online, maybe 80% of people do, but not 100%. Make a complete game EA, or sell it for less cause honestly you are just cheating gamers out of what other companies provide.
WORST EVER ARTICLE EVER. BLOODY AWFUL REVIEW. SHORT LIVED MULTIPLAYER? YOU MAD?!
…am I the only one that enjoyed the Battlefield 3 campaign's story line? It was quite a bit more interesting than the MW, MW2 storylines. Bugs and AI issues in the campaign were evident, but the story and settings were actually quite good, in my humble gamer's mind.
yea i loved the single player storyline also, the ending is awesome!
I'm pretty sure Battlefield 3 is supposed to be played for the multiplayer segment. It was always that from the beginning with Battlefield 1942.
I Loved the single player and understood everything.. what the hell is this guy talking about?
Pretty sure this is what was said 2 hours before this article was written. "*ring* *ring*, Heddo? Hi Bryan?, da …yes, Hi I'm calling from the Daily Cougar and our regular game reviewer is off sick would you mind filling in for him?, Uhhhhhhh….duh, otay! bud I hava do ma jobb at mcdunolds daaaah so mady i coulda do id before ma shift." Sure if you can squeeze it in that would really help a lot as we are pretty busy here so nobody has the time to write an article of Battlefield 3., daaaahh Battlefield 3? Wad dat??
Made me lol. Yes I agree with the majority of here saying that the article is biased and the bloke is obviously a moron.
This reviewer obviously has no idea what they're talking about. You can hardly compare the two games. COD offers rage inducing killstreak rewards, K/D obsession and unrealistic gameplay. Battlefield offers realistic, fun and objective style game styles with a committed fanbase. I used to play COD for days on end, but it's continued to fall short of the projected hype. You can not say that just because they sell more copies doesn't mean the game is better or that they'll never surpass Activisions records. It's only a matter of time before people realize the dedication of DICE and their great products.
I recently read a quote from a MW3 "this is the same game i've been playing for the past two years" Ouch, thats not a good thing. $60 for the same product you've purchased two times over already.
Do your research and learn to write informative articles that aren't biased.
I have been a Modern Warefare fan boy and decided to buy BF3…well i hated to spend the money but i went ahead and bought MW3 also. I have to say they are completly different online. I find myself comparing MW3 to BF3 and how much it lacks. I now have buyers guilt for MW3 and will be spending the majority of time on Battlefield
You are such a liar. You've always been a BF fanboy, gtfo. Lol
what a dick!
Is this guy a tool or what on the multiplayer its what makes games now a days unless you have an epic campaign which again most wont buy without a good multiplayer aspect. Both are different games ones chess(battlefield 3) the others checkers(MW3). both have goods and bads but if your into realism your going battlefield if your into arcade style solo your more for MW3. Sorry but this article is utterly stupid.
The only thing comparable between BF3 and MW3 is that there is a war theme. The game strategies, tactics, goals, and even the user base are different. BF3 is a tactical game with team based objectives. If your squad and team are working together, you are unstoppable and there is a huge amount of satisfaction winning the game. If you don't work together, you don't win the game. CoD and MW3 multiplayer is about running around a small map by yourself killing as many other players who are running around in circles by themselves trying to kill you. BF3 is more of a war simulation than a game. MW3 is definitely just a game designed for a less strategically/tactically minded audience.
Who the F*K cares if modern warfare 2.5 is winning against battlefield 3, I'm f*kn enjoying Battlefield 3 so f*ckn MUCH!!!! That's what matters!!!
I have both. They are both different in their own rights. BF3 for a little more tactical teamwork large maps and MW3 for a little more fast paced-adrenaline shooting. They both rock! stop trying to compare and think how much farther we have come since Wolfenstein.
You are clearly just a stupid cod fanboy.
Killing in bf3 is like art but in mw3 it all like stupid camp, no-skill killstreaks or just some fat-ass luck
Cod8 = cod 4 lol
Battlefield 1 and halo1 totaly beat mw3 in like every single thing
Bf3 is like the second best game, best is halo reach (because forge), then on 3. Place is bfbc2, then its halo3……….. and second worst. Game is pacman 32-bit, and by far worst is mw3 Tru story :/
I stopped reading at ' short lived multiplayer'. Because clearly this reviewer didnt feel the need to even try and play the game after the'lackluster' campaign which was anything but. I also have a suspicioun that he didn't even play much of the game but instead copied and pasted from other CoD biased reviews that unsurprisingly fall in line amost word for word with this article….
Some written from the Daily Cougar won't really hold much water. haha. GO COUGARS!
Its all about the numbers boys, Mw3 crapped on bf3 in sales in 1 night! If you can't beat them, join them. Mw3 all day!!!
All about the numbers……horseshit. So I guess justin bieber is better than The Who then? I don't think so. Have fun with your 2002 graphics piece of shit game. You fund the most cliche game in history. I fucking dare you to come play BF3 I will fuck you up in my little bird, f18, abrams, su35, a10, and the list goes on and on. You just made one of the greatest financial fuck ups of all time. You just paid 65 dollars for an expansion pack!!!! Your just a victim of market and thats all mw3 is, a marketing scheme. Have you played BF3? judging by your comment, you are just as stupid and ignorant as the fucking idiot that wrote this fucking article and haven't played it. I normally don't get angry, but when people are to fucking stupid to not notice the cod franchise hasn't changed or had ANY innovations in online gaming since 2007, you just have to look and get mad and then realize this "I play BF3 and I am superior to any COD fanboy who won't get my game and play it" You won't know whats going on and you'll try to play like cod and you'll die over and over again. Stay playing your dumbass game so you don't fuck up my team trying to win. Douche.
This guy has no idea what hi's talking about. Really, it is amazing!
You have not played Battlefield 3. The multiplayer is not "short-lived", there is not a capture the flag mode, and there are not 12 maps. Almost nothing you wrote about the game is accurate. What you just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rationale review. Everyone on this webpage is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Seriously, it's truly amazing how terrible a published article can be. Does an editor read and fact check this or do you just slap this sh*t together and post it online?
Wow nice article….seriously I hope this person does this for free cause what an utter pile of biased shit.
bf3 205 positive reviews and 43 negative
mw3 197 positive and 501 negative
Terrible review . Battlefield 3 rules !
The Author of this Review doesnt measure up to popular competition.
This review is biased, contains opinion wrapped up as fact and is wrong in nearly every sentance put on page. The multiplayer of BF3 is long lived, which even COD fans will agree. Cod is for a thrash, or unskilled run around.
The campaign for BF3 is also not confusing, and i cant see how anyone can fail to feel connected to the character you play as the tank gunner (unless you are missing a heart)
All in all its a brilliant campaign and amazing online. The only thing you can say is the campaign isnt micheal bay esq. Its more gritty and realistic than a Cod thriller.
Cod does win in campaign over bf in each episode, but BF thrashes COD for single player if you have any skill/brains/tactics.
End of.
Ok I'll throw in my two cents to this kid who really doesn't understand the Battlefield franchise (not the Bad Company one). Both Call of Duty and Battlefield series I have played from the beginning since 2003 and 2004. From the beginning there is a clear difference between the two. Battlefield is a game focused mainly on the multiplayer on large scale maps with vehicles and team work a key to playing. Call of Duty was wonderfully story driven single player based upon real battles that were fought. However it's single player was much like any other game (ie: Medal of Honor Allied Assault rehash).
It is not surprising that the single player would disappoint this MW fanboy. I agree much like the recent medal of honor game the single play was lacking. However Battlefield is true to it's roots of 1942, it is a battle that takes place on land, air and sea. Where you must not only contend with infantry but also vehicles and planes. MW3 continues it tradition and strength of delivering a wonderful story with characters that you know and love.
Personally I see the BF3 multiplayer being a better set up because of the destructible environment. Tired of the sniper who just barely stick out from a wall you can't shoot through. Put a rocket in it. MW3 your going to have to hope you have a lucky shot to peg them through the wall on the first shot.
It pretty much boils down to this BF3 is a game of strategy and working as a team. MW3 is a game where you can hop in and go full tilt all by your self and not give to shakes of a stick about working with anyone.
I need to edit my dates forgot how long it has been. Battlefield 1942 was out in 2002 and Call of Duty was 2003.
BF3 defiantly has the best multiplayer of any FPS game.
A totally inaccurate pile of nonsensical mumbling centered around a lack of knowledge in the field of his profession. Speculation meets bias as the writer fails to convey a coherent argument. In summary – the writer lacks any credibility and an inability to present any facts to back up his argument. Seriously did you even play Battlefield 3 bro? GTFO! Fire this retard!
LMAO this guys is a tool ctf isn't even in the mp never visiting this site again
Good job author, I don't think I've seen one positive comment. *golf clap
bf3>every COD past present and future
"With “Modern Warfare 3” already in the hands of gamers everywhere, it looks like the 15 minutes of fame for “Battlefield 3” have run out." – Stupidest thing I've ever heard.
the author of this article must be using crack cocane!
How much did OP get to write this shit???
How much did OP get to write this shit???
This is why i try not to read news repost or reviews because it is all about opinion and the media are all to eagar to jump on the COD band wagon, in my opinion BF3 is by far the better multiplayer experience as it promotes true online "multiplayer" experience you have to work as a team and it is to a degree strategic, i hate the run and gun crap that COD serves up, i am not fantastic as shooters but i still want to enjoy the game and i do with BF3 the large maps help me with that as i actually stand a chance. I can only give the game 2 hours in the evening and i do not want to spend that time being abused by 12-13 year olds and being killed every 5-10 seconds, this is not enjoyment to me.
Forget COD, BF3 doesn't live up to it's own competition.
It's supposed to be the successor to BF2 and yet, with the way it's been simplified/consolized, dare I say it: CODified, it feels more like a predecessor to BF2 (not ccounting graphics and sound for obvious reasons)
Forget COD, BF3 doesn't live up to it's own competition.
It's supposed to be the successor to BF2 and yet, with the way it's been simplified/consolized, dare I say it: CODified, it feels more like a predecessor to BF2 (not ccounting graphics and sound for obvious reasons)
I don't think so. The leveling class system is similar to that of Battlefield 2142. Which come to think of it was stolen by COD 4: Modern Warfare and used when it was first out. The graphics are pretty good (for xbox), love the environment destruction. The only gripe I have right now is with the planes. Unless you played them and unlocked most of the items within the first week your pretty much screwed in air to air combat.
What a bad review this guy is an idiot in the biggest sense BF3 rocks MW3 or is it black ops Mk2…MW3 graphics are poor nothing moves in the scenery side if things you have to jump over itmes like boxes but in BF3 they move when walked into them it looks and feels so much better and i wont even mention the Doldy Digital sound that MW3 does not have…do us all a favour fanboy and stop slating such a awesome product..!
Poor review looking for hits.
Fire this guy he's garbage and I'm a MW3 fan.
This was a very poor review.
wow, this is a pretty mind boggling article you've written here. The multilayer is short lived??? are you stupid? or are you just saying that because MW 2.1 came out?? Have you played the "new" MW??
you know I really don't want to waist my time with this because I doubt your opinion is valid. I'm pretty sure you must have gotten on BF3 and played for a little and couldn't kill anyone so you got but hurt and wrote this article.
In case you weren't aware MW3 has basically repackaged the original MW game with new skins and textures.
Don't Believe me??
Watch these:
You Sir, are either retarded, or a troll. 1/10
Short lived multiplayer? Seemingly fun? The daily cougar?
I have been playing COD on console since COD4 and I loved it; it gave me a rush like no other game ever did but it is the same thing over and over again without any major canges. I tried Battlefield Bad Company and hated it because I didn't know how to play; after taking time to understand how to play Battlefield 3 it is actually a much different dynamic and differnt play style and provides a sense of enjoyment that COD doesn't currently.
In the future I want my first person shooters to be modeled after the Battlefield series- always improving, vehicles, destruction, great audio, and epic map sizes instead of the old and stagnant Call of Duty series. Sure games like Farmville and Call of Duty get a lot of players, but that doesn't mean it's helping the gaming industry move forward. In that sense, Battlefield 3 is a much more important game than Modern Warfare 3.
How is the multiplayer 'short lived'? It's better than Bad Company 2, and that game kept me busy for… well since it came out until a couple of weeks ago I guess. It was that good, and BF3 is even better. The amount of duff journalism going on at the moment is really poor. I played MW & MW2, skipped BLOPS (because BC2 was out). Watched someone playing MW3 recently. It looks awful, and the gameplay is dull dull dull. Run around a maze, see someone, whoever is fastest to the trigger wins… and that's it. No tactics. No sense of being in a team. No variation. Grrrrrr, write some proper reviews. Gamespy got it right this time, you should do a better job. Oh good, the latest drivers have just finished installing, I'm hopping back into my tank now, bye.
everyone go home seriously
MW3 is enviromently friendly……… 95% of it is recycled material 🙂
HAHAHA that is a good one!
I don't play console games, as I prefer the control scheme on the computer. However, when it comes to MW3 vs BF3 as PC games: Modern Warfare 3 still beats Battlefield 3 easily as far as sales go.
EA launched a new digital distribution software known as Origin, to compete with Valve's Steam. Origin is rather buggy currently. Also its difficult to get into a multiplayer game because you have to relaunch the game every time you join a server, which could be full be the time you're game loads. Additionally, it has all the server downtime associated with a new computer product from EA. Not to mention that the last time EA attempted digital distribution, they kind of screwed over everyone who adopted it.
Conversely, Modern Warfare 3 was released on steam, which is a platform that is long standing, generally bug free at this point, and installed already by most PC gamers who play triple A titles. There's a lot less to say about it, because there's a lot less to go wrong, it just works.
ok both games are ok but if you like multiplayer than go bf3 if you want an interactive movie and dont mind paying alot o fmoney for it go mw3 but if you like blowing every thing you see and not dropping dead when someone shoots your foot alot then go bf3 or if you have a great graphics card then the graphics make up for the nowhere to be sean movie