BF3..has one of the best graphics...
relies on a web browser to join servers...
fuck EA and that shitty Origin.
BF3..has one of the best graphics...
relies on a web browser to join servers...
fuck EA and that shitty Origin.
DreamMaker (05-17-2012)
mw3 its the worst cod i have ever played the maps is too small in mw3 it doesnt have one map for sniping like mw2 wasteland OR afgan . in mw3 all maps are cqb the respawn system sucks and i mean it it SUCKS SUCKS the enemies respwan in the same place with you alot of times , IN HARDCORE the servers lag to much and every 5 fucking minute it change host jesus i pay 50 euros for this fucking shit and the grapshics for so big company like activision come on , and a lot of cheaters goddamn it !! i already bored this game !! i will buy battlefield 3 in the next month when i upgrade my video card !! b3 is the best war simulating game i have ever see best graphics i have ever see in game after crysis2 big big maps and more realistic when you shoot!!! activision does a big mistake every year make an fps game come on if you want to make a game thats make history you need to make an fps every 3 years to be sure its perfect !! EA MAKE a war simulating game every 2 or 3 years EA YOU ARE THE BEST !!!
My opinion on witch game is better is nether they both are good games.
Some things i like about MW3 include: game modes the multiple game modes in this game gives the player the difference to choose on how they play the game, meaning you can be tactical and sneak around, or you can spray and pray if you choose to. Depending on how you like to play the game. What makes the game though is how unreal it can be. I mean irl do you think someone is going to quickscope nubs xD!
Some things i like about BF3 include: you have to be tactical you have to watch all corners and cant just go run out into the open. The graphics are more real and shit actually blows up when you hit it with a rocket. You can get knocked on your ass ( i learned this from the single player campaign) if a rocket blows up close to you. The guns are mostly realistic meaning that theres no OP gun like in mw3. Vehicles are awesome too.
these are just a few things i like about both games now I could go all day with dislikes but whats the point? Every game has a flaw somewhere in some way. The point is, if you dont play as a team (in ether game) your going to loose every single time. Its all about team effort. Either way the games are overpriced and kinda a flop because they could of been better. But overall there both good so why argue over it.
This is fairly easy.
They are EQUALS.
Battlefield is designed for absolute warfare, running and taking objectives and pressing on, holding said objectives, and wiping out enemies. It's designed the idea of a WAR.
Call of Duty is designed around MILITARY CONFLICTS. They used up the need for designing a game about war with their WWII series, now they're more focused on the fast pace and quick action of a single squad rushing in and taking down each of the targets in a designated area quickly and efficiently.
Battlefield = battle turning decisive strategy + skill along with the need for the multiple squadrons to be 'up-to-par' so to speak.
CoD = battle turning quick reaction to lethal scenario in enclosed area with single squadron.
Battlefiled 3: Cool game
Call Of Duty Mw 3: More hacks
Game Over! MW3 Wins
Lets look at it from a more intellectual stand point instead of just saying this is better and this is worse.
COD puts you into the action almost right away which means your at a higher level of concentration almost the entire game.
In BF, you start at one of your bases which could be nowhere near the enemy. But the maps are so large that there could be a sniper in every building, or an assault in every corner. At first your calm, walking trying not to be seen by any unseen enemies, and then, a support player comes out of the corner, and in a few milliseconds you make a decision of what to do.
So in that, there is no difference between COD and BF. But, what I didn't explain was that COD has an advantage which makes it easier to play and less skill than BF. And that's your already aware, in that stage of making decisions the entire time. In BF, you get to that point in milliseconds and have to decide, which is more realistic, it almost poetically trains you to make split second decisions that can benefit in reality as well.
Of course it can be argued (And I'm sure it will be since COD fans can't admit their wrong.) that getting to that stage of making split second decisions like BF players, has a less impact strain on the psychological aspect of a player then staying in that stage for extended periods of time like the COD players.