Nov. 09, 2011 1:37 AM
Note: this thread is not a poll, and therefore is seperate from the poll thread already present.
The Campaign
The MW3 campaign went above and beyond expectations. From what I have played so far, the story, a direct sequel to that of MW2, is just superb. Activision knows how to start a game right. Nothing says “Welcome to NYC!†more than a helicopter crash and skyscrapers tumbling around you. The fast paced action and quick thinking with regards to your enemies and surroundings get you right into the game. Keeping up its prestigious reputation, the campaign flows well, with little to none extensive dialog and the actual story really only takes place in the game play itself, which for the Call of Duty series, is just one component in the formula for its top notch campaign. The best part of it all is Activision didn’t put a campaign mission in the game that wasn’t supposed to be there and then blaming it all on Infinity Ward, virtually bankrupting them. I consider that a plus if you ask me.
The BF3 campaign wasn’t overly impressive. Very generic and in many instances, un-involving and un-interesting. In EA’s defense, it is extremely difficult to compete with COD in this category, and even harder to think of original material to use that hasn’t been already worked into a COD game. But even so, when it comes to the story telling and game play element of a FPS campaign, COD remains almost uncontested, especially by BF3. It seems as if the team developing BF3 focused solely on getting everything they could out of multiplayer, and then just added in the campaign last minute because they needed one. I guess it is better than no campaign at all, and some people may say the trade off was worth it.
The Graphics
I was happy to see the changes made to the MW graphics. Less pixely and more refined then in any COD game that has come before. The muddy, dark graphics of Black Ops just wasn’t up to par, and while it tried to pass itself off as “stylistic†it didn’t really meet the standards of the loyal fans. These new improvements are a good step forward from MW2 and Black Ops, a small step, but defiantly one in the right direction. The fact that the graphics engine doesn’t look all too different from that of MW2 both bothers me slightly, but has me pleased that the people making this game don’t want to drastically change anything to the point where it wouldn’t make sense. The PC version of the game defiantly has better graphics, but the gap between the 2 isn’t really significant. If anything, the PC version is just slightly more refined, not much else.
BF3’s graphics have a similar story. If you own the PC version, (which I sadly do not) you will see that its graphics far surpass that of the console version of either game, as well as the pc version of MW3. Of course, you need like the world’s best gaming laptops to play it because it is so advanced, but I will get to that later. In terms of the console version, because the game wasn’t built for the console, the graphics are seriously downgraded from the PC version, comparable to that of the MW2 graphics. However, upon playing the game, you are given the option of upgrading to the better graphics, but it will take up some memory on your PS3 or Xbox360, but even then it is still not the same. Overall, BF3’s console graphics after the upgrade are on par with those of MW3 standard graphics.
The Multiplayer
Since the 1st MW, COD has become widely known for its multiplayer. Some may say the franchise created the cliché multiplayer for almost all FPS games. While this is defiantly not a bad thing, it seems as if the series is beginning to fall into the cliché the series itself created. The first thing I noticed about the multiplayer was that they changed the size and color of the text on your screen in a match, not much else. There are a few new playlists, like Kill Confirmed (way to similar to collecting dog tags in BF3 if you ask me), which has reached a decent amount of popularity within the 1st 24 hours of the game’s release, but playing it over and over again gets boring fast, along with CTF, TDM and all of the other generic playlists. I remember feeling this within the first 4 months of MW2, the first 2 months of black ops, and now a few hours with MW3. From what I have heard from people in my games, many feel the same way about the lack of uniqueness the game’s online multiplayer possesses. The Activison servers seemed to have been improved from Black Ops and MW2, but it is too soon to tell. Probably the worst thing about the multiplayer is the fact that nothing from Black Ops was carried over to the new game. The new voting system was not included, and the money system has been completely abolished, which means there are no wager matches, no contracts, and no real sense of accomplishment besides killing people in a seemingly endless repetition for exp. The multiplayer is by no means terrible, but frankly, it is getting stale, and it seems as if Activision and Infinity Ward just thought it would be ok to coast on their previous success with multiplayer, and change virtually nothing about it. However, one also has to consider what has happened to Infinity Ward over the last 2 years. After the incident with MW2, leaving most of the Infinity ward team divided, disbanded, and almost bankrupt, the comeback they have made is outstanding. The addition of the kill streaks and support streaks was an excellent addition, small in change but large in impact. Hybrid scopes are a nice gimmick to add to the mix as well, and let us not forget that this time around, sniping is actually do-able (unlike n Black Ops) and the classes and weapons are rebalanced significantly. The problem with Black Ops was powerful guns became either incredibly cheap or utterly useful. In MW3, most guns appear to have just as much potential as all of the others. That said, there will still be specific customizations that work better than others, but it is nice to see some variation with the classes, not just everyone with an AK74u and rapid fire. 32 person multiplayer for big team battles is nice, but even with the improved servers, it is already apparent that finding enough people for a match is a difficulty and a hassle.
If anyone ever wants to know why BF3 won “Game of the Year†then multiplayer is your answer. The intensity that is lacking from the campaign goes straight to the online game play. Not only does BF3 have serious leverage over MW3 because of the Frostbite 2.0 Engine, but the fact that strategy and teamwork is encouraged is something exceptional. The lone wolf carp most people pull in COD defiantly does not work here. Even if you aren’t trying, everything you do in this game benefits your team, simply because it is impossible to do much else. Because of this, the multiplayer of BF3 delivers a much more realistic experience overall compared to any COD game, and if you are a person buying one of these 2 games, and you are looking for the most genuine experience, BF3 is your choice hands down. The only downsides are the lack of game types available, and the fact that the servers are a bit quirky at certain times, but it is not awful. I wouldn’t say the game lacks class customizability as I have heard some say; all it really is is different, because the game is teamwork oriented. One also has to like how you can chose to not participate without being killed, and that you can deploy or respawn whenever you like. The ability to spawn on your squad-mates is also a good addition to the game as well. Again, because of its limitation on the console, the astounding 64 person multiplayer on the PC has been downgraded to 24 on the console. While this is still impressive, it is still disappointing. It just cannot be helped I suppose. The use of vehicles is so complex and incorporates a lot of that teamwork element; however these do not unbalance the game. In fact, vehicles are so hard to maintain that I personally advise that one should only use them if they know how.
The Fan base
To say something right off the bat, I dislike both fan bases to a certain point. The COD fan base in general has some of the most ignorant people within its community. I have people say to me they won’t play any BF games simply because COD is COD, which somehow automatically makes them better. The lack of tolerance in the community is another problem. Think our WBO towards noobs, but 20 times worse. Many people also seem to lack a sense of reality, and their idea of how a gun works or how militaries work all comes from COD. This is not Activision’s fault though. Again, some people are just stupid. Guns do not “suck†in real life. If I shoot someone in the face once with a USP, which is regarded by many as a terrible gun in the game, they will be dead. I have actually heard one person who was my age say to me that “USP is a stupid gun, I would be fine if you shot me with it†The lack of intelligence and common sense by some (not all) is incredibly bothersome to me.
The BF3 fan base is better in some senses, but not others. I personally think of BF fanatics as a counter culture to generic FPS games. Some refuse to play COD because it is too successful, kind of like a person disliking a very popular band only because they are so liked. Otherwise, the community isn’t bad at all. The only real problem I have with it is that for a team based game, no body speaks during the online matches. You will be lucky to even find one person to talk to concerning team strategy. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a team at all doesn’t it?
PC VS Console
Your MW3 experience really won’t differ too greatly from PC to console, other than the PC version eating away at your wallet faster than you can say “Where is my money?†However, for BF3 the differences are big. As said before, the graphics and number of people playing online at one time differ, with the pc version having top tier graphics and 64 person multiplayer. However, as stated before as well, the game was designed for the PC first and foremost, not for the console. Because the game is so advanced, a good, not to mention fairly expensive, gaming laptop is required to play the game. When the developers created the console version, it was literally a cut version of the PC version. Meaning, lower quality graphics, less people online, etc. Owners of BF3 probably want to know why they could not fit Single Player and Co-op/Multiplayer on one gaming disk. The answer is still the same; because the game is too advanced and too large and wasn’t designed for consoles originally. BF3 players have to live with that inconvenience unfortunately. On the bright side, the single player isn’t worth playing anyway.
Other
For MW3, it is more than obvious that their time shines when it comes to Spec Ops mode, and their version of Zombies, the new Survival Mode. Spec Ops itself hasn’t changed much, other than the new mode, which makes it probably one of the best features of the series to date. Not much else to say here other than if you own MW3 and haven’t played any of the Spec Ops modes yet, then you must be on something.
When talking about what is exceptional about BF3, it has to be the Frostbite 2.0 engine. Again, I won’t state things that are already known. You see a building, don’t like it, blow a hole in it with your RPG. Not only does it enhance the realistic experience but it probably is the 1st FPS franchise to make a multiplayer map that isn’t linear. Entrance blocked to the enemy flag? Your answer is a nicely cooked grenade into the guarded, enclosed area, and boom! You get a nice blood pool, some kill points, and a nice fancy new hole in the wall that you made.
In the end, one could actually consider these 2 different games. MW3 delivers the best story and the classic multiplayer we all know and love, while BF3 gave us a whole new definition to realistic FPS and what it means to really blow some carp up. If you can, pick up both games like I did. If not, then I hope this overview helped you decide on atleast one of them to purchase. They are both worth it.
The Campaign
The MW3 campaign went above and beyond expectations. From what I have played so far, the story, a direct sequel to that of MW2, is just superb. Activision knows how to start a game right. Nothing says “Welcome to NYC!†more than a helicopter crash and skyscrapers tumbling around you. The fast paced action and quick thinking with regards to your enemies and surroundings get you right into the game. Keeping up its prestigious reputation, the campaign flows well, with little to none extensive dialog and the actual story really only takes place in the game play itself, which for the Call of Duty series, is just one component in the formula for its top notch campaign. The best part of it all is Activision didn’t put a campaign mission in the game that wasn’t supposed to be there and then blaming it all on Infinity Ward, virtually bankrupting them. I consider that a plus if you ask me.
The BF3 campaign wasn’t overly impressive. Very generic and in many instances, un-involving and un-interesting. In EA’s defense, it is extremely difficult to compete with COD in this category, and even harder to think of original material to use that hasn’t been already worked into a COD game. But even so, when it comes to the story telling and game play element of a FPS campaign, COD remains almost uncontested, especially by BF3. It seems as if the team developing BF3 focused solely on getting everything they could out of multiplayer, and then just added in the campaign last minute because they needed one. I guess it is better than no campaign at all, and some people may say the trade off was worth it.
The Graphics
I was happy to see the changes made to the MW graphics. Less pixely and more refined then in any COD game that has come before. The muddy, dark graphics of Black Ops just wasn’t up to par, and while it tried to pass itself off as “stylistic†it didn’t really meet the standards of the loyal fans. These new improvements are a good step forward from MW2 and Black Ops, a small step, but defiantly one in the right direction. The fact that the graphics engine doesn’t look all too different from that of MW2 both bothers me slightly, but has me pleased that the people making this game don’t want to drastically change anything to the point where it wouldn’t make sense. The PC version of the game defiantly has better graphics, but the gap between the 2 isn’t really significant. If anything, the PC version is just slightly more refined, not much else.
BF3’s graphics have a similar story. If you own the PC version, (which I sadly do not) you will see that its graphics far surpass that of the console version of either game, as well as the pc version of MW3. Of course, you need like the world’s best gaming laptops to play it because it is so advanced, but I will get to that later. In terms of the console version, because the game wasn’t built for the console, the graphics are seriously downgraded from the PC version, comparable to that of the MW2 graphics. However, upon playing the game, you are given the option of upgrading to the better graphics, but it will take up some memory on your PS3 or Xbox360, but even then it is still not the same. Overall, BF3’s console graphics after the upgrade are on par with those of MW3 standard graphics.
The Multiplayer
Since the 1st MW, COD has become widely known for its multiplayer. Some may say the franchise created the cliché multiplayer for almost all FPS games. While this is defiantly not a bad thing, it seems as if the series is beginning to fall into the cliché the series itself created. The first thing I noticed about the multiplayer was that they changed the size and color of the text on your screen in a match, not much else. There are a few new playlists, like Kill Confirmed (way to similar to collecting dog tags in BF3 if you ask me), which has reached a decent amount of popularity within the 1st 24 hours of the game’s release, but playing it over and over again gets boring fast, along with CTF, TDM and all of the other generic playlists. I remember feeling this within the first 4 months of MW2, the first 2 months of black ops, and now a few hours with MW3. From what I have heard from people in my games, many feel the same way about the lack of uniqueness the game’s online multiplayer possesses. The Activison servers seemed to have been improved from Black Ops and MW2, but it is too soon to tell. Probably the worst thing about the multiplayer is the fact that nothing from Black Ops was carried over to the new game. The new voting system was not included, and the money system has been completely abolished, which means there are no wager matches, no contracts, and no real sense of accomplishment besides killing people in a seemingly endless repetition for exp. The multiplayer is by no means terrible, but frankly, it is getting stale, and it seems as if Activision and Infinity Ward just thought it would be ok to coast on their previous success with multiplayer, and change virtually nothing about it. However, one also has to consider what has happened to Infinity Ward over the last 2 years. After the incident with MW2, leaving most of the Infinity ward team divided, disbanded, and almost bankrupt, the comeback they have made is outstanding. The addition of the kill streaks and support streaks was an excellent addition, small in change but large in impact. Hybrid scopes are a nice gimmick to add to the mix as well, and let us not forget that this time around, sniping is actually do-able (unlike n Black Ops) and the classes and weapons are rebalanced significantly. The problem with Black Ops was powerful guns became either incredibly cheap or utterly useful. In MW3, most guns appear to have just as much potential as all of the others. That said, there will still be specific customizations that work better than others, but it is nice to see some variation with the classes, not just everyone with an AK74u and rapid fire. 32 person multiplayer for big team battles is nice, but even with the improved servers, it is already apparent that finding enough people for a match is a difficulty and a hassle.
If anyone ever wants to know why BF3 won “Game of the Year†then multiplayer is your answer. The intensity that is lacking from the campaign goes straight to the online game play. Not only does BF3 have serious leverage over MW3 because of the Frostbite 2.0 Engine, but the fact that strategy and teamwork is encouraged is something exceptional. The lone wolf carp most people pull in COD defiantly does not work here. Even if you aren’t trying, everything you do in this game benefits your team, simply because it is impossible to do much else. Because of this, the multiplayer of BF3 delivers a much more realistic experience overall compared to any COD game, and if you are a person buying one of these 2 games, and you are looking for the most genuine experience, BF3 is your choice hands down. The only downsides are the lack of game types available, and the fact that the servers are a bit quirky at certain times, but it is not awful. I wouldn’t say the game lacks class customizability as I have heard some say; all it really is is different, because the game is teamwork oriented. One also has to like how you can chose to not participate without being killed, and that you can deploy or respawn whenever you like. The ability to spawn on your squad-mates is also a good addition to the game as well. Again, because of its limitation on the console, the astounding 64 person multiplayer on the PC has been downgraded to 24 on the console. While this is still impressive, it is still disappointing. It just cannot be helped I suppose. The use of vehicles is so complex and incorporates a lot of that teamwork element; however these do not unbalance the game. In fact, vehicles are so hard to maintain that I personally advise that one should only use them if they know how.
The Fan base
To say something right off the bat, I dislike both fan bases to a certain point. The COD fan base in general has some of the most ignorant people within its community. I have people say to me they won’t play any BF games simply because COD is COD, which somehow automatically makes them better. The lack of tolerance in the community is another problem. Think our WBO towards noobs, but 20 times worse. Many people also seem to lack a sense of reality, and their idea of how a gun works or how militaries work all comes from COD. This is not Activision’s fault though. Again, some people are just stupid. Guns do not “suck†in real life. If I shoot someone in the face once with a USP, which is regarded by many as a terrible gun in the game, they will be dead. I have actually heard one person who was my age say to me that “USP is a stupid gun, I would be fine if you shot me with it†The lack of intelligence and common sense by some (not all) is incredibly bothersome to me.
The BF3 fan base is better in some senses, but not others. I personally think of BF fanatics as a counter culture to generic FPS games. Some refuse to play COD because it is too successful, kind of like a person disliking a very popular band only because they are so liked. Otherwise, the community isn’t bad at all. The only real problem I have with it is that for a team based game, no body speaks during the online matches. You will be lucky to even find one person to talk to concerning team strategy. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a team at all doesn’t it?
PC VS Console
Your MW3 experience really won’t differ too greatly from PC to console, other than the PC version eating away at your wallet faster than you can say “Where is my money?†However, for BF3 the differences are big. As said before, the graphics and number of people playing online at one time differ, with the pc version having top tier graphics and 64 person multiplayer. However, as stated before as well, the game was designed for the PC first and foremost, not for the console. Because the game is so advanced, a good, not to mention fairly expensive, gaming laptop is required to play the game. When the developers created the console version, it was literally a cut version of the PC version. Meaning, lower quality graphics, less people online, etc. Owners of BF3 probably want to know why they could not fit Single Player and Co-op/Multiplayer on one gaming disk. The answer is still the same; because the game is too advanced and too large and wasn’t designed for consoles originally. BF3 players have to live with that inconvenience unfortunately. On the bright side, the single player isn’t worth playing anyway.
Other
For MW3, it is more than obvious that their time shines when it comes to Spec Ops mode, and their version of Zombies, the new Survival Mode. Spec Ops itself hasn’t changed much, other than the new mode, which makes it probably one of the best features of the series to date. Not much else to say here other than if you own MW3 and haven’t played any of the Spec Ops modes yet, then you must be on something.
When talking about what is exceptional about BF3, it has to be the Frostbite 2.0 engine. Again, I won’t state things that are already known. You see a building, don’t like it, blow a hole in it with your RPG. Not only does it enhance the realistic experience but it probably is the 1st FPS franchise to make a multiplayer map that isn’t linear. Entrance blocked to the enemy flag? Your answer is a nicely cooked grenade into the guarded, enclosed area, and boom! You get a nice blood pool, some kill points, and a nice fancy new hole in the wall that you made.
In the end, one could actually consider these 2 different games. MW3 delivers the best story and the classic multiplayer we all know and love, while BF3 gave us a whole new definition to realistic FPS and what it means to really blow some carp up. If you can, pick up both games like I did. If not, then I hope this overview helped you decide on atleast one of them to purchase. They are both worth it.