Should I buy MW3 or Battlefield 3 for PC?
- Thread starter treetops
- Start date
Well, this is how I see it...
BF3
- Up to 64 players
- Large maps
- Destructible environments
- Vehicles - AA mobile thingies (
), Tanks, jeeps, APCs, helicoptors, jets, boats
- Focus on team work, squad based play, squad members act as mobile spawn points, classes with different support abilities. - http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-classes/
- When firing long range have to aim higher to counter bullet drop/realism etc.
- Item unlock system is based on your actions within game. Using certain classes progresses related unlocks. Using vehicles progresses vehicle specialisation unlocks etc.
- PRONE!
MW (not played 3, but have played a fair bit of 2)
- Up to 16 players
- Smaller scale maps
- Arcade feel, fast movement, run and gun play
- No vehicles
- Pointstreak/Kill streak bonus system
- Less focus on team play
- Item unlock most probably works like Black Ops system, you earn points and can unlock the things you want rather than just the next thing in a set unlock structure.
They are two quite different beasts. Really depends what features you like more.
I actually played more MW2 before switching over to BF2:Bad Company 2, but never went back after switching. Seemed to be more thought to what to play next. Didn't just pick your favorite weapon loadout. If your team have a bomb planted on an MCOM station and are laying down suppressing fire to prevent defuse then pick "Support" and supply them with ammo. If your team are defending a flag position and are under fire from a tank pick engineer or recon to help take it out with explosives. If your squad is pushing a front and needing to keep the pressure up, pick assault with med kits and defib and spawn on them and keep them alive.
BF3
- Up to 64 players
- Large maps
- Destructible environments
- Vehicles - AA mobile thingies (
), Tanks, jeeps, APCs, helicoptors, jets, boats- Focus on team work, squad based play, squad members act as mobile spawn points, classes with different support abilities. - http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-classes/
- When firing long range have to aim higher to counter bullet drop/realism etc.
- Item unlock system is based on your actions within game. Using certain classes progresses related unlocks. Using vehicles progresses vehicle specialisation unlocks etc.
- PRONE!
MW (not played 3, but have played a fair bit of 2)
- Up to 16 players
- Smaller scale maps
- Arcade feel, fast movement, run and gun play
- No vehicles
- Pointstreak/Kill streak bonus system
- Less focus on team play
- Item unlock most probably works like Black Ops system, you earn points and can unlock the things you want rather than just the next thing in a set unlock structure.
They are two quite different beasts. Really depends what features you like more.
I actually played more MW2 before switching over to BF2:Bad Company 2, but never went back after switching. Seemed to be more thought to what to play next. Didn't just pick your favorite weapon loadout. If your team have a bomb planted on an MCOM station and are laying down suppressing fire to prevent defuse then pick "Support" and supply them with ammo. If your team are defending a flag position and are under fire from a tank pick engineer or recon to help take it out with explosives. If your squad is pushing a front and needing to keep the pressure up, pick assault with med kits and defib and spawn on them and keep them alive.
Relic
Posts: 1,372 +17
+1 Arris
Outside of that most FPS games will have hackers and this is sadly the case for both. So far I've run into a lot more exploiting in BF3 then legitimate hackers however like aimbotters. Remember that the key is to play on servers that have good admins always on patrol so your game experience won't be ruined. And since BF3 actually offers dedicated servers for ranked matches I'd give them the edge (MW3's dedicated serves are private only, P2P for ranked).
Overall the multiplayer experience is quite fun for BF3 and if you were a big fan of how Bad Company 2 did things, you'll love BF3. Only downer is that you'll be joining the party late and likely will not only have to buy the game, but also pick up the DLC next month as it really is starting to look like a 'must have'.
Outside of that most FPS games will have hackers and this is sadly the case for both. So far I've run into a lot more exploiting in BF3 then legitimate hackers however like aimbotters. Remember that the key is to play on servers that have good admins always on patrol so your game experience won't be ruined. And since BF3 actually offers dedicated servers for ranked matches I'd give them the edge (MW3's dedicated serves are private only, P2P for ranked).
Overall the multiplayer experience is quite fun for BF3 and if you were a big fan of how Bad Company 2 did things, you'll love BF3. Only downer is that you'll be joining the party late and likely will not only have to buy the game, but also pick up the DLC next month as it really is starting to look like a 'must have'.
red1776
Posts: 5,124 +194
I would summarize it like this. MW3 feels like you are arbitrarily dropped into a series of 'Die Hard IX' trailers that are scripted, and going to happen weather you participate or not.
Conversely, BF3 feels like it's improvised and demands that you make decisions to effect the course and outcome.
Graphics wise, it's not even close
Conversely, BF3 feels like it's improvised and demands that you make decisions to effect the course and outcome.
Graphics wise, it's not even close
I can't say how many hackers are active on the pc version but I do want to say that the games are completely different from each other. It's hard to compare them.
Modern Warfare is good for fast arcade-like action. It has a lot of singleplayer extras and I think is more enjoyable in the long run.
Battlefield seems to be more "realistic". I like the teamplay and the fact that most people work on getting the objective. It they don't...thinks get frustrating very fast.
Modern Warfare is good for fast arcade-like action. It has a lot of singleplayer extras and I think is more enjoyable in the long run.
Battlefield seems to be more "realistic". I like the teamplay and the fact that most people work on getting the objective. It they don't...thinks get frustrating very fast.
Mavrickx888
Posts: 64 +9
I've always said that Modern Warfare does one thing and it does it very well; fast paced, adrenaline filled, pick up and put down gameplay. Battlefield 3 does that, more, and you won't want to put it down.
Don't get me wrong, Modern Warfare 3 is still a pretty good game in its own right, but honestly if you had shown me Modern Warfare 2 and told me it was actually 3, I would have never known the difference. The nod definitely goes to Battlefield 3.
Don't get me wrong, Modern Warfare 3 is still a pretty good game in its own right, but honestly if you had shown me Modern Warfare 2 and told me it was actually 3, I would have never known the difference. The nod definitely goes to Battlefield 3.
slick12ick
Posts: 11 +0
depends on ur type of game
mw3 is more competitive and bf3 is more pub like, bf3 better graphics and more players. mw3 for scrim and pug meant.
mw3 is more competitive and bf3 is more pub like, bf3 better graphics and more players. mw3 for scrim and pug meant.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +977
hackers are pretty bad for bf3, but if you were to get mw3, get it on xbox, because the dlc's come out earlier. But on pc, get bf3, but make sure your pc has a quad core cpu and a directx 11 card
Similar threads
- Locked
