Can only afford 1 game, Battlefield 3 or Modern Warefare 3?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
BC2 and MW2 is a better comparison imo. Battlefield 1942/BF2 are so much better than all the MWs. I played BC2 for a few weeks before getting annoyed, but played BF2 for years... and replaced it with Arma2. BF3 should hold me until Arma3 :)
 
Sep 23, 2011
197
0
76
Try the open beta of BF3. If you think it's boring, there's your answer.

There's no right or wrong really. It's about whatever feels right to you. Both titles have a large amount of players and there's plenty of fun to be had with both.

Of course, you could pass on both for now, go buy/play The History Channel: Battle for the Pacific. After 20 minutes, you'll be more than happy buying either of your two choices. :D
 

Barfo

Lifer
Jan 4, 2005
27,554
212
106
Has everyone forgotten BF2 was one of the most bug ridden games ever released?

I'm waiting until January to get BF3, hopefully most problems will be patched by then, also I don't want to pay $60 for it, nor have I made my mind if I want to buy it from Origin.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,240
2
76
1) I'll believe when I see it ( gameplay videos from real people, not marketing).
2) What kind of PC do you need to make it look like that? Is this going to be Crysis all over again where no one can make it look like the actual videos from the advertising?

you must be running out of tissues


I'm waiting for your next great one liner after calling it 'just a reskin'


we will get a much better idea of the performance this week, I had zero issues ever on a single 5870.

I will run the beta on a single stock 6970 to see how it does. I can't try eyefinity(atleast till the weekend) because the switch the 6970 meant I had to order another active dp adapter, my 2 are DP and the 6970 has mini-dp

new graphics, big whoop? might as well be new skins for all that adds to the game.

we've got tons of threads about how graphics don't make a game good. if its going to be the same gameplay as every other bf game, then i'm not interested.

you are correct, and everyone knows the gameplay is going to be similar to bf2/bc2

that makes you a troll :p

along with calling frostbite a 'reskin'

new physics, realistic animations to tell you what other players are really doing so you can react better, and destruction
 
Last edited:

Dankk

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2008
5,558
25
91
1) I'll believe when I see it ( gameplay videos from real people, not marketing).

There are hundreds of videos on Youtube from people playing the alpha. Granted, it's the alpha, so you're seeing unfinished graphics, but it will give you a good idea.

2) What kind of PC do you need to make it look like that? Is this going to be Crysis all over again where no one can make it look like the actual videos from the advertising?

You need a good PC, no doubt. They announced both the minimum and recommended system requirements just a few days ago. It will not, however, be another Crysis. Cryengine 2, IMO, was an extremely unoptimized engine at the time of release. Seeing as Dice's Frostbite engine performed considerably well at the release of BC2, it's safe to say that Frostbite 2.0 will perform similarly well next month.

Shrugging it off by saying "Oh, but no one can run that, right?" is not a valid reason to dismiss Battlefield 3's prowess. It's a pretty big technical achievement. I don't think anyone can deny that.

Graphics-circlejerking aside, I think it's fairly well-understood now that Battlefield's is far more technically advanced than Call of Duty; understandably so, seeing as CoD caters more to the console crowd, and BF is largely more popular on the PC. DICE can afford to make a prettier game for PC because that's where their market is.
 

Dankk

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2008
5,558
25
91
I couldn't find it earlier, but here's the E3 trailer that showed off the features of Frostbite 2.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pNOxynC1Dc

Like Pontifex, I too am always skeptical of marketing videos (I work in marketing for a software company myself, so I'm not unfamiliar with it). When they say "This is all in-game footage", it's obviously not in-game; rather, I think what they mean is "in-engine". Regardless, yes, it's still very pretty. And especially knowing what the original Frostbite engine was capable of, the graphics shown in Frostbite 2.0 are totally believable.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,537
2,829
136
you must be running out of tissues


I'm waiting for your next great one liner after calling it 'just a reskin'


we will get a much better idea of the performance this week, I had zero issues ever on a single 5870.

I will run the beta on a single stock 6970 to see how it does. I can't try eyefinity(atleast till the weekend) because the switch the 6970 meant I had to order another active dp adapter, my 2 are DP and the 6970 has mini-dp



you are correct, and everyone knows the gameplay is going to be similar to bf2/bc2

that makes you a troll :p

along with calling frostbite a 'reskin'

new physics, realistic animations to tell you what other players are really doing so you can react better, and destruction
What resolution is your eyefinity setup? I'm wondering if a single 6970 would be enough to drive a 2560x1600 monitor in this game. I doubt it.
 

MrX8503

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2005
4,529
0
0
1) I'll believe when I see it ( gameplay videos from real people, not marketing).
2) What kind of PC do you need to make it look like that? Is this going to be Crysis all over again where no one can make it look like the actual videos from the advertising?

Dude, seriously quit your crying and making up excuses. BF3 is going to require some horsepower, but not nearly as much as Crysis. BF3 makes MW3 look like a tonka toy by comparison, so your excuse of needing a powerful rig is lame.

MW3 is gonna sell more than BF3 no doubt, but on a technical standpoint BF3 is superior. Gameplay wise, that's all preference. I'll be enjoying BF3 when it releases regardless of what people prefer.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
46
91
Dude, seriously quit your crying and making up excuses. BF3 is going to require some horsepower, but not nearly as much as Crysis. BF3 makes MW3 look like a tonka toy by comparison, so your excuse of needing a powerful rig is lame.

MW3 is gonna sell more than BF3 no doubt, but on a technical standpoint BF3 is superior. Gameplay wise, that's all preference. I'll be enjoying BF3 when it releases regardless of what people prefer.

Now this is hilarious. I'm just making a comment that seems reasonable enough for any rational person to make about any game that supposedly looks that good. Whats am I making up excuses or crying about now?
I wasn't bashing it any way.

But then again leave it up to the fanboys to start crying because I say something that doesn't make their game shine like the light of god.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
46
91
There are hundreds of videos on Youtube from people playing the alpha. Granted, it's the alpha, so you're seeing unfinished graphics, but it will give you a good idea.



You need a good PC, no doubt. They announced both the minimum and recommended system requirements just a few days ago. It will not, however, be another Crysis. Cryengine 2, IMO, was an extremely unoptimized engine at the time of release. Seeing as Dice's Frostbite engine performed considerably well at the release of BC2, it's safe to say that Frostbite 2.0 will perform similarly well next month.

Shrugging it off by saying "Oh, but no one can run that, right?" is not a valid reason to dismiss Battlefield 3's prowess. It's a pretty big technical achievement. I don't think anyone can deny that.

Graphics-circlejerking aside, I think it's fairly well-understood now that Battlefield's is far more technically advanced than Call of Duty; understandably so, seeing as CoD caters more to the console crowd, and BF is largely more popular on the PC. DICE can afford to make a prettier game for PC because that's where their market is.

I never said anything bad about the graphics of BF3. I never denied that BF3s engine/graphics is more advanced than MW3. Where this is coming from is beyond me and only proves my point that you guys are just trolling.

One thing that's funny is that BF3 is "made for the PC because that's where their market is" but the PS3 gets the extras first.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
definitely BF3. Cod4 and on is just terrible multiplayer. Crap spawnpoints, poor level design (way too open), just a spamfest in general.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
46
91
definitely BF3. Cod4 and on is just terrible multiplayer. Crap spawnpoints, poor level design (way too open), just a spamfest in general.


*Hmmm...maybe i can play the BF fanboy game and say the following:

Definitely MW3, BF2 and on is just terrible multiplayer. Crap spawnpoints 10 miles from the action, poor level design, (way too open), just a sniperfest in general.


So lets break it down like you guys did for me.

Crap spawnpoints - learn to play noob

Poor level design (way too open) - well you just have to go from cover to cover, you have to use tactics, don't just run out into the open. Use buildings and cover to your advantage.

Just a spamfest in general - learn to play the game, get in a good server with good people. Use cover to prevent from getting hit.



*this post is not directed at soccerballtux, just a general comment.
 

Dankk

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2008
5,558
25
91
BF3 is going to require some horsepower, but not nearly as much as Crysis.

I'm pretty sure that's not true (Crysis is a 4-year-old game now, and several games have surpassed it in terms of system reqs). That sentence should probably be reworded as: "BF3 will be very hard to run, but not as hard to run as Crysis was when it was released." :)

That's what I was trying to say when I was comparing it to Crysis earlier. Yes, BF3 is better looking than Crysis. No, it won't be ridiculously demanding like Crysis was for many people back in 2007.
 

MrX8503

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2005
4,529
0
0
Now this is hilarious. I'm just making a comment that seems reasonable enough for any rational person to make about any game that supposedly looks that good. Whats am I making up excuses or crying about now?
I wasn't bashing it any way.

But then again leave it up to the fanboys to start crying because I say something that doesn't make their game shine like the light of god.

Because you're nit picking at to just pick. That I find hilarious. BF3 is technologically more advance, period.

EA/DICE doesn't have magical powers to make a more advance game run on inferior hardware.


That's what I was trying to say when I was comparing it to Crysis earlier. Yes, BF3 is better looking than Crysis. No, it won't be ridiculously demanding like Crysis was for many people back in 2007.

Agreed
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
46
91
Because you're nit picking at to just pick. That I find hilarious. BF3 is technologically more advance, period.

EA/DICE doesn't have magical powers to make a more advance game run on inferior hardware.




Agreed

Not even sure what the bolded means.

So if someone else had asked the question you would have trolled them just as hard? Based on my experiences, I guess the answer is yes.

I wasn't nitpicking at all. It's a legitimate question I would ask of any game that graphically looks that good.