• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mw3 and bf3

justin4pack

justin4pack

Senior member
Hi guys so i have been playing bf3 and love the game. I also love mw games such as black ops and i also own mw2. my question is not which is better but is mw3 worth getting?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
 
most fun i had with mw3 is the co-op spec ops survival mode. single player didn't leave me wanting more like previous iterations. and multiplayer is multiplayer. not much changed.
 
Are there still people playing MW2? Only reason I ask is because I am debating between BF3 and MW3. I don't really want anything to do with EA's origin crapola so I'm leaning heavily toward MW3 but if MW2 still has a thriving community then I just might get that instead.
 
Last edited:
I was doing the same but i am so.glad i chose bf3. i have no issues with origin. I dont even notice it running. Bf3 has alot to offer. Plus graphicley i dont anything compares. It is intence when in city maps and wide spread grassland. U must work as a squad. team based play is so much fun. So mich stuff o unlock and its never boring. I dont play mw2 anymore so i dont know about that. Bfbc2 still has alot of people that play.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
 
NoSoup4You said:
If you love Black Ops then MW3 is worth getting.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I love Black Ops and detest MW3. It's a horrible, horrible game or better said in the earlier post a MW2 expansion pack, yet manages to play worse on every level. Waste of $60, even at half that.
 
MW3 has many faults not present in MW2. The worst of which is the lag compensation. Basically you are rewarded for having a poor inet connection. If you are host, you get screwed the most. This isn't the case in MW2.

The MW2 community is now mainly quickscopers and SPAS users that cannot let go. At least that's been my experience.

MW3 is still chalk full of campers, perhaps even worse than BLOPS, difficult to say. The maps in MW3 are cluttered with junk on the ground. This causes your character to get stuck on things constantly, trust me it is annoying. There are several guns that are OP'd, as usual with the CoD series.

The introduction of killstreak packages are nice, but they do get old quickly. Eventually you'll find yourself using the specialist streaks (gives you more perks), only because it speeds up gameplay.

The maps in BF3 are designed much better and look much better graphically. I find the assortment of guns nicer, plus you can customize you "class" mid game if you aren't satisfied. I haven't played BF3 as long as MW3 but I find it funner.

In short.
LAG: none in BF3 (dedicated servers), lots in MW3
GUNS: many are OP'd in MW3, small selection in MW3, most cannot compete in MW3, BF3 has a nice selection, sniping is tough in BF3 (IMO)
MAPS: BF3 has large maps, but you can select your spawn point each life which maps traversing the map easier, MW3 is very close combat, not many sniping areas (for true shots)

tldr version:
depends on your gun type you enjoy and play style. BF3 is more realistic whereas MW3 is more arcade style. Lag is bad currently in MW3. Maps in MW3 are poorly designed.
 
I think it's worth it. Even more so if you have a bunch of friends to play with. Only question is whether or not you'll actually have time to play it.

I wouldn't call BF3 more realistic. They're both arcadey shooters. The problem with BF3 is the game almost forces you to use Engineer because of the vehicle spam. On some maps you can run around as support to C4 tanks but if you're trying to man your own vehicles you'll be way underpowered. The Back to Karkand maps feel like this.

Both games have a large amount of campers. To me it makes sense on certain objective based maps. I really don't understand why there are BF3 players that don't know how to defend an objective. They love to run back and forth between uncapped points when their strategy should be defend points if they have more than the other team. You get defend points also, which should be good for the points whores.

MW3 campers can be worse because they build up their kill streaks, which gives them ridiculous ratios. Feels kind of lame to me but holding (camping) key areas is a legit strat in FPS games now. If you look it up on youtube there's a popular video of of Fatal1ty playing a pub of Quake Live and he basically holds an armor room the whole game. Watch any his top matches and generally the idea is to hold certain areas especially armor power ups. That dude's as pro as it gets, although he's probably hurting for cash at this point.
 
I spend all of 3 seconds in Origin to launch the web browser interface.

Not that either Origin or Battlelog are really amazing, however given that I spend all of .01% of my time focused around BF3 interacting with those two things they have very little weight in terms of overall factors.

Origin is just a launcher, same as clicking a desktop icon, only it takes an extra two clicks.

Battlelog is ok, it's not groundbreaking but it is smoother than BFBC2's IG interface. I don't get BS long waits on timeouts for full servers, and I have access to a lot more information and friends than what was available to me with BFBC2. Actually now that I think about it, Battlelog is a large improvement over what was seen in BFBC2, the only thing that would make it better was if it was based IG.
 
MW3 is exactly the same as MW2 but with different maps. So if you love MW2 but are tired of the same maps, you might want to get MW3. If you want a different experience or you don't care about playing on the same maps, then don't get MW3.
 
AstroManLuca said:
MW3 is exactly the same as MW2 but with different maps. So if you love MW2 but are tired of the same maps, you might want to get MW3. If you want a different experience or you don't care about playing on the same maps, then don't get MW3.
Click to expand...

MW2 did not have the ''lag compensation'' feature in it; whereas MW3 does.

M0oG0oGaiPan said:
I wouldn't call BF3 more realistic. They're both arcadey shooters. The problem with BF3 is the game almost forces you to use Engineer because of the vehicle spam.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to how you define realistic I suppose. Also playstyle plays a big role in how you play BF3, moreso than MW3 I find. I play as a support character most often. I have minimal problems sneaking up to tanks to plant my C4 and getting rid of them.
 
J-Money said:
Put incredibly simply:

Like vehicles / spread out maps? BF3
Like infantry / close combat? MW3/BF3
Click to expand...

Fixed. BF3 has infantry fights that are fantastic like MW3's.

I'd get BF3, MW3 will be nothing new. BF3 will entertain you for tons of hours on end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top