Thinking of switching to MW3 from BF3

[silvan4now]

well here and this is a personal opinion BF3 is much better. have them both for my brother and from what i played i love much more the multi feeling in BF3

 

[pontifex]

hay gaiz! activsions just relees nuz dat day plan 2 mayk da nex cawa doody gaym 4 dis yeer!

itz tym 2 bash it nao!

 

[MrDuma]

well here and this is a personal opinion BF3 is much better. have them both for my brother and from what i played i love much more the multi feeling in BF3

+1 for BF against any other modern shooter

 

[obidamnkenobi]

neither. Red Orchestra 2

 

[leeland]

neither. Red Orchestra 2

do people even play this anymore? I bought it right when it was released and it was buggier than hell...stopped playing for BF3...and now don't play either because I just couldn't get into it which is sad because I played the hell out of BF2...

Did they ever get VoIP going on BF3 (still the biggest F'up in the game).

 

[GoStumpy]

I loaded up MW3 on my spare computer, and was surprised that it is fully playable on even very low-end hardware!

Celeron G530, GT220 GPU, 1280x1024 res, and it runs on low just fine... Surprised me! CPU & GPU are both 60-80% usage as well

Still can't bring myself to play more than 1 game in a row :\

 

[VulgarDisplay]

neither. Red Orchestra 2

I really think RO2 was a better game than BF3 and MW3, but no one plays it now.

Felt like a true PC game.

 

[NoSoup4You]

Really enjoying the 48 player servers lately, though it feels like the game runs slower since the latest client update a few weeks ago...

 

[Bman123]

It really sucks when it comes to FPS games on pc because most people are so damn die hard on one or the other. I have always played COD and tried out BF BC2 last year. The game play was too slow for my liking so I just stuck with COD.

I play MW3 every day and I really enjoy the game. People complain about this and that with it all the time and i find the shit hilarious. Either adapt to how the people are playing that round or go play a different game

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

It really sucks when it comes to FPS games on pc because most people are so damn die hard on one or the other. I have always played COD and tried out BF BC2 last year. The game play was too slow for my liking so I just stuck with COD.

I play MW3 every day and I really enjoy the game. People complain about this and that with it all the time and i find the shit hilarious. Either adapt to how the people are playing that round or go play a different game

I don't know what the MW3 complaints are, but the BF3 complaints are about what we find to be fun. They are NOT about getting killed and sucking. I do about as well in both BF3 and BF2, but in BF3, even when winning, even when absolutely destroying the opponent, it's not fun.

So in my mind, while you CAN adapt to an enemy's tactics to find ways to beat him, if you are already beating him and it's just not fun, you can't adapt to force yourself to find it fun.

 

[DeadFred]

hay gaiz! activsions just relees nuz dat day plan 2 mayk da nex cawa doody gaym 4 dis yeer!

itz tym 2 bash it nao!

http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/10/next-...lutionize-the-franchise-activision-exec-says/

I wont bash it until I know more about it. I really hope it will be as revolutionary as that Activision exec. claims it will be, but if it requires IWNET.............................let the trashing begin

 

[pontifex]

http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/10/next-...lutionize-the-franchise-activision-exec-says/

I wont bash it until I know more about it. I really hope it will be as revolutionary as that Activision exec. claims it will be, but if it requires IWNET.............................let the trashing begin

come on now, you're being extremely unreasonable. It's CoD, you have to bash it no matter what. Or least that seems to be the general consensus on this forum.

 

[CookKel]

I have spent 50+ hours playing both games. They both require different styles of play and feel very different. However you can't go wrong either way.

 

[astrosfan315]

I remember all of the complaining when BF2142 came out. Now we miss it..lol. BF3 is not perfect, and can be annoying at times, but I still enjoy it. I have never really thought about the comparison of squad leader spawning in the old games and the spawn on anyone of BF3. Very good point. I thought the spawn beacon in 2142 was an improvement and made for some great gameplay. I do miss the breakout of the medic/assault and engineer/at classes the most....at least at this juncture.

 

[Zargon]

I don't know what the MW3 complaints are, but the BF3 complaints are about what we find to be fun. They are NOT about getting killed and sucking. I do about as well in both BF3 and BF2, but in BF3, even when winning, even when absolutely destroying the opponent, it's not fun.

So in my mind, while you CAN adapt to an enemy's tactics to find ways to beat him, if you are already beating him and it's just not fun, you can't adapt to force yourself to find it fun.

guns in BF 2 where innaccurate POS's. it took LESS hits to kill but still took longer since nothing but snipers shot straight

if you want that crap fine, but dont drag the rest of us into, infantry combatwas more luck than anything else in BF2


I pretty much quit COD after black ops. I play specs ops MW3 but last time I checked into MP the lag comp was so atrocious I had to quit

I really think RO2 was a better game than BF3 and MW3, but no one plays it now.

Felt like a true PC game.

problem was it was broke as hell at launch and most people moved on before it was fixed...

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

guns in BF 2 where innaccurate POS's. it took LESS hits to kill but still took longer since nothing but snipers shot straight

if you want that crap fine, but dont drag the rest of us into, infantry combatwas more luck than anything else in BF2

Infantry combat was not more luck. BF2's system does NOT create a system where "Mr. Noob" can beat "Mr. Pro". In fact, BF3's system does that because even a noob can spray and pray and get the kill.

WITH THAT SAID - BF2 did go too far with the inaccuracy, but BF3 goes too far in the other direction. But in no way did combat get reduced to luck. The same people who are skilled in BF2 and topped the scoreboard in BF2 top the scoreboard in BF3. It's about game pacing. When you can spray and pray and all your shots hit, things like quality of aim, quality of firing position, things like tactics, become less important and all that matters is how fast you can twitch your aiming sight to the enemy. I thought we had Quake for that.

But I'm no longer interested in BF3 changing to be a true BF game, it should be left as-is and they should do away with the BC or MoH series and make them more like the old true BF games.

 

[Zargon]

Infantry combat was not more luck. BF2's system does NOT create a system where "Mr. Noob" can beat "Mr. Pro". In fact, BF3's system does that because even a noob can spray and pray and get the kill.

WITH THAT SAID - BF2 did go too far with the inaccuracy, but BF3 goes too far in the other direction. But in no way did combat get reduced to luck. The same people who are skilled in BF2 and topped the scoreboard in BF2 top the scoreboard in BF3. It's about game pacing. When you can spray and pray and all your shots hit, things like quality of aim, quality of firing position, things like tactics, become less important and all that matters is how fast you can twitch your aiming sight to the enemy. I thought we had Quake for that.

But I'm no longer interested in BF3 changing to be a true BF game, it should be left as-is and they should do away with the BC or MoH series and make them more like the old true BF games.

Sorry guns that literally don't shoot straight are spray and pray to the core. You can unload and lmg on fullauto vs someone in bf3 and die. Happens all the time. I Still see the same ladder in bf3 that was in bf 2 and bc2. So what does that mean then?


Quality of aim and tactics still win. I have plenty of squad wipes from tactics and assists from playing decoy etc.


Half of these games are who u play with and the server


Not that I am surprised. You had tons of bashing posts in the bc2 thread and here u are hating bf3


Half of that rings true for the mws but its current shit for lag compensation and p2p ruins it. And the lame lame lame perks that did a way better job of keeping the top on top than good vehicles in bf3



sent from my thunderbolt via tapatalk

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Sorry guns that literally don't shoot straight are spray and pray to the core. 1 You can unload and lmg on fullauto vs someone in bf3 and die. Happens all the time. I Still see the same ladder in bf3 that was in bf 2 and bc2. So what does that mean then?


Quality of aim and tactics still win. I have plenty of squad wipes from tactics and assists from playing decoy etc.


Half of these games are who u play with and the server


Not that I am surprised. 2 You had tons of bashing posts in the bc2 thread and here u are hating bf3


3 Half of that rings true for the mws but its current shit for lag compensation and p2p ruins it. And the lame lame lame perks that did a way better job of keeping the top on top than good vehicles in bf3



sent from my thunderbolt via tapatalk

1. It means exactly what I was saying. You unload full auto on someone, they are doing the same, of course you died, because they are able to do it too. In BF2 the winner would have had to single shot unless it was at close range. Remember, it's NOT about me being able to win or not, it's the effective range at which the gunfight is won, regardless of who wins, someone has to win, and the skilled players are still going to top the leaderboard on your server in both games. It's about pacing.
2. BC2 increased effective range, and thus lowered TTK and time between kills (and also through things like 3D spotting which distract people into playing deathmatch-in-conquest instead of playing objectives), BF3 takes this even further, there should therefore be no surprise.
3. I never said MW was better. MW's prone is better, absolutely, other than that, BF3 is BF that has taken a HUGE step towards the MW series. Except with permanent vehicles. Did you actually just praise perks?

And remember. I acknowledged that BF2 took it too far with the inaccuracy and lack of deadliness. BF3 takes it too far with the accuracy, rate of fire, and overall deadliness. An extreme acid is just as corrosive as an extreme alkaline, is that not so? Obviously no game is completely devoid of teamwork and tactics but with BF3, the game is paced fast enough you can go without it and rely on out-twitching the enemy. Obviously DICE thinks so, or they would have a working commo rose, in-game VOIP, and an orders system that lets you order your squad to points other than flags.

 

[Zargon]

I hate perks. I can't reply more on tapatalk after this many beers

sent from my thunderbolt via tapatalk

 

[Zargon]

1. It means exactly what I was saying. You unload full auto on someone, they are doing the same, of course you died, because they are able to do it too. In BF2 the winner would have had to single shot unless it was at close range. Remember, it's NOT about me being able to win or not, it's the effective range at which the gunfight is won, regardless of who wins, someone has to win, and the skilled players are still going to top the leaderboard on your server in both games. It's about pacing.

the winner in BF3 is the guy placing his shots not the one going full auto MOST OF THE TIME. if the first shot is placed well enough it doesnt matter

yes its a little faster paced, due to the smaller map size. guns are more accurate instead of being POS's, but it takes more shots to kill

2. BC2 increased effective range, and thus lowered TTK and time between kills (and also through things like 3D spotting which distract people into playing deathmatch-in-conquest instead of playing objectives), BF3 takes this even further, there should therefore be no surprise.

yes because guns in BF2 were shit, I know BF3 is not a sim, but its more realistic. TTK and TBK is up from guns actually working, and smaller maps. on the bigger maps like karkard, firestorm, kharg, oman, if you dont spawn IN TEH SHIT you can spend minutes getting to the enemy

3. I never said MW was better. MW's prone is better, absolutely, other than that, BF3 is BF that has taken a HUGE step towards the MW series. Except with permanent vehicles. Did you actually just praise perks?

why is the prone better? you dont like the animations?

And remember. I acknowledged that BF2 took it too far with the inaccuracy and lack of deadliness. BF3 takes it too far with the accuracy, rate of fire, and overall deadliness. An extreme acid is just as corrosive as an extreme alkaline, is that not so? Obviously no game is completely devoid of teamwork and tactics but with BF3, the game is paced fast enough you can go without it and rely on out-twitching the enemy. Obviously DICE thinks so, or they would have a working commo rose, in-game VOIP, and an orders system that lets you order your squad to points other than flags.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

the winner in BF3 is the guy placing his shots not the one going full auto MOST OF THE TIME. if the first shot is placed well enough it doesnt matter

yes its a little faster paced, due to the smaller map size. guns are more accurate instead of being POS's, but it takes more shots to kill


yes because guns in BF2 were shit, I know BF3 is not a sim, but its more realistic. TTK and TBK is up from guns actually working, and smaller maps. on the bigger maps like karkard, firestorm, kharg, oman, if you dont spawn IN TEH SHIT you can spend minutes getting to the enemy



why is the prone better? you dont like the animations?

The winner in BF3 is the one who moves his aiming sight onto the enemy faster. Aiming well isn't required, and aiming well means stopping moving, aim down sight, and don't spray full auto(obviously at point blank it's OK, but I'm talking about at medium range and farther). But it's not just about hypothetical gunfight situations where you and your enemy are both like 20m away and see each other at the same moment...it's also about kills in the medium to the lower reaches of long range where you die before you can move because you can spray and still have so many of the bullets land in succession despite the range. And BF3 also has autoreset of recoil from single shot, so you can mash fire as fast as you can to do tapfiring from BC2 as well. No effort required to reset your aim, your rifle resets itself. If you're a few feet away from cover, you should have a greater chance to make it to that cover once you realize someone is firing at you. Like in BF2. And as I say, that's why this should be a middle ground between BF2 and BF3. Much more effective shots than BF2, but ample encouragement not to sit there shooting at people far away, because you know you should really be getting closer to them before firing.

MW3's prone stops dropshooting(which is the specific reason people claim to hate BF3's prone) but it doesn't leave you hanging there vulnerable for what seems like an eternity. You can't dropshoot, but it's over and done with fast and off you go. Last I checked, humans needed to go INTO prone slowly to avoid injury but could hop OUT of prone pretty quickly, and BF3 lets you get into prone faster than out.

 

[Zargon]

The winner in BF3 is the one who moves his aiming sight onto the enemy faster. Aiming well isn't required

simply untrue IMO.

I have been shot first and still won, and I have been on the other end of some great players. where I get the drop but my poor first shot placement dooms me.

esp if I am running with a pistol, get 2-3 shots on target center of mass and BOOM headshoted as the guy acquires me. makes me a sad panda

as for the rest.....if you want a game where infantry isnt deadly from 100M + then I suggest medival warfare

but really, getting the sight onto the target is the name of the game. arguing that it isnt is silly. he who aims and shoots well first usually wins.

MW3's prone stops dropshooting(which is the specific reason people claim to hate BF3's prone) but it doesn't leave you hanging there vulnerable for what seems like an eternity. You can't dropshoot, but it's over and done with fast and off you go. Last I checked, humans needed to go INTO prone slowly to avoid injury but could hop OUT of prone pretty quickly, and BF3 lets you get into prone faster than out.

you really are suggesting you can get out of prone quicker than going prone?

go do a pushup and tell me if it was harder pushing up or getting down...

and you ARE vulnerable laying on the ground.....though the ability to roll would be nice


i havent noticed that you can tapfire, because I am generally in and out of cover when in firefights

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

simply untrue IMO.

I have been shot first and still won, and I have been on the other end of some great players. where I get the drop but my poor first shot placement dooms me.

esp if I am running with a pistol, get 2-3 shots on target center of mass and BOOM headshoted as the guy acquires me. makes me a sad panda

as for the rest.....if you want a game where infantry isnt deadly from 100M + then I suggest medival warfare

but really, getting the sight onto the target is the name of the game. arguing that it isnt is silly. he who aims and shoots well first usually wins.






you really are suggesting you can get out of prone quicker than going prone?

go do a pushup and tell me if it was harder pushing up or getting down...

and you ARE vulnerable laying on the ground.....though the ability to roll would be nice


i havent noticed that you can tapfire, because I am generally in and out of cover when in firefights

Obviously I'm embellishing, it is possible to not get the first shot and still survive, however... wait a minute...who said anything about winning? If you shoot at me from 100m and I'm able to scurry away to cover, and then 30 seconds later one of us tracks the other down at closer range, for my purposes, I consider that a second fight. What I'm talking about here is not really a firefight at a range of 30m or less that has a winner, I'm talking about engagements from greater than that range where enough of the shots should miss that you should have an opportunity to move...returning fire and winning isn't part of my point, it's just surviving.

We already established that this isn't a realism sim otherwise there would be 1 hit kills for all weapons, and since we accept 5 hit kills on average, enough of the shots should miss at 100m that, if you are 5 feet away from cover, you should be able to make it to that cover.

Obviously in BF2, the accuracy was so bad, that you could sprint while being shot at for 50m half the time and survive. I'm not saying it should be that bad. And as you may have noticed, I am indeed talking about medium range and beyond only. Twitch skill SHOULD be the most important at point blank, for obvious reasons.

For prone, BF3 makes you slowly get up to your knee, then slowly stand up from there. And yes, I can get up faster than that. But no, I can't just flop down without busting a gut or smacking elbows/knees. But those are realism arguments anyway, which don't really prove anything about how the game should be. most people just didn't want dropshooting, and so as long as that's stopped, why ask for some animation that's delayed beyond realism?

 

[Zargon]

Obviously I'm embellishing, it is possible to not get the first shot and still survive, however... wait a minute...who said anything about winning? If you shoot at me from 100m and I'm able to scurry away to cover, and then 30 seconds later one of us tracks the other down at closer range, for my purposes, I consider that a second fight. What I'm talking about here is not really a firefight at a range of 30m or less that has a winner, I'm talking about engagements from greater than that range where enough of the shots should miss that you should have an opportunity to move...returning fire and winning isn't part of my point, it's just surviving.

I get shot at moving to an objective and can take cover sometimes, but obviously not all the time.

We already established that this isn't a realism sim otherwise there would be 1 hit kills for all weapons, [/quit]

well yes all headshots would be 1HK but chest wouldnt be, thanks to the 40 lbs of ceramics strapped to your chest

Obviously in BF2, the accuracy was so bad, that you could sprint while being shot at for 50m half the time and survive. I'm not saying it should be that bad. And as you may have noticed, I am indeed talking about medium range and beyond only. Twitch skill SHOULD be the most important at point blank, for obvious reasons.
[/quit]

we differ on what we can short range....with the AR's anything under maybe 125 is short to me.

pdw's......50 handguns 25 maybe? thought even at 15 some handguns are fun to group

For prone, BF3 makes you slowly get up to your knee, then slowly stand up from there. And yes, I can get up faster than that. But no, I can't just flop down without busting a gut or smacking elbows/knees. But those are realism arguments anyway, which don't really prove anything about how the game should be. most people just didn't want dropshooting, and so as long as that's stopped, why ask for some animation that's delayed beyond realism?

yes, but for beyond realism your average GI is hauling 50+ lbs of stuff strapped to his chest plus his weapons and misc gear. but i wont complain if its sped up some.

for italics...if its not grounded in realism its just going to seem stupid ala commando perk in MW2 getting knifed from 20 gt away

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

we differ on what we can short range....with the AR's anything under maybe 125 is short to me.

Well, there is ANOTHER way to handle this too, so that reducing weapon deadliness isn't the only way...increase map size, decrease flag packing, basically, embrace the Fushe Pass style map, and also, have more tree cover like BC2 had- ever notice how BF3 seems to have a lot less trees than some BC2 maps?

Also, abolish 3D spotting. Now we can argue about how it's a great teamwork communication tool, then I'll say "but it's also an aiming aid that shows you where to aim", but let's toss all that out the window. The biggest problem with 3D spotting in BF3 is, arguments of whether it's a noob tool aside, it causes people to be distracted from playing objectives, and to spend their time chasing and firing at spots they couldn't otherwise have seen due to distance or whatever, and if they hadn't seen those spots they would have went after the nearest flag to cap it.

After all, when I play hardcore mode, even though weapons are even deadlier in hardcore, the game's kill pace seems slower. Why would that be, if it isn't because people can't Q spam to spot people they can't otherwise see due to distance?