COD: MW3

I liked the video you posted though. It reminded me of real life + the music, because that song was always used. (But come on, there aren't many better songs for watching ***blow up and die)

So... should i get MW3, BF3 or just wait for Skyrim?

I can only afford 1! :P

Xbox? or PC? (PC - i have Cuda GFXCard Nvidia gforce - around 2 years old by now )

if you can only afford 1? Skyrim. I'm not biased to either BF or CoD series, but.. Skyrim for the win.

Always go PC!

I'm just not feeling it. I can put half a clip in someone for them to turn around and instantly drop me through cover. Getting rather annoying. Again, I am not saying this is my final opinion. I've already had some 25kill <10death matches too, so I'm more than likely crying wolf. I'll continue to give it a look before making my call, but thus far, I felt as though BO was much more fluid and balanced in firing rate and damage reception.

Even with my graphic card spec?

Depends on what kind of gamer you are. I really don't like playing multiplayer (Despite playing Gears3 long enough to get the Embry Star medal) so I'm always going to say Skyrim or, anything really other than Online-focus shooters.


If you seek instant gratification, I'd probably go with MW3.

If you're patient, and don't mind putting more in, for a bigger payoff, then Skyrim.

If you like team games, or just trolling Jet Campers, get BF3.

If you feel as though your PC won't handle the game, do Skyrim on the PS3, but yes, from the looks of it do Skyrim first. A shooter will not warrant the same journey that epic game will.

Especially not a $60 map pack with a few patches to perks and equipment. Skyrim is an overall better experience.

Thanks guys! We'll see what i get.

I'm trading in MW2, blackops and my DSi with some games. So, I was debating on what to spend my money on, who knows... maybe i'll just do a 3DS with Mario Land haha.

Thanks for the feedback though.

From what I've been reading:
MW3 does seem like a huge map pack.
BF seems like the multi-player ins't that much fun.
Skyrim seems like god for single player.

3DS seems like fun all around! :) 3DS may end up winning here lol

BF3 is fun, but you can look at my game history and see for yourself that epic playing/skills doesn't mean anything in terms of actually winning lol. It is a real team effort. That's the most frustrating part is bad teammates

BF3 multiplayer is quite fun. People just don't understand the game or aren't mature enough gamers to handle it. I like working as a team because honestly I got bored of the whole lone wolf thing when I played Halo. I'll have to admit I was rather annoyed with BF3 at first because of my habit of running and gunning, but once I got adjusted to BF3's gameplay, I'm enjoying it very much.

So far, in my 4 hours of gameplay, MW3 plays radically different than MW2 and Black Ops. To say its a $60 dollar map pack is ignorance at its finest. Other than the well known fact that its the same game engine, the perks and killstreaks have been severely overhauled.
Standard example - Black Ops popular perk setup:
Perk 1 - Ghost Pro
Perk 2 - Sleight of Hand Pro
Perk 3 - Hacker Pro/Second Chance Pro

This setup is impossible in MW3, you can't even come close to it. If you want the equivalent of Ghost Pro, you have to go with
Perk 1 - Blind Eye Pro (immune to air support and sentries)
Perk 2 - Assassin Pro (immune to UAV, thermal, portable radar, heartbeat)
Perk 3 - No second chance/last stand at all, Hacker Pro.

That setup completely sacrifices Sleight of Hand Pro, and if you don't think thats a big deal, then you aren't a CoD vet, in fact you have very little understanding of the game. To continue, if you want to have Sleight of Hand Pro, then you have to go with this (take note of perk 2):
Perk 1 - Sleight of Hand Pro - (Fast reload, fast weapon swap)
Perk 2 - Quickdraw Pro (Faster Aiming, faster recovery from nade/equipment use)
Perk 3 - Steady Aim/Hacker

As you can see, they split Sleight of Hand into 2 different perks, and again, if you don't think faster aiming is a big deal, then you have little understanding of the game. This setup sacrifices all types of Ghost/Flak Jacket/Hardline/Overkill.

Clearly, Activision was aiming for better game balance when they split/removed a lot of common perks. This post is long enough I will explain the killstreak overhaul (which is radical) and weapon proficiency (and its radical impact) later.

So, it's a map pack that came with a few different things. I guess you're right. We should call it an expansion pack since it came with more than just maps.

When I first got bf3 I had the COD mentality... I did play blackops into the ground (begrudgingly). I literally was really really bad at the game.... We won't discuss my first few runs in a helicopter or jet... Epic laughs to be had. But when learning the objectives and gameplay I realized the strategy and teamwork behind the scores...

You can play the objectives and teamwork... Have 0 kills and 20 deaths but still make MVP in bf3... But its major major work...

Despite rehashing worse than an abyssea zone in ffxi.. ill never actually hate COD.. I just wish they moved on with innovation instead of tweaking existing content on the same engine... It's just... Lazy...

prime example of ignorance at its finest


Indeed

I don't feel as if tweaks to perks and rearanging for balance... As well as adding a game mode (kill confirmed) warrants 60$+, 50$ membership, and going haywire for mountain dew and Doritos for xp bonuses.....

To their credit 16 maps is nice.. but the only new content which explains map pack jokes...

Just being black and white about it.

...it literally is just an expansion pack with extra maps and patches to the online play with a 4-5 hour campaign tacked on.

Saying it's anything else is ignorance at its finest.

BF MP isn't fun if you don't have the right mindset.. There's basically a split down the middle between FPS gamers and their play styles, CoD fills one of those sets, and BF fills the other.

Battlefield can be very intense, but it's dependent on the team working as a whole, I don't mean this in a derogatory sense, but if you have a bunch of CoD type players on one team and a bunch of BF veterans on the other, there's literally 0 doubt as to who will win the match.

CoD is for people who just wanna turn the game on and start shooting people. If you prefer to just go alone and rack up the most kills, then CoD is probably your game.

When it comes to gaming, I'm definitely an FPS fan, I pre-ordered BF3.. Unless I just had money to throw away, I wouldn't buy an RPG. I very rarely end up replaying them, so I get one solid play through and it sits in my crate with all my old games. FPS however, I get a lot more use out of.. I'll spend literally hundreds of hours on the same FPS assuming it's decent/good..

So, anyone here play Hardcore SnD much on 360? Looking to get a group of people to do it regularly with.

Gamertag is Excalibur M6

Was looking up gameplay vids to see how MW3 looked and came across this:

I thought it was a deliberate tribute personally; the game is the final one of the trilogy of the Modern Warfare games and the campaign makes many references to previous games throughout.

Just went through the first couple of pages of reviews posted on the site and only saw battlefield even mentioned in about 15 posts. Seems as though anything negative that is posted about the game is met with the immediate assumption of "They're a BFtard. No one can possibly dislike this game and not be one"

It's been said a million times guys. They're two different styled shooters. One is for more slightly faster paced, arcade styled gameplay depending on the situation and the other is more realistic (as realistic as you can be without making the game unplayable) team / objective based with larger maps and vehicles. I've played both games and enjoy both series for what they have to offer, but I still do enjoy Battlefield slightly more. I'll play both regardless, but mostly only due to friends wanting to play one more than the other currently.

(i also lol at both the BF3 SP comment and the "they didn't change anything worth mentioning." what a low tier player)



Just from the first few PC reviews.

Who cares about originality and innovation? If something is solid it does not require changes. If you completely revamped the formula, you may well come out with something worse.

Battlefield 3 retards are slamming the game hard and it's annoying because it makes the game look far worse than it is. Truly pathetic vermin.

There's fans like that on both ends of the spectrum that will criticize a "rival" series for the sake of criticizing no matter how small/large the discrepancy is. It's not only on one side. Up to Battlefield's release there was the same crap from - what I can only assume (two can play at that game lol)were - CoD fans on youtube videos and similar gaming websites.

Sadly some of the things mentioned in the quotes you included were actually valid points for comparing the two or disliking the game altogether.

I have played about 5 games of MW3 at this point.

Anyone that says anything negative about it has not played the game. Simple as that. This is by far the most fun I've had in any video game.

Go and look at Battlefield 3 reviews and see whether there is such a backlash. The Battlefield 3 community is HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.

A lot of what I quoted basically boils down to "this isn't BF3 waaaaaaaah". If I posted something which basically suggested BF3 sucked because it wasn't Doom, would people consider it an unfair/biased review?

EDIT: and I still don't see why people are complaining that it wasn't entirely new. How many people who played MW2 wanted something completely new? Most would agree that it was close to the perfect multiplayer experience if only you removed most of the BS... and so ... !

It's a decent game overall, but I still feel like it's a step back from BO personally. I've played the game, so your point is invalid. People have differing opinions get used to it

To make my point more succinctly; to go into a situation expecting x to be y suggests bias towards x.

If I said "Battlefield 3 is a terrible game because you can't carry eight weapons at once and so the series hasn't truly innovated. The game's environments are far too large and should be confined to corridors and there shouldn't be vehicle combat" then you would quite rightly tell me that was an unfair and biased review.

You can argue things like vehicles would improve CoD and this is then a deficiency compared to BF3, but you would then have to justify why it would be good in CoD (and personally I don't think they would be); basically, unless you are comparing games which are explicitly meant to be extremely similar (direct sequels for instance), you are doing an injustice by doing so.

And yes, you can say that MW3 doesn't change much graphically from MW2... but you would be doing the game a disservice for saying they are similar. It is simply a surface similarity, with underlying mechanics much changed.

Also, no change also means no negative change.

Really? You thought Mw2 was a perfect multiplayer experience?? Yeah I'm done here lol

Differing opinions is fine. Sending hordes of retards to bomb reviews because of these opinions where their only defence is THIS ISN'T BF3 HERP DERP is ridiculous.