By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 22 July 2011
Edit Thread
RaptorGTA said:
richardhutnik said:
oldschoolfool said:

I've played both games and they are completly different. Stop being so cynical.

Until I see a justifiable reason to own both, presented by individuals, upon what basis can one say they are "completely different".  Street Fighter 4, Gran Turismo 5 and Call of Duty are COMPLETELY different.  But Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3?  Care to explain why anyone should own both Battlefiend 3 and Modern Warfare 3?

Sorry, I can't tell them apart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUenaveVupc


Battlefield: Larger map and player count. Vehicles like tanks and aircrafts. Emphasis on team work rather then K/D ratio to win the game.

COD: Ramo style warfare. Fast reflex shooter. Yes there are obective base modes but Killstreaks can over come lack of teamwork and communication. Emphasis on individual player skill.

 

BF 3 will have a team death match with no vehicles which will be use to try and pull in COD players. Not sure how well that will work out. As to a reason to own both. Meh, Both offer a different type of gameplay for a online FPS. Ive owned both Black ops and Bad company 2 and my friends will flip flop depending on what mood we feel like.  No reason a person can own both if their into both style of gameplay.

My response was to the comment that they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  I won't argue that they aren't different, to some degree, but COMPLETELY diffferent?  Considering that BF3 is being pitched around the interwebnets as something you get instead of MW3, I didn't see how anyone can say they are different.  It sounds like they are similar.  For myself, only way I would consider BF3 is if it had split-screen multiplayer.  MW2 and Black Ops have different modes, so I have both, and MW3 looks like it adds a hoard mode also.  I don't play online with strangers, so if I have one I would consider it.  Heck, I still may not even get MW3.