I have picked on and fragged Modern Warfare.  I tip my hat on it sales and own MW2 and Black Ops still (and doubt I will get rid of them).  However, I see that Battlefield 3 is coming, and the only impression I am getting is that it does what Call of Duty does, but is trying to do it better.  Maybe a better game engine, drive vehicles, and blowing stuff up more.  The single player possibly can stand to be better to.  Beyond that though, is it going to try to do anything new, or is it trying to do what Call of Duty does, just better? 

I guess, in short, will there be any reason for anyone to own both MW3 and Battlefield 3?

Oh so cod has 100% destruction, tanks, cars, apv, jets,g various boats, helicopters, etc, .... everything any cod has was on battlefield 2. Bf3 will have better multiplayer plus all the other things that bf has always done better like squads vehicles and now realism in destruction.

Only thing cod ever did first and so far better was the transition to consoles

If BattleField3 does not have local multiplayer then I might have to pass. I'm passing on MW3 unless I play it and like it. But I don't thin MW3 can possibly be any better then the first MW. MW2 is alright but lacked co-op campaign a major feature I loved of CoD4. If BattleField3 lacks local multiplayer or co-op campaign then I probably won't buy it.

Though I did buy Medal Of Honour and that lacked local. I guess it'll all depend on how much money I have and wether I am willing to spend it on a product that doesn't meet my standards. BattleField 3 looks amazing but MW3 has local multiplayer. If EA enabled more of their games with local multiplayer I would buy way more of their games.

Lack of local multiplayer and co-op are big issues for me!

Their is no reason to own MW3 just to own BF3. Buy quality game instead.

I totally agree. I wish every shooter had split screen (and 4 player split at that) but at least 2 player.

no local multi-player equals no buy for me. BF3 could seriously use the addition of online splitscreen options.

I am definitely intrigued by the game and will definitely rent it for PS3, but the console version appears too much like Bad Company 2 for my taste. Bad Company 2 was a decent game, but I didn't really like the online progression system, the lack of game-mode variety, the lack of free-for-all, the hit detection, and the slow game pace.

I prefer faster paced games like Halo and CoD.

If your really into Cod, you probably wont like Battlefield better. (from a multi perspective, and i am baseing BF3 from bad company 2) Battlefield to me is more like a simulator so if your into that then you'll love it. Cod is more like an action movie, arcadey type. Battlefield is going to have much larger maps, vehicles, and destruction where as Cod is going to be smaller with only foot combat (besides killstreaks). Battlefield 2 to me has a lot of running around trying to find people because the maps are so large so it has some boring moments and Cod usually has more action a lot of close combat. But hands down Battlefield beats it as a sim, from bullet drop, destruction, vehicles ( i mean come on i can strap c4 to a chopper and fly it into the enemy base and blow it up, thats just to fun). Battlefield is less about leaderboards to me and teams. Just from my impression, its hard to see your stats and others at the end of games almost like it doesnt matter.

As far as story goes.... Battlefield hands down. Cod is the biggest trash each and every time there, repetative, boring, over the top, horrible Ai. Just why bother.

If there is no reason to own MW3, that still doesn't mean there is a reason to own BF3.  For simple FPS action, with a group of people together, I have Black Ops (bots, Dead Ops arcade, Zombies) and also MW2 (for the Spec Ops mode).  I see MW3 offers its own version of the hoard mode, and if it also supports 4 player split screen and hoard mode, then it is worth considering for me.

So, I am not interested in a Call of Duty replacement, unless it does every single thing I have now (I doubt BF3 does), but provides a justifiable reason to get it.  And that is the heart of the matter.  What is BF3 bringing to the table, that justifies it being owned by me on its own merits? 

Buy Bad Company 2, or Bad Company 1 (will be hard to find full, quality games at this point though) to find out for yourself.

I think you're looking too broadly. When you say "FPS action, with a group of people together" you should not buy any other game than Modern Warfare.

The way you should be thinking though, is what TYPE of FPS action does Battlefield offer?

1) Destruction and open maps.

Oh how I fucking loathe Killzone 3 right now. If it's anything similar to Call of Duty, I hate the FPS mostly then. It's just a fucking mind numbing experience that you only have a few chokepoints in the map, with no way to flank the enemy. Games like Killzone 3 end up degenerating into an almost WWI like camping fest, that rewards defense and punishes offense. With high splash damage weapons too, this results in an absolutely infuriating experience.

Take Battlefield now. You have open maps, usually with a diversity of terrain. You can be running through a field with a few hay stacks and barns for cover first, then go up and down a hill, and enter into an urban area where every building can contain an enemy. Combined with lower damage/higher hitpoints (although Bad Company 2 took a wrong step with magnum ammo [sort of like a perk that raises bullet damage] and the general decerase in HP)  this allows offensive people to quickly run to cover as soon as they're shot.

And here's the beauty. So, say you're a defender shooting down an attacker, and the attacker now takes cover behind a wall. Both the attacker and the defender now have the ability to shoot a grenade launcher or rocket, and to destroy each other's cover. If both players are experienced, then both begin to move from their cover in anticipation of it, and try to out maneuver each other. No stalemate.

One last example. There's a game mode that was introduced in Bad Company called Rush. It's essentially a destroy the objective mode. Now, in a game like Killzone (the first one. Second one prevents this a bit with the tactician spawn and removal of the spawn grenade), the defenders will just cover all the hallways, stay inside the room with the objective and defend. In Battlefield, instead of running through the alleyway towards the objective, you can literally enter into a building, pop open a grenade, and start making hole after hole,  and make a path to the objective that way.

(Start at 1:15)

2) Vehicles

Again, this adds diversity to tactics. If Battlefield 3 gets it right, there will be a balance between vehicles and infantry, where both preform a support role for each other. Vehicles are supposed to aid attackers break through a line of defense (and defenders get some vehicles to counter this as well). You have heavy tanks that can act as a first line of offense. They can literally ram themselves through a wall, fire a smoke grenade, and provide cover as infantry runs behind them. They also are supposed to engage enemy heavy tanks, in conjunction with anti-tank infantry.

You have light tanks that are more maneuverable than heavy tanks. They can go around and flank heavy enemy tanks. Depending on the skill of each respective driver, a light tank can even take out a heavy tank with its higher rate of fire and speed. In short, I like to think of light tanks as calvary, engaging from the side. They're also a great support for infantry, since they can blow down a lot of cover with their faster cannon.

You have choppers as well, which (at least in Bad Company 1, they REALLY screwed up in Bad Company 2) which can be a powerful tool, if properly supported. They are a lot more delicate than tanks, and if they engage a group of enemies alone, they will get shot down (that is, when Bad Company 1 allowed small arms to damage choppers, and didn't allow the crazy maneuevering Bad Company 2 introduced). However, when a chopper attacks with tanks and infantry, the enemy can't afford turn their heads up, and the chopper can absolutely rein terror from above.

Jets, I can't commment on since I only played console Battlefields. KylieDog did say they were overpowered in BF2. Hopefully this won't be the case.

Yeah, this is ending up becoming a wall of text, so I'll stop XD

i like that it has multiple animations something that alot of FPS to this day dont have, the games that dont have animations feel like a hand holding a gun just floating around in mid air

it doesnt do what COD already does though which kinda sucks b/c you'll still have to result to COD or something else for things like zombie/survival mode, spec ops and arcady fast pace MP if your into that sort of gameplay

i think its campaign will also have a more serious mature themed feeling to it as well