By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Pushing Battlefield 3 and bashing MW3 makes me want to preorder MW3....

oldschoolfool on 21 July 2011
richardhutnik said:
oldschoolfool said:
richardhutnik said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

watching people pre order a rehash game like MW3 makes me seriously wonder whats wrong with them

How abour preordering a derivative of "a rehash game like MW3" in the name of Battlefield 3?  Yet, this is what is going on over and over and over again.


what are you talking about? the 2 games could'nt be more different.

Couldn't be more different?  If that is the case, then which of these is not a FPS: MW3 or Halo?  Because if they "couldn't be more different" then something like Halo would have to be a completely different genre.  And, if they couldn't be more different, then someone could comfortably own both.  But, you know what, when I see BF3 vs MW3 it is buy on or the other.  BF3 is NEVER shown to be justified as something worth buying under its own merits.  It is supposed to be something that does what MW3 does, but better.  You get BF3 over MW3, it is said.

As for them not being similar, I give you the Crack chart on the state of FPS titles today...

http://www.cracked.com/article_18973_why-modern-war-fps-games-all-look-same-5Bchart5D.html


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



Around the Network
ethomaz on 21 July 2011

No preorder but I will buy MW3 for sure... BF3 is not my kind of game.



oldschoolfool on 21 July 2011
ethomaz said:
No preorder but I will buy MW3 for sure... BF3 is not my kind of game.


Sorry to hear that. lol



richardhutnik on 21 July 2011
oldschoolfool said:
richardhutnik said:
oldschoolfool said:
richardhutnik said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

watching people pre order a rehash game like MW3 makes me seriously wonder whats wrong with them

How abour preordering a derivative of "a rehash game like MW3" in the name of Battlefield 3?  Yet, this is what is going on over and over and over again.


what are you talking about? the 2 games could'nt be more different.

Couldn't be more different?  If that is the case, then which of these is not a FPS: MW3 or Halo?  Because if they "couldn't be more different" then something like Halo would have to be a completely different genre.  And, if they couldn't be more different, then someone could comfortably own both.  But, you know what, when I see BF3 vs MW3 it is buy on or the other.  BF3 is NEVER shown to be justified as something worth buying under its own merits.  It is supposed to be something that does what MW3 does, but better.  You get BF3 over MW3, it is said.

As for them not being similar, I give you the Crack chart on the state of FPS titles today...

http://www.cracked.com/article_18973_why-modern-war-fps-games-all-look-same-5Bchart5D.html


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



RaptorGTA on 22 July 2011
richardhutnik said:
oldschoolfool said:
richardhutnik said:
oldschoolfool said:
richardhutnik said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

watching people pre order a rehash game like MW3 makes me seriously wonder whats wrong with them

How abour preordering a derivative of "a rehash game like MW3" in the name of Battlefield 3?  Yet, this is what is going on over and over and over again.


what are you talking about? the 2 games could'nt be more different.

Couldn't be more different?  If that is the case, then which of these is not a FPS: MW3 or Halo?  Because if they "couldn't be more different" then something like Halo would have to be a completely different genre.  And, if they couldn't be more different, then someone could comfortably own both.  But, you know what, when I see BF3 vs MW3 it is buy on or the other.  BF3 is NEVER shown to be justified as something worth buying under its own merits.  It is supposed to be something that does what MW3 does, but better.  You get BF3 over MW3, it is said.

As for them not being similar, I give you the Crack chart on the state of FPS titles today...

http://www.cracked.com/article_18973_why-modern-war-fps-games-all-look-same-5Bchart5D.html


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.



"Tell me why does it have to be so hard

to let go when it?s your final day

...When death is on it's way"

Around the Network
richardhutnik on 22 July 2011
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.