I have always felt that 3 was a bit better than 2 myself. From the majority of opinions I have seen most people feel the opposite so it is interesting to see others in this thread that agree with your sentiment.

I enjoyed the desert aesthetic way more than the snow. In terms of gameplay, they're fairly similar. In terms of story, U2 is better. I think overall I enjoyed U3 more too, but I think I'd have to replay them to know for sure since it's been a while.

The games are equally amazing. I think most people will choose U2 over U3 because the second game came out of nowhere to stun just about every critic at the time, coming from a good but fairly unremarkable first game. It had a surprise factor, where as U3 had super high expectations.

I liked 2 better.

The story of 3 just kind of fell apart at the end. It was interesting and then it just all of a sudden ended. I didn't think that the story was over and then the credits started to roll. "uh wait what...its over?"

I don't know what they did with the shooting mechanics, but I remember starting 3 and not being able to hit anything. Everything just felt slightly off and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Also the 'trippy' level was so annoying. I could not get that over with fast enough.

Ah HA!  I knew something felt off when I first played it!

prefer DF

was more about gameplay and was challenging when playing on crushing the others had alot of fill in material where you werent shooting the first was just more raw as a shooter

MP hand down 2 b/c it was simple, maps where sized well, didnt have kickbacks ect. ruins balance, shotguns were good power weapons and felt fun to use. 3s MP is more focused on sniper rifles being the power weapon of choice and the shotguns and pistole had a lag effect, you would press the button here the sound but would be a moment b4 you saw ur opponent go down

I think part of my perspective on 3 is mired by having played it at launch when the shooting was just a tiny bit off and sticky, I know it had to be because it was addressed and resolved in a patch but it contributed to my overall opinion of 3 being inferior to 2.

Aside from that, the story in 2 is better if simply because it's, well, simpler. The goals and motivations of all the players was apparent, the stakes were clear, it was all around a very clean experience. Now I do feel the villains in 3 were better I also feel they didn't come close to their potential largely because the plot their plot didn't make a lick of sense which undermined their character. Not to mention I never really understood the dynamic between Marlowe and Talbot, in part due to them disappearing for large tracts of the game and even when they are there together they have almost no chemistry.