Post by pershainovitsh on Mar 9, 2013 10:47:09 GMT 1
I have played both games on the Xbox 360.
Graphics: Both look good. Bf3 has that annoying blue filter and the sun blinds everyone looking at it, which are bad things.
Sounds: BF3 wins. However, I think Bad Company 2 had better sounds. Then again, I played that more than BF3 or MW3.
Single player: BF3's one was a lot like watching a three-star war movie. Not outstanding, not incredibly bad, worth a re-watch after a few years. The jet mission had good sound design and start, but it was just a long cut-scene with QTE's (quick-time events). You couldn't move at all yourself. Inside the aircraft carrier it was pretty quiet. On the deck it was very noisy until you put the helmet on. But you weren't allowed to fly yourself! In another mission you are driving a tank in a huge map. Most of the missions are average infantry action.
SP in MW3 is more like a Michael Bay movie. There's explosions and bullets everywhere. I played MW3's single player for an hour or so before quitting. I did like the MW2 campaign, but I just can't stand the same style anymore. You're getting shot every three seconds, some jerk throws strawberry jam on your eyes and your superiors are shouting at you the whole time. This is a game for people with a short attention span. Maybe the following missions would have been better, but the first ones were awfully dull. I almost single-handedly had to kill dozens, maybe even hundreds of enemies. It just wasn't fun. Just like in BF3, I'm not worthy to even open a door myself. I always have to wait for someone to do it for me. Once I actually was instructed to open a door, but I knew something was wrong. A second after opening the door I got killed. MW3 also had some quiet moments, which I liked. The point of view changed many times, and once I was a bodyguard. I went to a conference room where the VIP was, as instructed, but nothing happened. So I went for a coffee with my colleagues. Not really, I just stared at the cup, but still. Games should have more of that.
Neither is really good. At least in BF3 you can drive a tank.
Multiplayer: BF3 wins. I didn't even want to check the MW3 multiplayer mode. I know it's really hectic where you just kill or get killed every two seconds. BF3 has bigger maps and it has drivable vehicles.
Co-op: MW3 has split-screen co-op, BF3 doesn't. MW3 wins. The Co-op in MW3 is quite fun to play. I haven't tried it in BF3.
Overall, BF3 wins in my books. The co-op should be playable in split-screen, the bugs in the single player should be fixed and the multiplayer could be better, but it's still the best modern shooter at the moment.
Graphics: Both look good. Bf3 has that annoying blue filter and the sun blinds everyone looking at it, which are bad things.
Sounds: BF3 wins. However, I think Bad Company 2 had better sounds. Then again, I played that more than BF3 or MW3.
Single player: BF3's one was a lot like watching a three-star war movie. Not outstanding, not incredibly bad, worth a re-watch after a few years. The jet mission had good sound design and start, but it was just a long cut-scene with QTE's (quick-time events). You couldn't move at all yourself. Inside the aircraft carrier it was pretty quiet. On the deck it was very noisy until you put the helmet on. But you weren't allowed to fly yourself! In another mission you are driving a tank in a huge map. Most of the missions are average infantry action.
SP in MW3 is more like a Michael Bay movie. There's explosions and bullets everywhere. I played MW3's single player for an hour or so before quitting. I did like the MW2 campaign, but I just can't stand the same style anymore. You're getting shot every three seconds, some jerk throws strawberry jam on your eyes and your superiors are shouting at you the whole time. This is a game for people with a short attention span. Maybe the following missions would have been better, but the first ones were awfully dull. I almost single-handedly had to kill dozens, maybe even hundreds of enemies. It just wasn't fun. Just like in BF3, I'm not worthy to even open a door myself. I always have to wait for someone to do it for me. Once I actually was instructed to open a door, but I knew something was wrong. A second after opening the door I got killed. MW3 also had some quiet moments, which I liked. The point of view changed many times, and once I was a bodyguard. I went to a conference room where the VIP was, as instructed, but nothing happened. So I went for a coffee with my colleagues. Not really, I just stared at the cup, but still. Games should have more of that.
Neither is really good. At least in BF3 you can drive a tank.
Multiplayer: BF3 wins. I didn't even want to check the MW3 multiplayer mode. I know it's really hectic where you just kill or get killed every two seconds. BF3 has bigger maps and it has drivable vehicles.
Co-op: MW3 has split-screen co-op, BF3 doesn't. MW3 wins. The Co-op in MW3 is quite fun to play. I haven't tried it in BF3.
Overall, BF3 wins in my books. The co-op should be playable in split-screen, the bugs in the single player should be fixed and the multiplayer could be better, but it's still the best modern shooter at the moment.
