Best Books of the Month Shop Men's Shoes Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Janet Jackson All-New Amazon Fire TV Grocery Amazon Gift Card Offer blacklist blacklist blacklist  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage Fall Arrivals in Amazon Outdoor Clothing STEM Toys & Games

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 27 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 31, 2011 3:51:44 PM PST
N7JaS92 says:
In my opinion, you can not compare Battlefield 3 to MW3. They are two completely different games. Battlefield is a realistic team based first person shooter, has the exact same feel as Bad company 2. MW3 is an over the top FPS that is all about a one man army. If you just want to shoot fools, get MW3. If you want a good team based FPS go for Battlefield 3.
Campaign wise, MW3 was excellent. I am a huge fan of the story and loved how it ended. You dont need to play all the MWs to get the stroy, if you start it, you will get the plot summary, but might get confused during some parts, where it tends to jump from location to location and you may not know what the hell is going on. Battlefield's campaign was ok. I was disappointed. I hoped it would have gave MW3 a run for its money, but it didnt really grab my attention. There are some cool missions but you dont say "Holy S*** What the heck just happened" as much as you do in a COD game. There was a couple of really sweet sequences, but other than that the story was ok, jumped around a lot and thats what a lot of people say about MW3. Both have coop, but MW offers more variety if you are looking for a coop game. Survival mode gets boring after a while, just like most do. Both games are very well developed and are both should be bought by hardcore FPS fans.

Posted on Jan 1, 2012 12:54:36 AM PST
I highly agree with your statement here. They are both very different games because if I want to play tactical and very team like I will pop in Battlefield 3, but if I want to spray some noobs with my AC-130 I will play MW3. Campaign wise if you asked me to tell you what happens in Modern Warfare campaigns I wouldn't be able to stop talking about it because that campaign had a meaning to it really and was fun to see evolve over the years. Now on the other hand if you asked me any questions about the Battlefield campaign your coming to the wrong guy because I don't remember a single thing about that campaign.
I am in the middle right now on which one is more fun to play.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:41:26 PM PST
Chris91 says:
BF3 campaign is a total waste of time. Do not bother with it. Its terrible. the storyline and the way the game is makes no sense, and its basically playing a modern day version of black ops campaign.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 4, 2012 6:19:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 4, 2012 6:20:33 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
I have to slightly disagree about Battlefield being team-based. When you can go 50 and 0 in a game of rush while attacking, there's hardly a need for a "team." I will admit that a friend and I can totally wreck a server just using the assault and engineer kit in combination. One vehicle of any type and all hell can break loose. :) I know it's techically team-based if you're doing it with a friend, but we do it on CoD, too.

That's usual for CoD for someone to go all OMA on the lobby though. I just picked up the MK14 for the first time the other day and went 27 and 2 in TDM. Specialist only makes it better, but TDM is too short for that.

Posted on Jan 7, 2012 11:55:26 AM PST
Buffalostone says:
Battlefield3 is a better game. Both games offer decent story lines and play in campaign modes. However what holds a games interest is the multiplayer and MW3 is just another failed map pack of MW2. Same old problems with matchmaking and excessive lag. Very small maps, quick scopers that do not even have to be on target, 20 yard knife lunges, visual displacement problems between players etc etc. If one has played MW2, this game will be no different. Maps are so small to the point that nearly everytime one plays any map they can expect the same game on that map time and again. This game is merely IW trying to pump out as much money as possible from the community while putting in as little as possible. The co op mode of facing countless intruders was a failed lame attempt at replicating Treyarchs "Nazi Zombies" modes. BF3 offers great multiplayer play. Small to huge maps that entail new game play as attack points are nearly never the same and true team play in rush and conquest modes. Tanks, planes helicopters, etc,

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2012 1:20:21 PM PST
Chris91 says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2012 1:52:29 PM PST
N7JaS92 says:
I can some what agree with your statement there. MW3 feels the exact same as MW2. But if it was not broke, dont fix it. I feel the exact same way with BF3. It felt the exact same as Bad company 2. The online is brilliant in BF3. Has great elements behind it. It is all personal preference. Both developers make kick ass games

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 8, 2012 3:13:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 8, 2012 3:16:26 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
First of all, as OP said, you can not compare these two games. So I don't care if BF3 being better is your opinion, you're wrong.

Next, yes, multiplayer is what almost every game is designed for nowadays, but to go as far as calling MW3 a map pack, I can hardly believe you've actually played the game.

Matchingmaking and lag issue can be caused by a number of things, hardly any of which are the dev's fault. Some maps are small yes, but most of them aren't; there are lots of ways to get around, so it's not just one pathway where everyone just goes to get mowed down.

Have you even tried quick scoping? Sniper rifles are not like shotguns, with the exception of the Barrett with steady aim. But if someone is doing that, they're not sniping; quick scoping is only one tactic of "sniping." I'm not all pro at it, but I consider myself to be above average, and I can tell you, you have to be pretty damn good with your aim.

Do you realise how far 20 yards actually is? For a comparison, that would be a bit longer than most semi trailers. Think about that one again.

Visual displacement? You mean lag. That can happen any time you're not playing on the same console with someone.

IW is trying to pump out as much money as they can? You got the wrong company. IW only helped develop the game. Activision is the one you should be hating on that.

Co-op copying Nazi Zombies? You know how many people would complain if they didn't continue some sort of side-game like that? The first reason they can't use a "zombies" mode is because that's Treyarch's, and only they can use it in their game. And the other reason would be that zombies wouldn't fit into a "modern" game like this. For WaW and BO, it fit perfectly.

And to end this on a better side, I definitely agree that BF3 has great multiplayer. But that's it; the game was obviously not designed for anything other than it.

I'm just disgusted with the ignorance that people spew all over like this. Before you post again, try thinking it all out and making sure your facts are correct.

And just to make sure we are all on the same page, I was not defending either game on this post. I like both games equally. Since this is a MW3 discussion, I posted mainly MW3-related points.

Posted on Jan 9, 2012 10:20:38 AM PST
Hodgezilla says:
2 Completely different games. Both are good. I think MW3 has a great multiplayer just because there are so many more ways to play. MW3 has way more content, but both games are fun. Buffalostone, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just because you are not good at a game does not make it bad, or worse than another game.

Posted on Jan 9, 2012 4:24:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 11, 2012 10:17:56 AM PST
Kyle Ruhnke and Hodgezilla FTW! :D

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 10, 2012 2:46:47 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
I'm just sick of seeing people posting garbage like that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 10, 2012 6:18:20 AM PST
B.L says:
Xbox Live Activity 2012 ( AKA games with the most players online )

1. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
2. Call of Duty: Black Ops
3. Skyrim
4. Battlefield 3

MW3 is CLEARLY a fail.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 10, 2012 10:57:56 AM PST
You can look at that two ways also, either its the greatest multiplayer game out right now...or its all the disappointed people playing what they have until the next best thing comes around. I play it, but it really isnt the greatest or anywhere close to what I expected. Not horrible, just no WOW involved anywhere either. I havent played BF3 yet, which is why I was reading around, but it seems to have the better multiplayer for not getting shot in the back. MW3 will drive you crazy with the random respawns, but its fast pace makes it able to satisfy a need to feel accomplishment I suppose.

Im sure both games are equally intense, just in a diff. way.

Posted on Jan 11, 2012 10:19:05 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 1, 2012 4:40:13 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2012 10:35:38 AM PST
B.L says:
I would assume after you said "Kyle Ruhnke and Hodgezilla FTW" him saying "I'm just sick of seeing people posting garbage like that" would be refering to the person saying BF3 is better and MW3 is bad.

How could you think that was about

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2012 4:30:54 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
Ha, no. Brandon seems to have cleared that up. :P

Posted on Feb 1, 2012 4:41:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012 4:41:54 PM PST
Oh, I'm so stupid for thinking that...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2012 5:23:32 PM PST
Greg Kommel says:
I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm^ so here's my response:
That's just because CoD is a bigger and more well known franchise. Battlefield 3 is a far better game than MW3 but it's a lot harder to get used to. Battlefield 3 guns have a realistic amount of recoil, you have to get used to the bigger maps, learning to fly is hard, but once you learn the game and get used to it, you never go back.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 7, 2012 4:10:55 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
"you never go back."

Really? I don't really play much of either game as much anymore, but I play them about 50/50. Two separate games which I don't feel should be compared.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 7, 2012 8:53:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 7, 2012 8:54:00 PM PST
Chris91 says:
"Battlefield 3 is a far better game than MW3 but it's a lot harder to get used to. Battlefield 3 guns have a realistic amount of recoil."
This coming from someone who clearly has never fired an assault rifle or machine gun (Military grade). Stop talking out your ass as if you know what recoil is or feels like or how much backfire you get. Get this through your head, BF3 is made by ignorant about war Swedes, plain and simple and to the point.
"you never go back. "
Bull crap plain and simple, 2 different games, thats that. I don't go back to MW3, but MW2, since I don't like MW3s maps or weapons at all. I played BF2, its good but not great. The maps are bigger, Battlefield series games always had bigger maps your argument is invalid. Battlefield has been out longer than CoD, and many people do not want to play FPS that actually lacks what the primary thing a game is based on which is killing in some way shape or form. I don't play BF3 because I can knock down a building, I play it because I like FPS games, thats why I play CoD as well.

Posted on Feb 15, 2012 7:30:28 AM PST
mw3 is so much fun.

Posted on Feb 18, 2012 9:25:59 AM PST
Jeffrey Rico says:
You really can't compare these two games. They're not only catering to two different types of players, but they're also two entirely different kinds of FPS'. I've played both, CoD much more extensively than the Battlefield games, and there is definitely a difference in the people that play them regularly.

MW3 is by far the more fast paced of the two. It's focused far more on Infantry based gameplay, hence the hectic nature of the matches. Yes, there's lag, but that isn't on IW's part. Maybe they could have done servers, but since the connections are player to player, any lag is on your part. This is certainly a more run and gun game, which for people who love delving right into the action, this game is a must have. And hey, "bad" games don't break sales records.

BF3, as Battlefield always has been, is a bit more strategic and team based than CoD is. That's not to say you can't play it like Call of Duty, or vice versa. But playing a gametype like Rush in BF3 requires at least SOME teamwork, whereas most gametypes in CoD, save Demolition or Search and Destroy, can be won with one, possibly two people. It's got vehicles obviously, which means that aside from maps that are majorily infantry based like Grand Bazaar, you've got one or two tanks always rolling around, which causes an entirely different experience than just a lot of guys on foot. Matches take longer, and while kills may be needed, it's not usually the sole focus of a game. Teamwork is key, whether it be the entire team cooperating, or just a single squad.

So there you have it, you really can't claim one game to be superior to the other. They're aimed at completely different groups, though there are a good number of gamers such as myself that enjoy both. Yes, we know, CoD outsold it, as it always will due to the popularity of the franchise. But smaller sales doesn't mean that one game is superior, it just has a larger audience.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012 3:08:54 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
I can't believe people are still posting on this... o.O figured my huge post would have ended it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2012 1:50:10 PM PDT
Jarrid Best says:
Hahahahhahaa Chris Hahahahahahahahaaha. MW is for nooooooobs. Terrible game. Terrible

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2012 2:38:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Mar 17, 2012 3:14:08 PM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  14
Total posts:  27
Initial post:  Dec 31, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Xbox 360
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Xbox 360 by Activision Publishing (Xbox 360)
3.7 out of 5 stars (3,336)