mw3 is way better than bf3
- Thread starter Uchiha Paulsama
- Start date
Uchiha Paulsama
Active member
Losers are those with no grammar. Beat You There.
No one did ask me to talk but it's a public thread in a public forum, I see you looking retarded so I came in just to tell you to try and be quiet before you look even more stupid.
Oh and, no double posting.
Uchiha Paulsama
Active member
no grammer lol wow but i do have grammer , i just have my own style of what i wanna say, you can call it trend setter idc what you people think
yaw all can hate me dislike me or whatever, i dont care, im not doing anything wrong yet you all attack me? i voice my opinion and yaw gang up me trying to flame with your lighters? lmao im flaming you all down with torches
i could careless what someone thinks about me, if i did then i would have still been in the projects with nothing :| but i realized and got out of my own ignorance , its called maturity ,
if i wanna talk about COD then let it be
Yeh BF3 didn't really pull me in, i know you can get on tanks and planes and whatnot but just the gameplay itself is not that good, i guess they arnt developed as much as COD or this might be me just being use to COD. and in BF3 it seems like you need to shoot more to get a kill... I definitely see myself playing more MW3 then BF3
DOnt get me wrong thou, BF3 graphics are unreal, especially on my 600hz 51 plasma xd
DOnt get me wrong thou, BF3 graphics are unreal, especially on my 600hz 51 plasma xd
Gatsndshanks
Active member
Awards
Why would you choose to type like a retard instead of actually using punctuality and correct spelling? You're making yourself look bad. If you didn't act like a complete douchebag and actually interact with the argument with legitimate counter arguments, then we will be cool but no, you act like a douche.
We're not attacking you, we're voicing our opinion as well. I bet if I made a BF3 > MW3 thread, you'd jump on it and defend MW3, actually I know you would. So stop being hypocritical and act like a man that you say you are and actually defend with proper arguments, instead of stupidity.
Feel free to talk about CoD but this is the wrong way to go about it. Make a CoD discussion thread, not a comparison thread (especially if you can't handle being disagreed upon)
Alright I just read threw this thread, and I smell and hear nothing but trash talk. "uchiha paulsama" who the **** cares if you think MW3 is the shit or out beats BF3, because there will always be others who will counter argue to the fact the BF3 is better than MW3. I personally don't like MW3 because all I see is that the company is milking that title for all that it's got left in it, and rolling out with games titled MW as often as Domino's roles out dough in their dough machine. Also I know people who are avid fans of the series and plays every new title of CoD.....but they would never put it on the type of pedestal that you have put it on.
Rookie if you really want to play a real game, and one that takes true skill to play and beat, try your luck at Demon Souls, Dark Souls, and any other game that is truly challenging and doesn't role off the shelves every year.
Oh and do us all a favor, and use proper English and grammar when trying to talk or have intellectual arguments about games.....it hurts everyone's brains when trying to piece together what your saying.
Rookie if you really want to play a real game, and one that takes true skill to play and beat, try your luck at Demon Souls, Dark Souls, and any other game that is truly challenging and doesn't role off the shelves every year.
Oh and do us all a favor, and use proper English and grammar when trying to talk or have intellectual arguments about games.....it hurts everyone's brains when trying to piece together what your saying.
Uchiha Paulsama
Active member
LOL! first off i can understand your brain cant piece together what i have to say and its so bad that you had to come on my thread and say something lol
lol and thanks for puting my name in quotation marks lol u really care lmao
and were talking about first person shooters, who gives a dam about darksouls go make a thread about it
i can say what i wanna say, the game is not on a pedestal, and some times i type to fast and dont summarize what i have to say,
o and fyi who asked for your negative opinion?
gtfo bruh
why wouldnt i talk about it?? why not, me and coyate still go at it, and now yaw cats wanna try and pull out ya BICS trying to flame me but i laugh at you suckers with negativity , your words are weak you all sound like a bunch a crybabies
You must be registered for see images
finally a postive argument
yea i can say that bf3 has better graphics, i give it that
LOL
Last edited:
Dragonfly X
Active member
So? Those 50% aren't paying for BF3. And the fact that the company is still making money despite the idiots playing it.
Uchiha Paulsama
Active member
yes this is true U_U but the one thing bf3 has over call of duty is graphics
thats all i give it, without killstreaks its boring imo
but i had homefront, the hype for that game was crazy, i bought it i sold it for 20 , just because it was short, dont get my wrong its a great game but i decided then that i will never buy another multiplayer shooter
i like the fact homefront was still epic but once you get to level 75 its over U_U wow now prestige or nothing?
period
Ok then.
1. I hate killstreaks. Who's bright idea was it to make that one guy killing everyone even more able to kill people?
2. 'Strike Packages' are a type of class system, which Battlefield has employed since the beginning. MW3 is a very different type of system to most of the ones I've seen, so I'll give it points for that, but both MW3 and BF3 have class systems. Oh, and you forget the Specialist or W/E Strike Package that unlocks perks as it gets kills.
Things MW3 doesn't have:
-Vehicles. Temporary kill streak vehichles don't compare to BF3 vehicles. They last for a limitted time, half of them your not in control of or can't control where it flies, and last I checked you were still vulnerable on the ground whilst using some of them. Doesn't compare to having a permanent (Until it dies) vehicle, that you fully control, and can only be killed if either it explodes (Tank, APC) or someone who is a good shot manages to shoot you inside the vehicle (Helicopters and Jeeps).
-Destruction. Is awesome. Dropping a building on top of that guy camping with a machine gun never gets old. Non-scripted destruction adds a lot more strategy to the game, and is a great way to deal with enemies who aren't prepared for it. Destruction in BF3 is great, and its getting upscaled even more in the upcoming 'Back to Karkand' DLC pack.
-Players. 64 Players is the way FPS should be played. The scale of the matches is amazing, and when you get your team of 32 all working perfectly together, its a brilliant feeling. You don't of course have to have 64 players, but 64 players is the way to play.
-Map size. CoD maps are tiny compared to Battlefield maps. Larger maps allow more freedom in the way you go after your goals, and the objectives (Such as the Bases or MComs) concentrate players into specific areas, ensuring that if you are actually going after the objectives there is always action. Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch maps are downscaled versions of the normal, massive maps, seeing as they have no objectives to focus players in on other than killing each other.
-Health Bar. CoD is get shot a couple of times then die, or get shot a couple of times, kill the enemy, take cover, and almost instantly regenerate your health. BF3 has a proper health bar, that you don't regenerate like Superman, but will regenerate if you avoid getting shot for a while. You can also take a couple more shots before dying, which gives people who get surprised a chance at making it through. Medkits dropped by assault medics will regenerate your health quickly, even whilst you're getting shot.
And levelling up your gun is just like unlocking more guns and such in BF. It allows you to customise your weapon with things like different scopes and attachments that you unlock by using your weapons.
All in all, it does come down to which play style you prefer, and that is subjective, Which is the reason people say they can't be compared. I disagree with that however: You CAN compare them, you just can't come to a true answer of which one is better overall, as it will differ from person to person.
1. I hate killstreaks. Who's bright idea was it to make that one guy killing everyone even more able to kill people?
2. 'Strike Packages' are a type of class system, which Battlefield has employed since the beginning. MW3 is a very different type of system to most of the ones I've seen, so I'll give it points for that, but both MW3 and BF3 have class systems. Oh, and you forget the Specialist or W/E Strike Package that unlocks perks as it gets kills.
Things MW3 doesn't have:
-Vehicles. Temporary kill streak vehichles don't compare to BF3 vehicles. They last for a limitted time, half of them your not in control of or can't control where it flies, and last I checked you were still vulnerable on the ground whilst using some of them. Doesn't compare to having a permanent (Until it dies) vehicle, that you fully control, and can only be killed if either it explodes (Tank, APC) or someone who is a good shot manages to shoot you inside the vehicle (Helicopters and Jeeps).
-Destruction. Is awesome. Dropping a building on top of that guy camping with a machine gun never gets old. Non-scripted destruction adds a lot more strategy to the game, and is a great way to deal with enemies who aren't prepared for it. Destruction in BF3 is great, and its getting upscaled even more in the upcoming 'Back to Karkand' DLC pack.
-Players. 64 Players is the way FPS should be played. The scale of the matches is amazing, and when you get your team of 32 all working perfectly together, its a brilliant feeling. You don't of course have to have 64 players, but 64 players is the way to play.
-Map size. CoD maps are tiny compared to Battlefield maps. Larger maps allow more freedom in the way you go after your goals, and the objectives (Such as the Bases or MComs) concentrate players into specific areas, ensuring that if you are actually going after the objectives there is always action. Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch maps are downscaled versions of the normal, massive maps, seeing as they have no objectives to focus players in on other than killing each other.
-Health Bar. CoD is get shot a couple of times then die, or get shot a couple of times, kill the enemy, take cover, and almost instantly regenerate your health. BF3 has a proper health bar, that you don't regenerate like Superman, but will regenerate if you avoid getting shot for a while. You can also take a couple more shots before dying, which gives people who get surprised a chance at making it through. Medkits dropped by assault medics will regenerate your health quickly, even whilst you're getting shot.
And levelling up your gun is just like unlocking more guns and such in BF. It allows you to customise your weapon with things like different scopes and attachments that you unlock by using your weapons.
All in all, it does come down to which play style you prefer, and that is subjective, Which is the reason people say they can't be compared. I disagree with that however: You CAN compare them, you just can't come to a true answer of which one is better overall, as it will differ from person to person.
This is one reason why people are saying you can't compare them; The gameplay is very different, and open to preference of gameplay style as to which one actually has better gameplay. I for one find MW3 gameplay crap, but I know many who enjoy it. I also think BF3 gameplay is good, yet I know people who disagree with me.
As I said in my previous post, you can compare them, but its akin to comparing apples to oranges. Yes, you can compare that one is orange, one is red/green, one tastes sweeter, one tastes more savoury, one is soft and juicy, one is crunchy, but you can't actually answer whether one is better than the other with an answer that is true to everyone, as some people will prefer apples over oranges for the same reason people prefer oranges over apples.
As a MW3 vs BF3 comparisson, I hate killstreaks, the OP likes them.
So really, anything saying one is better than the other overall is proceeded by an invisible 'In my opinion' within threads like these. Individual engine comparissons are fact; I.E BF3 has a far better graphics engine than MW3, but MW3 is better optimised to run on consoles and low end PCs than BF3.
Alternative
Active member
Awards
With the 64 player issue, I believe that's only on PC. Xbox and PS3 versions don't have 64 player games.
Personally I don't like PC gaming, because I feel like the PC should be more used for recreational purposes, like videos and other assorted media, not video games. So in saying that I prefer Call of Duty, because it's more geared towards the console which I prefer.
Could not have said it better myself. You can compare the two because they're both similar in terms of gameplay, genre and style. While both appeal to different audiences, you can't deny that they're the same in a lot of aspects.
Personally I don't like PC gaming, because I feel like the PC should be more used for recreational purposes, like videos and other assorted media, not video games. So in saying that I prefer Call of Duty, because it's more geared towards the console which I prefer.
Uchiha Paulsama
Active member
that was a legit reply, best one ive seen, you def. deserve rep+
but thats the thing about me, i like the killstreak method, and i like deep customization, like leveling up everything and making it look the way you want it, and the leaderboards get real competitive , especially since there is a massive amount of players constantly playing COD , those leaderboards get challenging
exactly game play wise imo , but graphics and realism goes more on bf3's way
LOl so how do you earn vehicles??