Total Pageviews

Monday, November 21, 2011

Article: MW3 vs. BF3 in comparison

Before I’d say anything, I would mind the readers that I have played both games & reviewed them and this is my personal views so a little respect if you will.

Fellow gamers asked me about the two games for comparison. Hearing heated arguments all over the net regarding both titles in which has created a subject of both battling out on who’s owning who.

Usual fanboys & trolls emerge from both ends and firing one another.

This has draw to my attention and to give my two cents to clarify things from my end before I pull most of my hairs from my head.

“MW3 vs. BF3?”

First thing came in my mind was “really?”

On the outside it’s pretty much looked the same yes but I don’t think both games are up to call it “vs.” in general.

For those who asks which one to pick, well its pretty much depends on what do you want to get out of single player, co-op and multiplayer.

Single player:
I would have to give it MW3. I’ve been following the series since the first one and they have compelled me to follow the back story. On the BF however, it wasn’t interesting and the voice acting were obviously too scripted than believable, visually pretty but got me deprived a lot faster from having glitches, restrictive paths, pointless missions and uninteresting “linear” storyline believing it to be the next MW.

I would say that they are both fun but different whereas in MW3 you pretty much do the same thing, short ones but intense & fast modes. In BF3 however, has a plain & direct approach in addition that you can blast buildings & some missions include riding vehicles.

In BF3 it’s also straight forward with few game modes but comes in different maps and sizes & that's where the game shines. Massive maps which gives vehicles space to roam, squad based gameplay which encourages you to do your part in a team in order to gain points & high number of players that can join in a single map. On MW3, it has plenty of modes (where is “Kill confirmed” mode is now my most favorite of them all), perks to assign; fast phased gameplay and you can almost play solo to gain points.

Which one I pick?
I personally go for BF3 even though I gave it a lower score from MW3. Why you say? Well the obvious battlelog interface was a total joke, I mean opening a browser just to get in a game was one big F*****g hassle. I have to reconnect many times just to get in a game. However once I get in, it all pays off by being productive to teammates and have fun and maybe make new friends along the way depending on how well i work with a war buddy.

MW3 however is so MW to me, not that there’s anything wrong with it but my hype wears off just a little too quick. It has awesome co-op & single player but when it goes down to multiplayer it just feels old like another SSDD (Same S**t Different Day) for me like having too much sugar. Innovation is essential but I didn’t see many changes in hoping that it will greatly encourage team play.

So yeah, I’d rather go out there and help somebody and have a good time with my squadmates/teammates rather than going solo and do a couple of no scope head shot with a sniper rifle, been there, done that.

There’s no need to fight between the two when it’s clearly obvious (especially on multiplayer mode) that they’re different. It all depends on how you want to play a game out of your personal satisfaction. At the end of the day we all go home happily that we played our selected games.

But I wonder what it would be like to see a game called MW vs. BF… I’d say MWs foot soldiers will dominate from their perk drugs (damn them high!)…go figure

So game on and I’ll see you in the battlefield (MW3 & BF3 alike).

1 comment:

  1. Well, it seems that people prefer BF3, which they say have the best graphics, when it comes to realistic events, action, gameplay? go with BF3 but if you like x2 of that, advance warfare, without the vehicles go with MW3. its like in the movies! S.W.A.T/BlackHawkDown-ish (MW3) vs. Jarhead/GreenZone-ish (BF3- cant name a few war movies) peace out!.