• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Modern Warfare 3 Versus Battlefield 3 Garbage Thread

man/man said:
Cause I'd rather shoot flesh and blood humans than aliens.
Click to expand...
What? In Red Faction's multiplayer the enemies are humans, not aliens.

Then again, it seems like you know as much about Red Faction as you do about COD :P
 
Mik2121 said:
What? In Red Faction's multiplayer the enemies are humans, not aliens.

Then again, it seems like you know as much about Red Faction as you do about COD :P
Click to expand...

I'll admit I've never played a Red Faction game, but by most accounts it's hardly in the same league as Battlefield.
 
Stallion Free said:
Uh there are humans and multiplayer in red feaction guerilla.
Click to expand...

Guess I'll have to check out Red Faction then. Seriously, I had no idea, I thought it was just another generic Space Marine vs Aliens thing.
 
man/man said:
I'll admit I've never played a Red Faction game, but by most accounts it's hardly in the same league as Battlefield.
Click to expand...
Why would that matter? it has destructible environments. And potentially more than Battlefield. That seems to be what you care about, not things that make a game actually a good game :P


On a serious note, you don't need to check Red Faction. I think the community is pretty much dead.
 
Mik2121 said:
Why would that matter? it has destructible environments. And potentially more than Battlefield. That seems to be what you care about, not things that make a game actually a good game :P
Click to expand...

Destructible environments do enhance gameplay though, because they make the maps more dynamic and therefor the battles more unpredictable.
 
Thread should really be renamed Modern Warfare 3 Versus Battlefield 3 Garbage Thread of Hilarity and Irony.

lol deadbeat.

game x is going to be bad and game y is going to be good, I can just tell, dont need proof for that.
 
man/man said:
Destructible environments do enhance gameplay though, because they make the maps more dynamic and therefor the battles more unpredictable.
Click to expand...
Destruction was pretty predictable and had little impact on battles in about 80% of BC2 maps.
 
Stallion Free said:
Destruction was pretty predictable and had little impact on battles in about 80% of BC2 maps.
Click to expand...

Here's an example. There's a squad camping out inside a three story building in a BC2 map. In a COD-like game, your options are basically to wait for them to expose themselves or to just bum rush inside guns blazing. In BF, you can do that, or you can blow a hole in the wall with an RPG and open fire through the wreckage. Even better, you can have a squad mate lay down suppressive fire while you plant C4 charges on the buildings four corners, then watch as the structure collapses, killing everyone inside.

I don't know, I just like the options.
 
commedieu said:
So now single player in COD is important?

Bullshit.

99% of COD players don't finish the campaign, and 100% of reviewers gloss over it to claim "Lets dive into the multiplayer! The REAL reason you bought the game." Etc.
Click to expand...

Multiplayer is a big reason but my friends and I have played the campaign of every CoD. For myself I didn't become a Call of Duty MP fan until MW2. I only made it to a level 30 something in CoD4. Battlefield has always been MP first, SP second (when there is a SP that is), I don't remember even looking for one in 1942 or BF2. I think they were just bot matches you could play. Bad Company 2 I personally hated the campaign, loved the MP. CoD I enjoyed both equally.

Saying 99% of CoD players don't finish the campaign is ridiculous.

And that video posted above is hilarious. Love that laughing reporter.
 
Stallion Free said:
Destruction was pretty predictable and had little impact on battles in about 80% of BC2 maps.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that.

Us PS3 BFBC2 gaf used scorch and burn tactics on Rush mode defenses to obliterate the opposition. Highly effective when the attackers got nowhere to hide near the M-COMs and we can see them from far away.
 
Stallion Free said:
Destruction was pretty predictable and had little impact on battles in about 80% of BC2 maps.
Click to expand...


It didnt have impact on battles really?

The entire level changes as you play in bc2 with cover being blown and that doesnt impact battles?
 
man/man said:
Here's an example. There's a squad camping out inside a three story building in a BC2 map. In a COD-like game, your options are basically to wait for them to expose themselves or to just bum rush inside guns blazing. In BF, you can do that, or you can blow a hole in the wall with an RPG and open fire through the wreckage. Even better, you can have a squad mate lay down suppressive fire while you plant C4 charges on the buildings four corners, then watch as the structure collapses, killing everyone inside.

I don't know, I just like the options.
Click to expand...
Except the vast majority of most maps map is just ground/trees. It got really fucking atrocious in the Nam DLC.
 
Stallion Free said:
Except the vast majority of most maps map is just ground/trees. It got really fucking atrocious in the Nam DLC.
Click to expand...

Ok...but there are still the maps that aren't just ground/trees. And it's still better than COD's static environments.
 
commedieu said:
So now single player in COD is important?

Bullshit.

99% of COD players don't finish the campaign, and 100% of reviewers gloss over it to claim "Lets dive into the multiplayer! The REAL reason you bought the game." Etc.
Click to expand...

lol.

99% player would like COD campaign more then BFBC2 one.
 
Stallion Free said:
Except the vast majority of most maps map is just ground/trees. It got really fucking atrocious in the Nam DLC.
Click to expand...

THE TREES CAN BE BLOWN UP AS WELL!

The nam maps suffered from poor map design, that is for sure.
 
man/man said:
Ok...but there are still the maps that aren't just ground/trees. And it's still better than COD's static environments.
Click to expand...
It wasn't enough. It was glaringly obvious that with that engine revision that it was just too taxing to do anymore damage on consoles and PC sure ain't getting unique maps.
 
Stallion Free said:
It wasn't enough. It was glaringly obvious that with that engine revision that it was just too taxing to do anymore damage on consoles and PC sure ain't getting unique maps.
Click to expand...

True, Battlefield would really shine as a PC exclusive. But I take what I can get, ya know?
 
My brother is a hardcore fan of both series, I try and argue him into a debate about which will be better but hes just like "I'll probably love both for different reasons, probably play both a lot, probably just flick between when one gets annoying I go to the other and so-on, sick of this Highlander 'there can be only 1!!' shit."

Made me think of NeoGAF lol.
 
You can't really compare Red Faction's destruction with Battlefield's. I'm sure if DICE wanted everything to blow apart with a single rocket they would do so. It's more of a balance/design choice than a limitation of the technology. A Battlefield game + Red Faction's destruction would be terrible.
 
MuseManMike said:
You can't really compare Red Faction's destruction with Battlefield's. I'm sure if DICE wanted everything to blow apart with a single rocket they would do so. It's more of a balance/design choice than a limitation of the technology. A Battlefield game + Red Faction's destruction would be terrible.
Click to expand...
Or incredibly awesome.

*continues to polish Gustav*
 
Mik2121 said:
If you think WM3 looks exactly the same, I guess we can't do nothing about it. Except perhaps you getting your eyes fixed.

The game might not be BF3-level graphics (it definitely isn't nor tries to), but it looks better than MW2 (and obviously better than Black Ops too).

I personally will go with MW3, but I will give BF3 a try too. Just from what I heard BF2 on consoles wasn't the best experience out there, and I don't have the money to upgrade my computer right now (I only use it to do 3D and 2D stuff, and it works fine enough for that.. I can also play games like Portal 2 without issues, but I guess BF3 will be much more demanding).
Click to expand...

Well sir, just to make sure i DO NOT hate cod games, i have MW2 and CODBLOPS for PS3 and i like both a lot, but i stopped playing them since i got BC2.
And what i see in this game, is what i see in every other cod. With a sligtly better graphics, different story and different name. That's it... for a more general perspective, it looks the same.

But, maybe is just me... or my eyes :)
 
gl0w said:
With a sligtly better graphics, different story and different name. That's it... for a more general perspective, it looks the same.
Click to expand...
BC1 to BC2 to BC3 on PS3 works with this sentence just as well as Call of Duty.
 
Man, DICE/EA is failing pretty hard when it comes to marketing this game.

Stallion Free said:
Destruction was pretty predictable and had little impact on battles in about 80% of BC2 maps.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree on this. Maybe in Vietnam, but when you can get rid of concealment/cover and firing positions via destruction, it has a pretty big impact on how the game plays. Best example is the first set of MCOMs on Port Valdez. Almost impossible to get as an attacker if the defenders have blown out all of the trees, as you're running out in the open for a good 50-100 yards.
 
Stallion Free said:
BC1 to BC2 to BC3 on PS3 works with this sentence just as well as Call of Duty.
Click to expand...

Well, your probably right, but BC2 is the first battlefield game that i played. When i start to see that big scale maps, vehicles, and destruction... I'm not sure, but that was probably improved since BC1!

Also, Activision does not show too much love for PS3 on cod games, and that is something i do not support :P
 
vidal said:
I was baffled by your post at first but pondered these two statements and I'm able to understand what you mean. The only modes in BF3 so far are Rush, Conquest and TDM. All we've been shown for multiplayer is Rush, a mode that jets won't even be in. We've seen nothing of Conquest or what the maps will be like aside from the Return to Karkand maps. How do we know Digital Illusions still has the capability of making Conquest maps tailored for 64-players? What if it's like BC2 and the Conquest maps are just expanded Rush maps? 64-players and PC lead is nice but nothing is pointing to BF3 being a true successor to BF2.

On the other hand, MW3 is being developed by multiple studios. They could go back to the same shit as MW2, sure, but they could be doing something completely new now that the original leads have left for Respawn. I'm not excited for MW3 though.
Click to expand...
The guys that made Karkand and Mashtuur City are still on the team.
 
Mr. Snrub said:
Completely disagree on this. Maybe in Vietnam, but when you can get rid of concealment/cover and firing positions via destruction, it has a pretty big impact on how the game plays. Best example is the first set of MCOMs on Port Valdez. Almost impossible to get as an attacker if the defenders have blown out all of the trees, as you're running out in the open for a good 50-100 yards.
Click to expand...
Maybe for wookies. Us real men just slap on the smoke launcher and tube and knife everyone on our way to taking out the mcom.
 
AusGamers: Well let’s approach a minor elephant in the room. The competitor has a brand new engine that looks fantastic -- you can’t deny that -- and you just mentioned that you’ve been working with this engine and it looks good, it looks better than it ever has. For that moving forward, can you see yourselves and even IW kind of abandoning this and going back to the drawing board?

Glen: I don’t really know. I mean we really re-vamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there. You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I’ve done that before; I’ve seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will.

Not sure I’ve seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I’d be a little scared at this point -- in June -- if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn’t on the console and running at 60. And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away.

What you do is you build upon it, right? And build and build and build. And we build new tools that make us more efficient. We built brand new tools so that we could put more stuff in. That’s why, you’ll see a level and you’ll come out of the water; so we’ve built all this water. You’ve got New York in the background; you’ve got explosions going on; you’ve got skyscrapers, then you have this huge submarine coming out of the water. We’re able to put so much on the screen because it’s an engine and it’s well-known, it’s very clean and we’re able to easily upgrade it.

So I don’t know what the future holds for the engine. But you don’t ship an engine, you ship a game.
Click to expand...

http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/3079156
 
Crewnh said:
60 fps on Idtech 3. Big fucking deal.
Click to expand...

You think it is still the same Idtech 3 engine ?
Hell it does say something that call of duty games win graphics award.
Given they are sub hd and the fact it run at 60fps never gets mentioned.
But dam their character/gun models look so good.
 
Yeah it's 60fps, well what a surprise if you're building on a 6/7/8 year old engine?

dragonelite said:
You think it is still the same Idtech 3 engine ?
Hell it does say something that call of duty games win graphics award.
Given they are sub hd and the fact it run at 60fps never gets mentioned.
But dam their character/gun models look so good.
Click to expand...

We don't think this, it's obvious.
 
Sanjay said:
Is that it? only 60fps, I have 120 and above in BC2. I have double advantage I think, I must.
Click to expand...

You have an amazing console there my friend.. is that a Wee You..?

the stuff mentioned in solidsnakex´s quote is only concerning CONSOLE gaming.. I would like a video of you playing BC2 on X360/PS3 with 120fps.. please..pretty please..?
 
I hate when someone start saying NO BUY because he/she make feel that they have a good taste of selecting games. But, the don’t because they end buying wii games. Guys we are talking here about a huge titles, specially after long development on this generation. I don’t think that developer will ruin the gaming experience. And by the way its a shooter game and most of war shooter have no good story, but i liked black ops too much. It was better than modern warefare 2. Battlefield is a great title, but the dice developer take long time to give a game in the market and their game stories are not that much but when it come to multiplayer, i have to admit that battle field will defeat COD by Miles
 
Rage runs at 60 fps on Xbox 360 and it's id Tech 5. Rage MP > * ? Lol

I'll take 30 fps and BF3's MP over 60 fps and COD's. 60 fps is great, but the MP can't touch the awesome-ness of Battlefield.
 
As far as I know, MW3 doesn't have any preorder bonuses attached to it yet, but I haven't been paying attention. Haven't preordered a game yet, and have no plans to.
 
Sanjay said:
Is that it? only 60fps, I have 120 and above in BC2. I have double advantage I think, I must.
Click to expand...
Not really as the gain isn't as obvious when you go above 60. 30->60 is huge though.

Still, going above feels more badass.
 
Aren't both previous Modern Warfare games in sub-HD, though? Also, looking at Digital Foundry MW2 analysis, neither X360 nor PS3 (especially PS3) version of MW2 have stable 60fps. It's more than 30fps, but still...

So while being proud of the game running in 60fps is fine, one should stop talking when in order to achieve that it was required to cut corners.
 
MMaRsu said:
Yeah it's 60fps, well what a surprise if you're building on a 6/7/8 year old engine?



We don't think this, it's obvious.
Click to expand...
If you think this:

rail.jpg


Looks the same as this:

Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-3_2011_05-26-11_002.jpg_600.jpg


You are on more drugs than your avatar.


Mr_Zombie said:
Aren't both previous Modern Warfare games in sub-HD, though? Also, looking at Digital Foundry MW2 analysis, neither X360 nor PS3 (especially PS3) version of MW2 have stable 60fps. It's more than 30fps, but still...

So while being proud of the game running in 60fps is fine, one should stop talking when in order to achieve that it was required to cut corners.
Click to expand...
Every company has to "cut corners" to achieve 60fps or higher resolution. But still, MW3 looks better than MW2 or, ugh, Black Ops. So even if they might be cutting corners, it's not like they took MW2, lowered it's resolution and called it a day.
 
Mr_Zombie said:
Aren't both previous Modern Warfare games in sub-HD, though? Also, looking at Digital Foundry MW2 analysis, neither X360 nor PS3 (especially PS3) version of MW2 have stable 60fps. It's more than 30fps, but still...

So while being proud of the game running in 60fps is fine, one should stop talking when in order to achieve that it was required to cut corners.
Click to expand...

It was an answer to an interview question though, they don't really have much else to brag about in regards to their engine over the competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Inside the Chaotic Development of Modern Warfare 3 - A Documentary
Analysis Trailer 
1
237
EverydayBeast replied
You cannot play modern warfare 3 on PS5 physical disc.
23
2K
Calverz replied
Nioh 3 | Review Thread
2 3
100
2K
MagiusNecros replied
Rumor: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4 reportedly being tested on PlayStation 4
2
73
170
PlayStaytion replied
Resident Evil 3 reaches its highest concurrent player number on Steam in six years | Modern Warfare (2019) breaks its Steam player record
Business Deals Platform  2
73
664
EverydayBeast replied
Top Bottom