Gaming Battlefield 3 or COD:MW3

[Shromz]

I've never liked Gears of War, For some reason I just want games where it doesn't take you forever to kill an enemy, thats why I don't like Halo either.

 

[Gahars]

Gears of War 3.

Screw Gears of War, that series is god awful. The gameplay is mediocre, the characters are drooling neanderthals (characterized as "main character meat head", "main character's friend who has a wife meathead", "whiny bitch meathead", and "the black stereotype meathead"), the plot is terrible, the game itself is so stupidly grim (following in the vein of Warhammer 40K, except forgetting that in WH40K, that was the joke) that it's impossible to care for the protagonists or the world, and the writing is atrocious (One choice line: "They're sinking cities with a GIANT WORM!").

And now we have the third in a trilogy of crap games coming out. Oh boy.


Sorry about that, but I just hate those games with a passion that rivals the sun itself in intensity. So yeah, GoW3 is definitely not going to cut it for me, especially with all the other games being released this year.

 

[kevan]

Both are terrible
But MW3 is slightly less terrible by the fact that more people will play it.

Have you ever played Battlefield? Ever?

No and i don't ever plan on doing so.

You can't say it's terrible without having played it. Well you can, but that says alot about you're credibility.

Also, I just watched the trailer and I'm speechless (or stunned, not in a good way). This is not Battlefield 3, I know that much, it's definitely BC3 with some doses of BF mixed in. Whether it will be good or not is anyone's guess, and I'll be waiting.

@Machomuu - This is Battlefield 3, just the series has evolved to take a more uhh (CoD?) like aspect to it.
It still has alot of things over CoD in any case. The thing is it ain't BC3. On BF3 we are talking the biggest maps
yet!, Jets, 64 players and some other things. Sure it borrowed alot from the BC series but it would be mad not to
considering that BC2 was a suprise hit (even for them.)

 

[Deleted User]

Mw3 is the same game since 2004, Bf3 uses a new engine.

If you've played call of duty, you've played MW3.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I saw trailers for it but it just bores me.
I'm not really into war/fps games that much.

If it's a matter of it not being your cup of tea and not a matter of you think the game is bad for legitimate reasons, then you shouldn't even bother throwing your hat in on the conversation. I'm not a big racing game fan (exception being like kart racers, Burnout, and a few select others) but I don't hop around every racing game thread and call every racing game utter shit.

I'm generally not into the whole war-themed FPS games, although BF3 looks rather good. I've heard nothing but praise on BFBC2 and I guess I kinda missed that one unfortunately. BF3 just looks rather interesting and even just being able to see those graphics in person would be enough for me.

EDIT: I've also kinda lost interest in non-Treyarch CoD games. Why people think Infinity Ward makes/made better ones is beyond me. At least Treyarch makes ones with halfway interesting plots. And zombies.

 

[machomuu]

Both are terrible
But MW3 is slightly less terrible by the fact that more people will play it.

Have you ever played Battlefield? Ever?

No and i don't ever plan on doing so.

You can't say it's terrible without having played it. Well you can, but that says alot about you're credibility.

Also, I just watched the trailer and I'm speechless (or stunned, not in a good way). This is not Battlefield 3, I know that much, it's definitely BC3 with some doses of BF mixed in. Whether it will be good or not is anyone's guess, and I'll be waiting.

@Machomuu - This is Battlefield 3, just the series has evolved to take a more uhh (CoD?) like aspect to it.
It still has alot of things over CoD in any case. The thing is it ain't BC3. On BF3 we are talking the biggest maps
yet!, Jets, 64 players and some other things. Sure it borrowed alot from the BC series but it would be mad not to
considering that BC2 was a suprise hit (even for them.)

It feels more like it borrowed a few things from Battlefield, not the other way around.

Hence why it's no surprise that people are excited about it. Well, that and it's on the consoles.

 

[gokujr1000]

Gears of War 3.

Screw Gears of War, that series is god awful. The gameplay is mediocre, the characters are drooling neanderthals (characterized as "main character meat head", "main character's friend who has a wife meathead", "whiny bitch meathead", and "the black stereotype meathead"), the plot is terrible, the game itself is so stupidly grim (following in the vein of Warhammer 40K, except forgetting that in WH40K, that was the joke) that it's impossible to care for the protagonists or the world, and the writing is atrocious (One choice line: "They're sinking cities with a GIANT WORM!").

And now we have the third in a trilogy of crap games coming out. Oh boy.


Sorry about that, but I just hate those games with a passion that rivals the sun itself in intensity. So yeah, GoW3 is definitely not going to cut it for me, especially with all the other games being released this year.

I understand why you hate it but the only game I see beating Gears of War 3 on the Xbox 360 is Battlefield 3 in terms of game-play and Battlefield 3 is going to have a much bigger focus on the PC anyway.

Now if you were to ask me which PC game would I get, MW3 or Battlefield 3, hands down I would choose Battlefield 3.

 

[machomuu]

Gears of War 3.

Screw Gears of War, that series is god awful. The gameplay is mediocre, the characters are drooling neanderthals (characterized as "main character meat head", "main character's friend who has a wife meathead", "whiny bitch meathead", and "the black stereotype meathead"), the plot is terrible, the game itself is so stupidly grim (following in the vein of Warhammer 40K, except forgetting that in WH40K, that was the joke) that it's impossible to care for the protagonists or the world, and the writing is atrocious (One choice line: "They're sinking cities with a GIANT WORM!").

...I don't see how that's different from these games. They all have crap story modes and redeeming multiplayer on which you'll be harassed by little children and bro-gamers more little children, buy hopefully (unlike me) you will still have fun.

Sounds pretty much the same, though BF3 may not be the same looking at 1942, looking at BC...meh, it's possible.

 

[YayMii]

It seems that IW/Sledgehammier is trying not to make MW3 more realistic, but just to make it more fun. In fact, one of the most unrealistic aspects of previous MW games (quickscoping) have been improved to the point that people are saying that it's actually better than in previous games.
Sure, Battlefield 3's probably going to be great, but what the devs are trying to do with MW3 is improve what made CoD unique (a lot of which that others tried to copy). For those who've been enjoying CoD are sure to pick MW3, but for everyone else, BF3 will be a better choice.
Of course there's the "neither" option, and that's for people (like my friend) who, in their opinion, think that these kinds of games have completely killed the FPS genre. There's no convincing them to pick either of these, they've just completely given up with these kinds of games.

I'm most likely getting MW3. Black Ops was complete BS, and I'm hoping this'll be different than any of the Treyarch games.

 

[Gahars]

CoD4, CoD: World at War (the Russian campaign, anyway), and CoD: Black Ops, along with Battlefield Bad Company 1, all had decent to good campaigns. Plus, I never felt the urge to try to reach into the screen and strangle the protagonists.

And in Battlefield's defense, they generally don't sell the games as story driven like those stupid pretentious Gears commercials ("Man, I'm looking at flowers before killing people... that's deep, right?).

As for the multiplayer, I don't even like Gears' gameplay in either mode. It's just... there; not really fun, enjoyable, or rewarding.