PS3 News: Battlefield 3 Campaign Wins Out Over Modern Warfare 3 - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Battlefield 3 Campaign Wins Out Over Modern Warfare 3

For the record, I gave Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 the same score. Very similar games, but I give the campaign edge to BF3 and the multiplayer edge to MW3, so any differences canceled each other out.

That's the simplified comparison, of course; read the full reviews for extra elaboration. But the point is this: I know nobody is supposed to care about the campaigns in such games, as multiplayer is obviously the biggest draw. However, believe it or not, there are people out there who love fun, intense single-player adventures in a first-person shooter. And so, we're telling you flat-out: if you're a campaign fan who doesn't dig online multiplayer, but you still want a great shooter experience, go with Battlefield 3. It's close but only one can win.

Not only does it look better, but it's also a little more varied and a little more involving. It's also more realistic, which makes it much more challenging and keeps you on the edge of your seat. While MW3 features a similar roller-coaster ride with plenty of great thrills, it doesn't feel as "next-gen" as BF3; it's more of the "been there, done that" sensation, despite its definite appeal. Too many of the missions in the MW3 campaign felt like straight-up run and gun, while BF3 seems to offer more diversity.

And I have to say that in terms of sheer, "holy sh**" moments, BF3 has a slight edge, although MW3 really tries to keep shoving bad-ass scenes in your face. Oh, and let's not forget that BF3's campaign is at least a few hours longer. So, single-player fans, you know what to choose.

Related Game(s): Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Tags: battlefield 3, bf3, modern warfare 3, mw3, bf3 campaign

11/10/2011 8:59:05 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (50 posts)

Alienange
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 9:35:57 PM
Reply

So if you like both sp and mp then MW3 is the only choice. Why give up months of fantastic mp for a couple extra hours of sp campaign right?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 11 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 9:52:16 PM

you kinda got that backwards, if you like sp and mp then you definitely need to buy battlefield 3. as ben said, it wins in the single player field. in multiplayer, theres still some things need fixing but i bet theres are still things need fixing in mw3 multiplayer. which is weird because its the same since call of duty 4 but the same problems are there with every game in the series. either way, battlefield multiplayer is amazing. just got used to flying jets and helicopters and they're pretty fun.

however, if you want just a mindless run and gun game and generally pain in the @$$ community then mw3 is your game. i have been playing call of duty games since modern warfare 1, the best of the series, till black ops and the game is just getting old for me now. passed on modern warfare 3 but i'm sure i'll pick it up later when its finally worth it, around $20 to $30 dollars. i'll probably be playing single player anyway since i'm sick of the call of duty community. there are a few i played with that are alright but all in all most of those players just ruin the game for me.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 11:21:31 PM

Ben's words are pretty clear there johnld, he says flat-out, "if you're a campaign fan who doesn't dig online multiplayer... go with BF3."

I for one absolutely love mp. It's what the fps was made for. So no, I didn't get anything wrong, I'll go with the one that has a *much* stronger online component over the one that has a couple extra hours of campaign.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:01:36 AM

Yeah, you're still getting it wrong. The world doesn't revolve around you. Not everyone wants multiplayer; if they're only going to be playing the single-player, I would recommend Battlefield 3.

Really. It isn't that complicated, despite your pressing need to be arbitrary.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:06:05 AM

shut the hell up and try both of them before you talk please. Ive been playing both. Both are fun in my opinion. But BF3 is better in my opinion as a whole package.

Alienage, im highly doubting you've played any battlefield game in the last few years. You hate EA blindly just like some hate Activision and that makes you just as bad as the haters that give you crap about CoD.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:37:26 AM

as someone who can understand what is written and reading between the lines. ben was saying that battlefield 3 has the edge over modern warfare 3 campaign wise. he didnt really say anything about multiplayer. As someone who actually play battlefield 3 online and played other call of duty games, lets face it call of duty games are pretty much the same online every year minus a few minor changes, battlefield is no slouch multiplayer wise. its a lot more challenging than playing call of duty. the variety of gameplay that battlefield offers with its infantry, vehicle, and squad battles makes the game a lot of fun to play.

when i played the other call of duty games, i usually just played till i unlocked everything and then lost interest because its all the same. most i played is probably a month or 2 in actual time, not game time. doing prestige just sounds retarded to me so i just move on to a better game.

Last edited by johnld on 11/11/2011 1:39:31 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 3:29:18 AM

Johnld-

I always hated prestiging in CoD too. My biggest gripe was you get nothing for it but a new medal. Well now you get prestige points. You can use them to unlock 2 hours of double XP, among many other things. So that's a plus!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 7:38:23 AM

I for one, "DO" care all about the SP only modes, so thank you Ben for giving your view on both campaigns.

I'll be getting both of them eventually when they're much cheap due to their short campaigns, but this makes it so much easier for me to pick BF3 to play first & foremost.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 11/11/2011 7:45:45 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Stabs88
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 8:28:45 AM

I got them both. Like the MP just a tad better on MW3 then BF3. Doesnt stop me from going back an forth with them tho. BF3 is a much tougher game overall. It made a better MW player to say the least. But i agree with the SP, BF all the way, was an ok story, graphics out of this world. I still have yet to hope into the SP for MW but thats what happen when all your friends only get THAT game. Kinda lame but god love em...since no one else will hahah

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CrusaderForever
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 10:15:12 AM

I have both games and enjoy them both immensely. However, I haven't played the SP in either.

MP Gripes:

MW3 - no vehicles, hence small maps and knifing is lame

BF3 - not enough players for how big the maps are (BF4 on the PS4 will be truly epic! would love to see 64 players)

Otherwise, it's good to know what Ben thinks is the best SP experience. Both games are excellent and have shown that you can own both and love both.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 12:43:21 PM

theres only one main reason i'm not playing call of duty right now. the community is just more of a pain in the @$$ to warrant me playing it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:00:22 PM

JohnLD-

My experience with MW3 so far has been great. I know what you mean, I hate the CoD community at times. But MW3 has been a pleasure. Plus there's always being able to mute people.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:22:37 PM

Alienage just feels threatened. His manhood is being challenged by this article. You see, if MW3 isn't considered the "greatest game evah!" by the masses, Alienage has no reason to live.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 10:03:41 PM
Reply

I think Skyrim will win :)

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 10:16:23 PM

Ha... yes, it should be... Skyrim should be a great experience. Just waiting for Ben's review...

Lol, I just realised the Skyrim review is up after clicking out... so here goes...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Last edited by Qubex on 11/10/2011 10:17:35 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

raptassassin
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 6:39:24 AM

What world said.
Skyrim endless = Game of the Year in my book.

Long. Live. Play

Last edited by raptassassin on 11/11/2011 6:40:16 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 2:16:09 PM

@Q

LoL, Ben's Skyrim review is already older than this article.


Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 11/11/2011 2:16:57 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 10:20:36 PM
Reply

I tried the BF3 campaign, after about an hour or two I sort of lost interest. Maybe I'll revisit it some day. I liked how only after a few bullets I die. Keeps me more thoughtful. I did have some gripes about the control responsiveness. I'd like to see some latency measurements to confirm the input lag I know I'm feeling.

MW3 is cool so far. MW3 looks to do it's best for the series in what CoD knows how to do.

Last edited by Temjin001 on 11/10/2011 10:21:03 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hadouken
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 10:45:11 PM
Reply

Now you tell me after I bought cod mw 3 off ebay yesterday lol.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 11:05:26 PM
Reply

Well I wish I was finished with MW3, because then I could say which was better. But as good as the gameplay was, BF3's campaign didn't impress me much. In fact I was very disappointed in the ending!

With that said both games are very good from my perspective in their own ways. I was disappointed in BF3' length and story but I had fun playing it. So far MW3' campaign is very engaging, but I don't doubt it'll probably be short as well.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/10/2011 11:07:45 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

killerbee12
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 11:12:48 PM
Reply

well this is pointless news

Agree with this comment 3 up, 12 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 11:18:46 PM

I wouldn't really call it news at all. It's just a summation of two reviews and recommendations to those who like different things.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

godsdream
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 11:26:46 PM

@killerbee12 saying this is pointless news is like saying that you are stupid when you ask something.

Last edited by godsdream on 11/10/2011 11:27:03 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:02:48 AM

Don't comment if you have nothing to say.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

raptassassin
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 6:43:08 AM

@killerbee12
Pointless games are pointless.
*cough Call of Duty, *cough Battlefield *cough, cough*

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 7:10:41 AM

I found this article to be of great interest, it made me delay spending cash on mw3 since I find the MP in BF to be pretty darn good as it is and now that I know that I probably got the best sp campaign of the two as well, that's great to be aware of.

What *I* find to be rather uninteresting is the numerous articles about Final Fantasy. Do you like them?
See, Killerbee, we all have different interests and focus. But we are all still gamers. And this is a gamer site.

Last edited by Beamboom on 11/11/2011 7:19:42 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 10:09:04 AM

Well this is a baseless post.

@Beamboom
I think it's important to remember that getting a lot of FF news on a Playstation site will likely be the norm for the next 2 years or so.

Afterall, it had spent over a decade as a Playstation exclusive franchise. At one point, it was a console selling franchise, even. Obviously, with that no longer being the case, there are bound to be playstation centric sites that will remain confused about the changes until it officially becomes the norm.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/11/2011 10:11:23 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:57:47 PM

Under, my point was that not every article can be of interest to every reader. That's not possible.
And then I took a chance and used the FF series as an example, gambling on KillerBee being a fan of that series just to prove my point.

Of course you guys must get your FF articles! Keep'em flowing at a steady rate. ;)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

godsdream
Thursday, November 10, 2011 @ 11:25:40 PM
Reply

This is exactly why I like very much this site. My thanks to Ben for this. I just didn't expect it but it's very necessary to some of us. I know almost everyone don't care but this is very important to me before I choose this types of games. Seeing what Ben points out, it's like he read my mind... It felt weird lol

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:12:55 AM
Reply

Thats pretty much the same feeling ive been getting, from BF3 and from playing MW3 at my friend's house, though i still give the nod to BF3 for multiplayer. it challenges me more. Both cater pretty well to its target audience quite well. I do think bf players would be able to adapt fast to fit into Cod's pace of play, though they'd miss the vehicles

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 3:32:36 AM

I have a problem with vehicles in games, especially in maps the size that BF3 has. That's not a knock on the game though, I just don't like vehicles in mp, mainly because you have one person who just sits in a tank the whole game. But to an extent BF3 has one of the better balances for vehicles and those not in vehicles, making it at least playable for me.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 4:23:23 AM

thats the thing, there is a counter to everything. it also helps if ur team is playing as a team.

Sitting tanks can be countered in a variety of ways. C4 with the support class, Rpgs or Javelins with the Engineer, the assault class can do minor damage with its grenade launcher but its not advised.

The recon class, though it has no good way of dealing with armor by itself, can be helpful by spotting it with the MAV or with the soflam, the soflam being device that laser designates enemy vehicles. With it being laser targeted, the jav will target the top of the tank instead of its treads. Top of the tanking being pretty weak.

The laser targeting also helps out any other kind of guided attack, whether it be guided shells from the tank, or laser guided missiles from the helis or jets. A good jet pilot can help take out tanks like no one's business

All that being said, the tank has counter measures to all of which that i described, making it somewhat a fair fight. For C4 users, proximity scan will show nearby users near the tank so they will have a hard time sneaking up on you, reactive armor to take more damage, thermal vision to spot land mines, ir smoke to spoof incoming guided attacks.

Last edited by aaronisbla on 11/11/2011 4:25:38 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 6:45:26 AM

That was a very interesting read, Aaronis! This game is a lot more complex and deep than I expected it to be. It's my first real BF so quite frankly it's all a bit overwhelming. Guides like those you wrote there are of great help.


Last edited by Beamboom on 11/11/2011 6:46:18 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:03:35 PM

I know how to counter vehicles, that's why I said BF3 has a better balance than most games. I was impressed with that aspect. But just me personally I would rather there not be vehicles.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 7:33:56 PM

no problem beamboom. glad it was helpful, its basic stuff once you play it enough. The game can be overwhelming to newer players, especially if there brand of fps doesn't normally deal with vehicles that are controllable.

Bad Company 1 was my first one and boy did i fell overwhelmed. to this day, still can't fly the choppers well enough to decimate ground troops lol, but i'll get in the gunner's seat with no issue. When BC2 came around, i was use to the size of the maps by then. BF3 maps are indeed bigger though, even on console with the exception of maps like operation metro and seine's crossing

Didnt mean to say that like you didnt know bigrailer, just kinda went on a mini rant, thats all.

Oh and apparently i was wrong about the laser painter being countered by IR smoke or IR flares. Javs and other types of guided weapons are only spoofed by it if they aren't laser painted since they track in on the heat source this way. If its lased it tracks in on the lase signature, therefore still hitting its target without being spoofed

Last edited by aaronisbla on 11/11/2011 7:40:11 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frostface
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 2:07:22 AM
Reply

I'm torn between the two games. I was completely for BF3 and had absolutely no intention of picking up MW3. I ranted over on the forums about how disappointed I was with the BF3 campaign but raved about the MP.

So after building BF3 up to ridiculous heights only for the campaign to let me down, I decided to give MW3 a chance yesterday and to be completely honest I'm finding the campaign to be equally a struggle to get through, not because it's difficult but because it's just missing something. It really is more run and gun with not much motivation in the story to push you forward from one level to the next.

So as someone who is really into my campaigns, both games let me down. But I recognise that these games are more about the MP so I gave them both a clean slate going into the MP.
( Actually that's sort of a lie, BF3 I knew would be awesome, I was carrying a lot of BLOP's negativity with me going into MW3.)

Both games offer completely different online experiences. MW3 really surprised me.

BF3 was awesome as I expected with some problems with partying up and mic problems but stuff that usually gets patched quick.
Otherwise a fantastic and much more tactical experience.

MW3 is definitely more run and gun, but it was more balanced then I'd expected. The maps are well designed and although I'd only played a few rounds last night, I didn't want to stop.

So to summarize, if your pocket can afford it, get both. Don't try compare them or rate one over the other because they're two completely different beasts. Their campaigns are awful imo, but one day you'll be in the mood to just hop in a game and run and gun for that fast kill (MW3), some other day you'll want a more tactical experience (BF3).

Or someday you'll want an RPG and you'll go for Skyrim or Dark Souls, another day you'll want a roast dinner, then the next some pasta.
They'll all give you enjoyment and shouldn't be compared too much. Enjoy them all on their own merits.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 2:11:44 AM
Reply

i only preferred BF3s campaign simply because it makes you feel more of a soldier where MW3 feels more like a special ops guy.
BF3 was kinda a mix of both though, some missions like the opening mission, or operation gilotine felt like proper army missions where other missions like the subway, or house infiltration felt the opposite felt more like spec ops MW3.
thats why i did not like BF3s campaign much, it has a identity crisis.
it wants to be the realistic hardcore war shooter, but then it also wants to be the big sceptical special ops game.
cant be both, either one or the other!
thats the only thing DICE need to improve for BF4.
well that, and obviously the campaign.
BF4 needs to feel more like MOH, the real hardcore proper army game and less the typical spec ops MW3 wannabe.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 3:49:33 AM

Couple things...

So spec ops, are not soldiers?

Next, MoH was a spec ops game, you played as various special forces groups like the Navy SEALs and Delta Force.

I think what your trying to say is on one side there's the game that tasks you with completing a mission, as opposed to the other game that throws you into intense battle. But it's kind of hard to categorize them like that, they are military shooters.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 8:07:01 AM

where did i say spec ops are not soldiers?
MoH felt like a proper military war game, it did not feel like your playing the role of a special operations soldier.
thats one thing i thought did not fit with MW3.
its suppose to be based on WW3, but it does not feel like that.
it feels like your taking down some pissed off terrorists!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 1:06:14 PM

You said it in your first sentence. You ddnt say it bluntly but you differentiated the two by categorizing them. "i only preferred BF3s campaign simply because it makes you feel more of a soldier where MW3 feels more like a special ops guy." - said by you.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Saturday, November 12, 2011 @ 9:28:26 AM

yes, more like a spec ops guy.
jesus tap dancing christ do i have to single out every single letter for ya!?
you get the point, stop splitting hairs!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

79transam
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 5:51:23 AM
Reply

Don't understand why you think MW3 has better multiplayer? Is it because it requires less overall skill or teamwork to play therefore being easier to step right into for the average gamer?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 6:39:51 AM
Reply

Actually ben, im wondering the same thing. What in your opinion makes MW3 the better multiplayer experience?

You touched on the single player side with this article, why not explain your opinion about the multiplayer? Although i disagree with you, im interested. I don't think you'd just throw it out there just to give MW3 a nod


Last edited by aaronisbla on 11/11/2011 6:43:03 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 2:07:58 PM

Just read my reviews. This article is about the single-player experience.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

raptassassin
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 6:48:55 AM
Reply

I just don't understand the hype for both of these games. Short campaigns heavy on multiplayer. meh. If a game want my attention the campaign must be at least 6-10 hour long.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ultimate_Balla
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 9:55:21 AM
Reply

I'm all for COD. who does 4-player offline mode AND 2-player split-screen online? :D I get what you said in the review("been there, done that"), & I can even back you(Ben) up by saying I started the campaign on Hardened & all still ran around lookin' for intel like it was an easy playthrough(even rarely dying). But there is something about IW that keeps me playing. BF on the other hand, i've never played before, though I have 1 & 2, so I ain't gonna comment on which is the better one. All i'm sayin' is that I FAVOUR COD.

Last edited by Ultimate_Balla on 11/11/2011 9:56:28 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

polomint82
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 12:23:44 PM
Reply

Here's the problem with this article. It's an opinion and I highly doubt it was created without some preconceived notion beforehand. Take it for what it is. It's almost the only article I have read that even has the positives and negatives this way around (all other reviews are saying COD campaign mode blows the pants off BF3). I've played both and have always been a COD nut, just couldn't imagine another game coming close. I'd often remark that every other FPS should just use the COD engine and be done with it. The previous BF series felt a little odd to me. The campaign was a little childish and the MP mode seemed heavy and sluggish. That's all dead, it's all over. This time around the comparisons either have to stop or people have to stop kidding themselves. BF3 is the FPS I have been waiting for since I bought my first console. It's that good. The scenery in battle is absolutely chaotic yet controllable (run and dive MF), debris, noise, teamwork and consideration of position (mortar strikes in Rush may seem like a good idea until you realize your squad is holding the position). COD is run'n'gun, plain and simple. So do we admit that we are dealing with two different beasts? One attempts to recreate a Battlefield whilst the other attempts to test your ability to outdraw and outrun your opponent. I know what I want out of my FPS and I found it. COD will sit on my shelves and eventually I will pull it out and probably get going on the levels, but that will all have to wait until I am burnt out on BF3. Seriously, if you are undecided then put the time and effort in on BF3 and you won't be disappointed OR go with what is safe and crack out the COD for dinner ;) Peace to all no matter your choice of poison.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 11, 2011 @ 2:07:23 PM

You can "highly doubt" what you want. I have no preconceived notions about either franchise, and I never have.

The BF3 campaign is better. It's more polished, more diverse, and better paced. Yes, it's an opinion, but I think we're all aware of that.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

j587
Saturday, November 12, 2011 @ 8:24:58 PM
Reply

I think BF3 is way better in ever aspect the MW3. The campagin is better and the mp is amazing. its everything i wish MW3 was. Theres no lag like in MW3, you have to account for bullet drop which is sweet, and there is no bull shit knifing like MW3. The two biggest issues I have with MW3 is the lag and knifing. If there was none of that then 100% of my time would be devoted to MW3. I also think the levels in MW3 are terrible and its just not as challenging as BF. There is just so much more you can do in BF then you can in MW. The way I see it is that there made for 2 different skill levels. MW for people who are new to FPS and who only get the game because their friends have it and BF for players who have been around fps for awhile and want a challenge.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

azarel_7
Sunday, November 13, 2011 @ 1:36:41 PM
Reply

Ben, I read your reviews but what is it exactly that gives MW3 the win over BF3 in the multiplayer department. I didn't see it, or maybe I missed that part

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

So, how's Far Cry 4?
Terrific, one of the best in 2014!
Good game but not amazing.
Okay; nothing special.
Eh, I'm disappointed.

Previous Poll Results