Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Soladrin wrote:How? You can incapacitate him with a peanut.

He'd then post about it on Dakka
I prefer BF3 mainly because it bigger...
Not just in the way the maps are bigger but during a game more can happen...

I prefer battlefield 3. I like how it is a lot bigger, team oriented, and slower paced compared to MW3.

BF3 for me, the feel is way different when your whole team synergies with so many vehicles.

Singleplayer MW3 better storyline and it doesnt glitch out like BF3.

Multiplayer BF3, bigger maps, its not just run shoot die spawn (MW3) there is actually strategy to it, and vehicles.

Lynata wrote:

Soladrin wrote:And C4 and AT mines.

C4 and JEEPS!

It works have tried it.

Also, this

Since your AT weapon is an RPG-7 as the Russkies, well, I think 5 shots to kill a tank is GENEROUS

"Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2905817.stm

I'm a casual gamer, and although I used to be a huge Battlefield fan ('42, Vietnam, BF2 were all big games for me), I've found myself gravitating more towards CoD lately. I've found that, in Battlefield, gear is a lot more important than in CoD. In BF3, being high level (or having access to the Physical Warfare Pack) is a huge advantage in and of itself, and getting started as a level 1 with no PWP guns, a week after launch, was frustrating to the point of futility.

I hopped over to MW3 and haven't looked back. I like the fast pace, and the fact that, level 1 or level 50, you have access to some good weapons. I find that skill translates better between the games in the series; I was pretty good at Black Ops and right off the bat, I was able to post a 1:1 KDR, despite the fact that I was level 1 and using the default rifle. CoD doesn't have the +Damage and +Armor perks found in BF3; level 1 or level 50, it's player skill that determines how well you'll do, not what tier of gun you have or how many perks you've buffed yourself with.

That being said, I did love the realism of BF3. One of those Iraqi maps has a narrow street where I got pinned down in a long, long gunfight. Lots of machinegun suppression fire, bottlenecking, flanking attacks to get around the sides... unfortunately you don't see that sort of stuff happen in MW3. Still, though, I just get hung up on the fact that, until you unlock some good guns and some good perks (through levels or pre-order), you're just a redshirt. I only got to ~lvl 8 or so when I un-intstalled and grabbed MW3.

Soladrin wrote:BF3, mostly because it's much more strategic and team oriented, not to mention vehicles.

Completely agree with this. MW3 seems like much more of a spawn->run forward shooting->die-> repeat.

I don't have the fastest reflexes in the world, at least compared to some players who seem to be able to jump spinning through the air, twist round while diving to the floor and then nail you through the eyes from 100m away. It leaves me roaring like an enraged ape, smashing the controller into the ground

So, I think BF3 is a bit more of a thinking persons game, even if you aren't the best at wielding a controller, careful positioning and working in a team and compensate a little more for your lack of hand-eye co-ordination.

I am going to say ... MW3 mainly because it's what is getting played the most in my local group o friends.

But I did enjoy BF3 as well ... especially the tank battle.

This

Should

Not

Be

Humanly

Possible

Soladrin wrote:This
Should
Not
Be
Humanly
Possible

WHAT THE...

This is funny, too, though:



But yeah, expanding on the above, I also love the team aspect of BF3. It's small groups tactics. You have a role to play, even if you "just" stand back and help out by manning a turret or repairing vehicles. Though I had a lot of fun as a machine gunner for suppressive fire as well. I used to favour the medic in BF2 but for some reason I can't get into it in BF3, probably because it's the Assault class now and not a role on its own. :I

That's been reposted at least 3 times now.

Ah well, I should've known.

... it might have even been me once, lol

But that was in another thread. I'm sure not everyone here knows it by now. Right? Right?!

Soladrin wrote:That's been reposted at least 3 times now.

if you mean all the other videos in this topic they are different

This was my favourite

Lynata wrote:

Soladrin wrote:And C4 and AT mines.

C4 and JEEPS!

Oh man.... I cannot stop laughing....
BF3 definitely my choice. MW3 was just...... meh....

The battlefield games have always been superior in multiplayer.

World at War and MW1/2 had great single player however.

Meh. They are all bad to me. I never got the whole fascination with "realistic military shooters". Aren't games meant to be the antithesis to that?
I don't mind realism that much, hell S.T.A.L.K.E.R is one of my favorite games, but throw in a alien or something.

People who claim CoD's realistic irritate me slightly.

Go play ArmA and get sniped from a kilometre away

Best 'casual' realism, imo, has to be Red Orchestra 2.

Henners91 wrote:People who claim CoD's realistic irritate me slightly.

Ditto. If it's so realistic, then why can you regenerate health?
If it were really realistic, then a single hit will pretty much kill you.

Stormfather wrote:I'm a casual gamer, and although I used to be a huge Battlefield fan ('42, Vietnam, BF2 were all big games for me), I've found myself gravitating more towards CoD lately. I've found that, in Battlefield, gear is a lot more important than in CoD. In BF3, being high level (or having access to the Physical Warfare Pack) is a huge advantage in and of itself, and getting started as a level 1 with no PWP guns, a week after launch, was frustrating to the point of futility.

Seriously? I'd say I'm barely more competitive than your average gamer, and I still stick with a lot of the default guns...particularly the AK and the M16, even the MK11 MOD or w/e. I've always had the physical warfare pack, and I barely used the weapons from it. The FAMAS is arguably overpowered, but that is about it IMO. Even with having the FAMAS I still find myself using the M16 a lot, and playing halfway decent.

Ditto. If it's so realistic, then why can you regenerate health?
If it were really realistic, then a single hit will pretty much kill you.

Definitely agree with you guys on these, neither BF3 nor COD are realistic, and I wouldn't want them to be too much. BF3 isnt so much realistic as tactical, and I love how it strike that balance between accessible yet still tactical and strategic. People don't understand how unplayable a truly realistic game would be. But as far as the "fascination with realism", I can understand it to an extent. In BF3, I really do feel immersed in the game sometimes...with the great graphics, animations for movement, blurred screen, and fantastic sound (yes im a huge fan of bf), it really is a cool sensation to almost feel as if I'm *there*. And while theres always going to be that one dude who tells me that if it really felt like I was there bullets would hurt and so on and so on, that would not be very much fun.