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.

In my area, at least, there's been a big debate about which is better and which to get. Since they come out around the same time, and both are the third in their series promising to be the best military FPS yet. So which will be better, and the one that you get?

BF3...
Blowing up is all you really need in a game...

I think MW3 will be CODs last Hurrah, and that BF3 will be the birth of something new, a new trend in FPS'.

purplefood wrote:BF3...
Blowing up is all you really need in a game...

Go play Mercenaries then, everythin can be blown up.

I'm hoping Battlefield will really be as destructable as they say- it looks like MW3 is also ripping from them (larger maps and destructable terrain).

Another poll for people too lazy to type in full words. Well it gets one option right. I see 'Space Marine' rather than 'SM'.

I worked out what BF was from the title, dont know what MW is, but if its MechWarrior then we are looking at 4, 5 soon.

Come on, there isnt a net tax on vowels, and keyboard wear isn't really an issue.

Dude... no hating on abbreviations. I can type as fast as the next man, but I don't want to get ninja'd. That would suck. Its just easier to communicate quicker with them.

If you want, I can edit them. It's an easy fix. Please, though- don't be hatin'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, most people know the meanings in this forum.

Voting for anything other than SPHEES MAHREENS is heresy.

Kasrkai wrote:Voting for anything other than SPHEES MAHREENS is heresy.

SPHEES MAHREENS, as you put it, suck....imo.

If, however, I was able to play as a CSM shooting down SM then Id probly have voted for it.

That game... online you can be CSM.

Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:That game... online you can be CSM.

Online alone isnt good enough .

Doubt Id have the cash to buy all 3 of these FPS games and Skyrim haha.

johnscott10 wrote:

purplefood wrote:BF3...
Blowing up is all you really need in a game...

Go play Mercenaries then, everythin can be blown up.

Already done that.
Played laser tag with nuke designators and everything.

Space Marine all the way, bro.

johnscott10 wrote:SPHEES MAHREENS suck.

If, however, I was able to play as a CSM shooting down SM then Id probly have voted for it.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S HERESY BRO.

I'm preordering BF3 and Space Marine right now.

purplefood wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

purplefood wrote:BF3...
Blowing up is all you really need in a game...

Go play Mercenaries then, everythin can be blown up.

Already done that.
Played laser tag with nuke designators and everything.

I hit an assassination target with a nuclear bunker buster, it somehow missed.

Otherwise, this makes me wish Pandemic was still around.

I must say, I'm actually not pumped for the next COD this time.
My entire being will be spent on Skyrim, which I know will be better than MW3, even though I enjoy the series.
And I may actually get BF3, because its not 'Bad Company' anymore. God those games were awful.

halonachos wrote:

purplefood wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

purplefood wrote:BF3...
Blowing up is all you really need in a game...

Go play Mercenaries then, everythin can be blown up.

Already done that.
Played laser tag with nuke designators and everything.

I hit an assassination target with a nuclear bunker buster, it somehow missed.

Otherwise, this makes me wish Pandemic was still around.

Nah what you do is get 2 players with nuke designators and see which one can hit the other...
It's an interesting game.

Which ever one uses the most military-lingo that real soldiers don't actually use.


...I swear to God if I have to hear "OSCAR MIKE!!!!!" one more time there will be a puppy that ends up face down in a ditch!!

Thats what happens when the script writers use wikipedia as a source of jargon.

Normally I'm not, you know, a grammar nazi who hates abbreviations, but I'm not gonna lie - I came in here hoping this would be about Mechwarrior and I'm leaving disappointed :(

Why on earth would I ever buy another CoD/MW game after the last two?

Battlefield at least has yet to destroy my opinion of it

You know something is wrong when a person buys a game over another game because it has "yet to destroy their opinion of it"...

Kasrkai wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:SPHEES MAHREENS suck.

If, however, I was able to play as a CSM shooting down SM then Id probly have voted for it.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S HERESY BRO.

Indeed it is

Wow... many of these post are on the Space Marine game. I added that as a 'just for fun' option.

If it's really troubling everyone, I can change the poll and title out of abbreviations. However, MW3 should stay in the poll. If you don't know what THAT is; you're not interested in this thread.

Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:if you don't know what THAT is; you're not interested in this thread.

I was when I thought it was a Mechwarrior thread!

That being said I doubt either one of these games will do absolutely anything new for the genre. Every shooter is essentailly the same. I like shooters and will likely play both, but aside from say... Half-Life and Bioshock, I can't think of a single shooter that didn't redo what Doom did, just slightly better.

I picked BF3...I have been a big fan of the BF series since 1942, so it seems like a natural progression.

I'm a little bummed about the lack of the commander feature in BF3, but then when I reflect back on my experiences with BF2, I realise that it was very rare when all of the elements of the game came together (compentent commander, players that actually joined squads and listened to orders, etc). The few times that happened were AWESOME, but I think the developers were probably right that the feature wasn't used enough to justify keeping it.

I think that battlefields main innovation is the adaptability of destructable terrain. Before; you only blow up certain things in certain ways; just really changing the cover. Now, like in the subway level, you can blow out lights to make the stage darker. That sounds like it could lead to some really cool scenarios. Plus, Squad Combat is always a great thing.

purplefood wrote:You know something is wrong when a person buys a game over another game because it has "yet to destroy their opinion of it"...

Something is wrong when someone buys a game over another because the later has disappointed said person with the last two entries?

It actually seems rather reasonable

I have little faith in the future of MW/CoD at this point (now they're edging themselves towards charging monthly fees). That last two games weren't fun and were plagued with problems and horrible game balance. Battlefield hasn't given anywhere near as negative an experience in the BF game's I've played (yet I also have not played many BF games hence my statement that my opinion of it isn't ruined). But then BFBC2 wasn't a flawless little baby either.

I know il be going for BF3 first since this is my first time hearing about MW3, will probably pick up MW3 sometime after. (Both games will have to wait for Skyrim and the computer upgrade though)