So I was Just searching Bf3 on walmart and I read the reviews, and all they are, are angry cod fanboys raging how much bf3 sucks, and how cod with be so much better..............someone said the gfx suck, and that mw3 has better, they look pretty much the same to me....

Whenever BF and COD are brought up, it is always the same rhetoric:

"I are bettar because my game are bettar!"

"NO MINES!"

"NUH UH"

"YUH UH"

"NUH UH"

"YUH UH"

*ad infinitum*

Neither side of the debate has any idea what they are talking about.

Got a link to the reviews? There could be some potential LULZ to be found.

And the war rages on for the supremacy of the 3rd entries of two war titans.

I've played battefield 2 and bad company 2, I think it's alright graphic wise and sounds wise, seriously, the gun sounds sound a lot more powerful than Call of Duty ever will. But when it comes to gameplay, eh.

Call of Duty I played from modern warfare 1 up to black ops (will be getting my rental copy of MW3 soon), and while it's got decent sounds and graphics, I can't deny that it's easy to pick up and play, thanks to Ballistic weapons of course. *nod*

Both have gun issues, like how the shotguns don't have proper ironsights (in bad company 2 at least) And some inaccuracies with CoD's weapons (The M16A1 never had a burst mode), but then again, most FPS' with real life weapons will always have inaccuracies for balance purposes.

In the end, both games have pros and cons, to say which one is better all comes down to preferences of personal status.

As for myself?

I slightly favor CoD over Battlefield 3. But does it make me a gushing fanboy? Not really.

Personally I think these debates rarely have anything to do with the games themselves and what they get right/wrong. It's between the players and their respective ego's.

Arguments that involve the quality of the games are Strawmen/Red Herrings at best.

Basically COD players and BF players get so proud of their individual choice that they draw lines between each other for rivalries sake and the Us vs Them Mentality does the rest. Its kinda like arguing which political spectrum is better: Republican or Democrat?

My best bet is to try it firsthand to see for yourself, if you don't like it, return it. Just make sure you have a good return policy. Also, not just walmart, go everywhere to check the games.

In my opinion, both games are built around a hogged-to-death concept I don't favor....

But I'd take Battlefield simply because it has more than just on-foot Jingos....

I'd personally buy neither. I don't want CoD4.3 because I've already played CoD4.0 and thought it was pretty good but nothing to write home about, and I don't want BC3 because BC2 was crap. I think I'll stick to BF2.

I got both BF3 and CoD:MW3 and both are very fun. Took a huge freaking chunk out of my wallet though. I'm not too happy about that.

Play BF3 on PC and then play MW3 on PC...
You can't even begin to compare Cods modifed quake3 engine to the frostbite 2...

The game can manage vehicle warfare, destruction, and high detailed models and a prettier environment all at the same time while Cod only brings on death match(standard fps game types) style play and some pretty good looking character models, weapons, and maps.

The fan boys are stupid and don't try both games, both are fun but when they don't know what the hell they're talking about its annoying. They are both different styles but if you want more bang for your buck there's more diversity in BF3, the only thing that sucked was the few glitches at launch but it doesn't stop the amazing overall quality in the end.

BF3 and COD3 are very much the same when you consider the wide spectrum of action games.
COD3 is like a sky blue, while BF3 is a tiny bit more like a sky blue. I sorta feel like playing a game that's green, red or maybe even purple.

Though, from what I've seen of the two if I were looking to get the whole Modern Warfare experience, I'd probably play BF3.

Ha I get it. lolm but really I agree with you, but I would play a Green game. also, im loving hits-can.

Both look alot of fun, I'm going to buy both.

My opinion is,
After playing Mw3, it is basically MW2 with a few slight changes. Not really worth the £50.

But i have not played BF3, so i cant really know how good that is in comparison. however, BFBC2 was better than MW3.

If I had a Console I would've gotten both too, its just MW3 is better on the console IMO while BF3 is a PC game for me.

Agreed. Though I'm renting a copy.

Finished campaign... not really something I liked story wise. Knew how it would end before I even played it (without watching spoilers). And the controversial moment is just a desperate attention getter to me.

Survival mode is meh. Essentially the zombies mode, instead the zombies are Russian or African soldiers with guns. woopee.

Multiplayer is also meh. What's been done before has been better.


Also, they ruined my favorite gun in the modern warfare series: The glock 17 converted to full auto or "G18" In game.


Still haven't got a chance to play Battlefield 3, though it may not be anytime soon.

You're better off supporting companies that deserve your money, you can get games that will give you five times more enjoyment for a 5'th or less of the price of either Battlefield or CoD...

Why play these boring "Done it all before" games with such a predictable Jingo-esque story, when you can play games that actually put you somewhere you want to be, and try hard to take you out of the box....

Buy CoD or Battlefield, and you're likely just buying some super fat bonuses for the ad guys this year...

Don't forget the open source games too. I find titles like Urban Terror far more entertaining than Moderm Warfare & Battlefield could ever hope for. That $60 for MW would make a fine donation to the UrT dev's.