Modern Warfare 3 Vs Battlefield 3: Still think BF3 Will be Better?

By Updated on

Remember how we got really excited when we saw the first gameplay videos for Battlefield 3 from EA a few months ago? Well the bandwagon seems to have well and truly kicked off for main rival Modern Warfare 3 now, and we want to know if you still think BF3 is the game to beat or not.

Obviously we’re yet to see any actual gameplay footage from Modern Wardare 3 yet, but a world premiere has been scheduled by Activsion for May23rd on ESPN during the evening. Furthermore, we’ve also had leaks on map names, gun names and what type of storyline and game modes Modern Warfare 3 will have.

Also See: COD MW3 is $20 on Xbox 360 today

Although we have to warn you of potential spoilers for the game, you can read about the Modern Warfare 3 storyline here, in a article over at Kotaku. Meanwhile, you’ll find details on maps and weapons in MW3 courtesy of the MW3Blog at MMGN.

So with that information so far in mind, do you think it has enough to take on Battlefield 3? It’s funny how last year, it was the other way around as we were asking if Battlefield Bad Company was good enough to beat Modern Warfare 2, but it’s a different story this year, as EA and DICE have done an excellent job with BF3 and the game is the clear winner – for the moment anyway.

Where does your allegiance lie? Are you still 100% towards Battlefield 3, or are you now willing to give Modern Warfare 3 a chance after recent information leaks. Give us your thoughts on this.

  • Anonymous

    MW3…yawn!! The cash cow continues.  Reminds me of the film Airplane with the poster of Rocky 65 (or something) with the old man as Rocky.
    Thats how this will be MW 86 with Clint Eastwood playing soap

  • Anonymous

    It is a fact. Games designed for consoles are not as good as PC games. COD is a console game.  BF3 is a PC game.  In BF3 you will be able to fight in jets and helicopters on huge maps with 64 players.  What does MW3 have to offer?  Just more of the same crap from the last 5 installments?  No thanks!

  • Nike_7688

    Battlefield 3.  The tired engine behind CoD has no new stories to tell and no new features…it will not stand up to the FB2 engine or ultimately, to BF3.  BF3 has so much more to offer in gameplay (via vehicles, large maps,  more players, destruction, replay-value, etc).  I don’t even care about the over-the-top outlandish story of MW anymore.  CoD4 was legendary….MW2 was awful…all the way around, and I don’t think MW3 will be a good game.  It will still sell millions just because of its name, but it will NOT be the better game.

  • Nike_7688

    Battlefield 3.  The tired engine behind CoD has no new stories to tell and no new features…it will not stand up to the FB2 engine or ultimately, to BF3.  BF3 has so much more to offer in gameplay (via vehicles, large maps,  more players, destruction, replay-value, etc).  I don’t even care about the over-the-top outlandish story of MW anymore.  CoD4 was legendary….MW2 was awful…all the way around, and I don’t think MW3 will be a good game.  It will still sell millions just because of its name, but it will NOT be the better game.

  • Nike_7688

    Battlefield 3.  The tired engine behind CoD has no new stories to tell and no new features…it will not stand up to the FB2 engine or ultimately, to BF3.  BF3 has so much more to offer in gameplay (via vehicles, large maps,  more players, destruction, replay-value, etc).  I don’t even care about the over-the-top outlandish story of MW anymore.  CoD4 was legendary….MW2 was awful…all the way around, and I don’t think MW3 will be a good game.  It will still sell millions just because of its name, but it will NOT be the better game.

  • m_beechler

    Battlefield 3. 

  • m_beechler

    Battlefield 3. 

  • http://twitter.com/burkelucas Lucas Burke

     Ive seen nothing from the cod camp that would convince me to change my mind.  graphics seem bland and outdated compared to bf3.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Connor-Barnes/1315463639 Connor Barnes

    There are many things wrong with CoD. Here are just a few: campers, quickscopers, drop shotters and the fact how every one seems to have almost identicle ingredients. Battlefield has always found ways to keep these problems at bay, and that’s why I’ll never buy that over-rated half assed piece of crap :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Connor-Barnes/1315463639 Connor Barnes

    There are many things wrong with CoD. Here are just a few: campers, quickscopers, drop shotters and the fact how every one seems to have almost identicle ingredients. Battlefield has always found ways to keep these problems at bay, and that’s why I’ll never buy that over-rated half assed piece of crap :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TILVPQYMXORMGJOO3VIUYNV5CA Eddy Sanchez

     Battlefield All The Way, pre-ordering was the best decision I’ve  ever made. but for mw3 i will just borrow the game from my game tasteless friend.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RCWNSMSB3CXBGXUICWUZ7PD36M paul

    BF3 all the way. MW3 will be nothing but the same crap as MW2 was except for a longer SP which no one plays once you beat it once.  Everything we have seen from MW3 teasers is a total rip of from BF3. Bigger maps, vehicles, destruction environment, NY, Paris. COD is finished in November. COD games are way overhyped and over rated. There has been nothing new since MW1 came out. Love live BF3

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XML6GCWLAUJDPYSDNJ7H2XAT3Q Chris

    Call of Duty – Quake III Team Arena (Okay, so you used this engine on your first game, it’s the first game, you’re allowed to).
    Call of Duty 2 – IW 2.0 (Nice, you’ve got a new engine for your second game which is outdated though)
    Call of Duty 3 – Treyarch NGL (Another new engine, okay, fair enough)
    Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare – IW Engine (You’ve gone back to IW, I hope it’s been improved… other than graphically =/)
    Call of Duty: World At War – IW Engine 3.0 (You’re using the same engine as Modern Warfare but gave it a 3.0, that’s cool)
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 – IW 4.0 (Wait, what? Seriously, the engine looks exactly the same as 3.0, it’s still a steaming pile of crap and always will be)
    Call of Duty: Black Ops – IW 3.0 (Well, that’s what I’m assuming since it’s “improved from world at war” but wait, World At War and Modern Warfare 2 look exactly the same, soooo Black Ops is only slightly better than Modern Warfare 2? Shocker…
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 – IW 4.0 (Okay, seriously, just stop recycling your bullshit over again, it’s just sad, I’ve played the original Call of Dutys and every single one of them is exactly the same except of course, the graphics, but other than that, even the physics are very alike, they’re just making the same game every time.

    My friends, Battlefield has used Refractor in two games, then upgraded for Battlefield 2, more drastically than the IW engine. Modern Combat used RenderWare 2142 used an upgraded Refractor 2, then they went hardcore with the Frostbite engine which had demolition on Bad Compay, it was also used in 1943 buuut after that, they went over the top with Frostbite 1.5, but it wasn’t a mild upgrade, they allowed for better textures, better graphics, better physics and of course, destruction 2.0.

    Now, Frostbite 2.0… seriously, the english language doesn’t have enough words to describe it. The lighting in Battlefield 3 is so much more intense than BC2 that, well, just read for yourself! Graphics, Destruction 3.0… everything, Battlefield has always been the better developer, Call of Duty just gets over-rated too much for it’s run and gun style which DICE did have, Medal of Honor, not quite as popular, but a lot more playable :)

    • Brent R

      The only good thing about thier recycling of Engines was the component that continued to be PC optimized. Even the latter Console port versions remembered the PC optimized components.

      The IW Engine  goes back to COD 1…

      source wikipedia:
      The IW Engine is a game engine developed by Infinity Ward and is used in the Call of Duty series. The engine is based on id Tech 3, which was used on the first Call of Duty game. Despite the fact that the engine is based on an outdated engine, the IW engine has been modified with graphical and technical additions since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and is considered one of this generation’s greatest engines by IGN.

    • Nike_7688

      close, Chris.  I’ll stay away from the “IW” engine issues as another commenter has already covered them, but it’s “Frostbite 2″ not “frostbite 2.0″.  Repi posted this correction on twitter.  I’m just trying to pass the message along.

      “frostbite 1.5″ was a marketing term that has led to some confusion, not a name the dev-team gave.  it was technically Frostbite 1 but it had some upgrades, including the “Destruction 2.0″ upgrade and some nice DX11 shadowing (and texture? i can’t remember) features.  so you can call it Frostbite 1.5 for BFBC2, as that’s what “DICE” called it, but calling it “Frostbite 2.0″ implies that it could be a simple upgrade from 1.5.  FB2 is a complete overhaul of all the code that was in FB1 and it was designed around DX11 and all of it’s greatness.  They took what they learned and what they knew from FB1 and made a brand new engine that, as you can see, has MANY more capabilities.  That’s about the end of my knowledge on it so I’ll stop there.

      I just wanted to add to the good points you made and offer a couple mild correction/pushes in the right direction.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XML6GCWLAUJDPYSDNJ7H2XAT3Q Chris

     Actually, that’s abit of a stupid PC L33T comment. You’re blinded by the beauty of PC. The consoles do have their potential, yes they are holding PC back but let me finish, look at Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2.. 24 player, destruction 2.0, bigger maps, ability to drive vehicles… oh what the hell? Who am I kidding? You’re just gonna come back and say PCs are more superior but I know but you know as well as I do that Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was designed for the Xbox and it still outdid Modern Warfare 2, I mean, it’s still using that crap engine from Call of Duty 2.

    • Anonymous

       “Bad Company 2 was designed for the Xbox and it still outdid Modern
      Warfare 2, I mean, it’s still using that crap engine from Call of Duty
      2″

      So What.  Battlefield 2 is better than both of those games and it came out in 2005.  BC2 was just another COD installment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001386868674 Hrushi Lakkolaz

     Battlefield 3, the only ‘good’ game the COD series has produced is modern warfare, other than that, CRAP!. BF3 FTW!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/raimo.ainla Raimo Ainla

     Just look at how many people play which game. Even if modern warfare 3 gets sick graphics, it will never beat BF. It’s so played out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/raimo.ainla Raimo Ainla

     Also, none of the cod games have ever beaten any of its’ battlefield counterparts, that are actually full products, as opposed to bfplay4free or bfheroes or even bf1943

  • Brent R

    Battlefield 3 will have 64-bit processor code.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=869520233 Alan Ng

    Looks like everyone is seriously pumped up for BF3 rather than MW3…I’m still curious to see how Infinity Ward has improved MW3 graphics wise, especially considering BF3 will use the Frostbite 2 engine… 

  • Cruziopablod

    Simple fact of vehicles not allowed in multiple player, (less than 32 players too, probably) and the want to be good recycled graphics engine tells it all.  Battlefield 3 all the way.  I am not for the console boy run and gun.  Are there squads?  Is there teamwork strategies?  I had COD4, the COD title I ever owned.  It kind was okay.  Frustrating to not use vehicles, or destroy the buildings.

  • Jeremy Woffinden

    Personally, I think both game would be fun.  And I am definately buying both of them.  MW2 had its many flaws with commando and noob tubes, but I still had fun on it due to its arcade like style.  Plus, MW3 multiplayer (which is what mot of us care about) is being developed by Raven.  Who knows what the experience would be like?  We’ll never know until november.  So if I feel like having casual fun, ill probably hop on to MW3 (assuming that it is as fun as MW1) and if I want more team-oriented battles, ill jump on BF3.  Graphics dont mean much to me.  Its the gameplay that counts.  And I have a feeling that both will deliver.

  • Jeremy Woffinden

    Personally, I think both game would be fun.  And I am definately buying both of them.  MW2 had its many flaws with commando and noob tubes, but I still had fun on it due to its arcade like style.  Plus, MW3 multiplayer (which is what mot of us care about) is being developed by Raven.  Who knows what the experience would be like?  We’ll never know until november.  So if I feel like having casual fun, ill probably hop on to MW3 (assuming that it is as fun as MW1) and if I want more team-oriented battles, ill jump on BF3.  Graphics dont mean much to me.  Its the gameplay that counts.  And I have a feeling that both will deliver.

  • Jeremy Woffinden

    By the way i am neither a BF or COD fanboy, and personally, I like battlefield better.  Its just that we shouldnt make assumptions before we’ve seen hardly anything.  Just like black ops.  Everyone saw a 2 min trailer and thought the game would be epic (including me), but look at Black ops.  I quit playing in 3 weeks or so.

  • Jeremy Woffinden

    By the way i am neither a BF or COD fanboy, and personally, I like battlefield better.  Its just that we shouldnt make assumptions before we’ve seen hardly anything.  Just like black ops.  Everyone saw a 2 min trailer and thought the game would be epic (including me), but look at Black ops.  I quit playing in 3 weeks or so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001267331903 Mike True

    Well you have to use skill to keep them at bay in MW2, which is why I prefer it to battlefield. For instance a Spaz-12 with a laser sight can easily deal with quickscopers and campers. I’ve heard of dropshooters but have never encounted one in multiplayer so I really have no idea what to say about them. But you are right about CoD games being overpriced! mw2 is almost 2 years old and its still 40 bucks!

  • http://www.facebook.com/manmeetpaul Manmeet Paul

    Is graphics everything, I have played every bf game but did not enjoyed anyone more than cod series, yes they make brilliant graphics but cod takes the realistic things and gameply(specially online) is much more better, I have to say, I did not like the gamplay experience.
    Perhaps it was just the graphics that made me love the game
    So I have to say that cod is a much better game 

    • Graphics aren’t everything

      … you probably weren’tt playing the game right if you think cod is better. There were a lot of things that people didn’t know was in the beta, due to DICE not giving a proper manual for the beta a lot of features were skipped, like changing gun from Full-Auto, Three-Burst, to One shot, Medical kits, Engineers get RC’s, deployable Bipods, and alot of other cool things.

  • You are Sad!!!

    It all depends on what your friends are playing. One big reason I play cod Black ops is because my cousins play it too and because I’m a beast at that game. I get dogs like every game.

  • idiot

    lol, gtfo. I am good at CoD and I still think BF3 is better, you single-cell brain moron.