Modern Warfare 3 Midnight Release

[chrisleakfan4life]

Who's going?

[chrisleakfan4life]

Well im planning on going, picking up the MW3 console and ill be playing MW3 tonight.

Just checked Gamestop and got my confirmation email. My Hardened edition has been shipped thankfully!

My extra MW3 copy is being sold to my sisters boyfriend.

Cannot wait!

Work till 11:20 pm tonight than im picking up the game! If anybody wants to play late tonight my gamertag is below.

[GatorFan89]

Meh. Skyrim and Saints Row 3 will get my money first. I did go to the MW2 midnight launch and it was a clusterf**k. The line got stalled so many times by kids arguing because they couldn't get the game without their parents.

[ThomasGoldkamp]

I pre-ordered it on Amazon, but probably won't get a chance to play much this week. Gonna be really busy between football, basketball and soccer.

[gatormoe1]

I'm getting my copy in about 45 minutes. Can't wait!

[chrisleakfan4life]

Still got another 3 hours at Work FML

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[gatormoe1]

Still got another 3 hours at Work FML

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

You mean you can't fake being sick?

[chrisleakfan4life]

You mean you can't fake being sick?

I wish :grin:

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[arkiegator]

Picking my copy up in an 1hr 12 min

[chrisleakfan4life]

In line freezing

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[chrisleakfan4life]

Picked it up after freezing my nips off for an hour

Just finished setting up the console, its amazing!

[chrisleakfan4life]

Plays just like MW2 for anybody who is curious about this game.

[GatorFan89]

Plays just like MW2 for anybody who is curious about this game.

Sounds like I paid my $60 for this game two years ago...

[gatormoe1]

Sounds like I paid my $60 for this game two years ago...

Its much better than MW2 though. MW3 is what MW2 should have been after COD4.

[GatorFan89]

Its much better than MW2 though. MW3 is what MW2 should have been after COD4.

What's new in it?

[Sir_Gibby]

Sounds like I paid my $60 for this game two years ago...

This. Looks the same too.

[gatormoe1]

New guns, new game modes, no commando, no one many army, no last stand, new kill streaks, perks for your guns, different tears of kill streaks (3 different tears, assault, support and specialist -- support doesn't reset your kill streak after death BTW) obviously new maps, upgraded game engine (its the same as before just a little better).

Spec ops is also brand-new with hordes of enemies with guns similar to zombies.

[ThomasGoldkamp]

Haven't gotten it yet, but from watching some of the trailers it seems like they just made it more like Battlefield 3. In other words, there are different classes that cater to the different styles of players. You also upgrade your player and your weapons as you go instead of choosing what you buy whenever you level up and get your COD points.

I haven't gotten it yet, though. So this is just based on what I saw in the trailers.

[gatormoe1]

Haven't gotten it yet, but from watching some of the trailers it seems like they just made it more like Battlefield 3. In other words, there are different classes that cater to the different styles of players. You also upgrade your player and your weapons as you go instead of choosing what you buy whenever you level up and get your COD points.

I haven't gotten it yet, though. So this is just based on what I saw in the trailers.

That was created by Treyarch and it was stupid. If you earned a gun you had any attachment you wanted right when you buy it. I thought it was stupid and took away the part where you had to get kills and EARN your attachments and camos.

[chrisleakfan4life]

I think its better than MW2 and its much more customizable


I wouldn't say its a waste of money

[chrisleakfan4life]

Check out this awesomeness

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6542/img0500xt.jpg
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8320/img0501ly.jpg

Hardened edition is really nice

[helix139]

I give this one a sollid "meh," at least for multiplayer. Not particularly innovative, and it appears all the good level designers left IW and went to Respawn because what is in MW3 is worse than what was in Black Ops and far below the great maps in MW1 and MW2. Each of those I liked the vast majority of the larger maps right away, but I really only like a couple in MW3 and not all that much. Most are not very vertical at all, and there aren't a lot of open, unobstructed spaces for overwatch/sniping. Several areas look like they would be pretty cool if you could get to them, but you can't. Invisible walls and such like in Black Ops. Big disservice to snipers in this game. You're going to run and gun, or you're going to die.

In the first two games, I absolutely loved:

Ambush
Backlot
Bloc
Bog
Crash
Crossfire
Downpour
Overgrown
Pipeline
Strike
Afghan
Derail
Estate
Favela
Highrise
Invasion
Quarry
Rundown
Scrapyard
Underpass
Wasteland

That's really a ton of maps, and there were others I liked, but these were my favorites and MW3 just doesn't capture the style of play from those types of maps all that well. Those all had places that were tough to get to, but if you could manage you'd be rewarded with a position where you could just take over a game if you were skilled at hitting a moving target from a distance, picking and choosing your spots and staying hidden in between, and had the right perks. This one seems like it even forces snipers to run and gun, with the majority of shots being of the short to medium range variety, the locations not very well shielded or camouflaged, and the sightlines generally very obstructed.

This link confirms it. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-08-sledgehammer-modern-warfare-3-isnt-camper-friendly

Someone needs to explain to Sledgehammer that there is a difference between camping and sniping, difference being that when sniping you generally don't have much of a chance at close range against someone who manages to flank you or break through your sniping line. This just hoses people who like to use positioning and stealth to set up shots. Yes, shots from across the map. I guess I just made the mistake of thinking that getting shot from across the map by a skilled sniper who has position on you from that particular angle was a part of playing a balanced FPS.

I wish I would have known this before I bought the game. I never would have picked it up. As is, since I already have it I'll probably play through the single player, but I'll be going back to Battlefield for multiplayer. For snipers or those who don't like being forced into a single style of play, it's far superior, despite its lack of a 1-hit kill Barrett .50.

[demosthenes]

I have been enjoying the campaign. I am still getting used to the multiplayer though. I can go from 3 and 14 one game to 16 and 6 the next. part of that is not knowing the maps and also not playing on my playstation for close to 8 months

the graphics seem improved on both modes so I am enjoying that.

[gatormoe1]

I have been enjoying the campaign. I am still getting used to the multiplayer though. I can go from 3 and 14 one game to 16 and 6 the next. part of that is not knowing the maps and also not playing on my playstation for close to 8 months

the graphics seem improved on both modes so I am enjoying that.

This is because of the punk arse campers. As the game goes on they will stop being scared of learning a new map and will move around more.

The only things I don't like about this game are the match making (fixable) and the fact that there are a lot of objects such as dumpsters and cars that I can't clime on.

[ThomasGoldkamp]

I give this one a sollid "meh," at least for multiplayer. Not particularly innovative, and it appears all the good level designers left IW and went to Respawn because what is in MW3 is worse than what was in Black Ops and far below the great maps in MW1 and MW2. Each of those I liked the vast majority of the larger maps right away, but I really only like a couple in MW3 and not all that much. Most are not very vertical at all, and there aren't a lot of open, unobstructed spaces for overwatch/sniping. Several areas look like they would be pretty cool if you could get to them, but you can't. Invisible walls and such like in Black Ops. Big disservice to snipers in this game. You're going to run and gun, or you're going to die.

In the first two games, I absolutely loved:

Ambush
Backlot
Bloc
Bog
Crash
Crossfire
Downpour
Overgrown
Pipeline
Strike
Afghan
Derail
Estate
Favela
Highrise
Invasion
Quarry
Rundown
Scrapyard
Underpass
Wasteland

That's really a ton of maps, and there were others I liked, but these were my favorites and MW3 just doesn't capture the style of play from those types of maps all that well. Those all had places that were tough to get to, but if you could manage you'd be rewarded with a position where you could just take over a game if you were skilled at hitting a moving target from a distance, picking and choosing your spots and staying hidden in between, and had the right perks. This one seems like it even forces snipers to run and gun, with the majority of shots being of the short to medium range variety, the locations not very well shielded or camouflaged, and the sightlines generally very obstructed.

This link confirms it. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-08-sledgehammer-modern-warfare-3-isnt-camper-friendly

Someone needs to explain to Sledgehammer that there is a difference between camping and sniping, difference being that when sniping you generally don't have much of a chance at close range against someone who manages to flank you or break through your sniping line. This just hoses people who like to use positioning and stealth to set up shots. Yes, shots from across the map. I guess I just made the mistake of thinking that getting shot from across the map by a skilled sniper who has position on you from that particular angle was a part of playing a balanced FPS.

I wish I would have known this before I bought the game. I never would have picked it up. As is, since I already have it I'll probably play through the single player, but I'll be going back to Battlefield for multiplayer. For snipers or those who don't like being forced into a single style of play, it's far superior, despite its lack of a 1-hit kill Barrett .50.

Only played for a few minutes last night, but you pretty much summed up how I felt to a T. Way too much run and gun, which I'm really not a big fan of. The maps suck. The physics and motion are only slightly improved. Battlefield 3 beats the hell out of this game.

[gatormoe1]

Only played for a few minutes last night, but you pretty much summed up how I felt to a T. Way too much run and gun, which I'm really not a big fan of. The maps suck. The physics and motion are only slightly improved. Battlefield 3 beats the hell out of this game.

Camper

[ThomasGoldkamp]

Camper

Haha, campers don't die as much as I do... :laugh:

[Nacho_Bandit]

So, is it worth the money or do I buy Battlefield 3 instead?

[ThomasGoldkamp]

So, is it worth the money or do I buy Battlefield 3 instead?

Depends on your playing style. If you love COD, go with MW3. If you're one of those people that's open to trying other games and you liked some of the bigger maps and slower-paced, more tactical games in COD, then I'd say go with Battlefield 3.

I think the game engine for Battlefield 3 beats the hell out of Modern Warfare 3. MW3 is essentially the same thing as Black Ops with a slightly tweaked scoring and leveling-up system (similar to BF3, actually) and new maps.

[helix139]

So, is it worth the money or do I buy Battlefield 3 instead?

Based on the multiplayer only (still haven't played singleplayer for either), not worth it. Get battlefield instead, unless you just absolutely love to run around like a noob with his head cut off in close quarters, quickscoping, noob tubing, and dropshotting like crazy without much strategy. MW3 is geared for the 12-year-old ADHD spray and pray crowd that keeps going back to the same place they just got their head blown off by a sniper or someone controlling a choke point and then complains about "campers."

They should call this COD: Modern Warfail. I'm really disappointed as I enjoyed the multiplayer on MW and MW2 a lot, and this is really a big departure. Same engine, mostly same guns, but level design forces you into one style of play and one style of play only. Everyone I've talked to at work (except for one fanboy) agrees with me, and one already has his copy on craigslist. Just a massive letdown.

[gatormoe1]

Based on the multiplayer only (still haven't played singleplayer for either), not worth it. Get battlefield instead, unless you just absolutely love to run around like a noob with his head cut off in close quarters, quickscoping, noob tubing, and dropshotting like crazy without much strategy. MW3 is geared for the 12-year-old ADHD spray and pray crowd that keeps going back to the same place they just got their head blown off by a sniper or someone controlling a choke point and then complains about "campers."

They should call this COD: Modern Warfail. I'm really disappointed as I enjoyed the multiplayer on MW and MW2 a lot, and this is really a big departure. Same engine, mostly same guns, but level design forces you into one style of play and one style of play only. Everyone I've talked to at work (except for one fanboy) agrees with me, and one already has his copy on craigslist. Just a massive letdown.

There are plenty of places to camp if you want to. This is what MW2 should have been and its the reason everyone was so let down after COD4. The majority of the COD community wanted a game based mostly on gun battles. The levels are all complex with long sight lines and a lot of close quarter points too. I suggest you spend more time trying to find a spot to camp if thats what you want to do, there are plenty of spots with longer sight lines if you're good enough to hold them.

Also, you say you liked MW2 which was newb tube and one many army city but you're complaining about newb tubes in MW3 when people rarely use them and the damage has been dropped considerably? If you don't like MW3, you don't like gun battles, its that simple because they delivered a nice gun battle game that isn't overly dependent on killstreaks.

IF you want to camp, run around long periods of time without finding an enemy, have slow "realistic" movement, and drive vehicles around then go for BF3.

If you want fast action in your face gun battles and lots of different game types, go for MW3.

[ThomasGoldkamp]

Based on the multiplayer only (still haven't played singleplayer for either), not worth it. Get battlefield instead, unless you just absolutely love to run around like a noob with his head cut off in close quarters, quickscoping, noob tubing, and dropshotting like crazy without much strategy. MW3 is geared for the 12-year-old ADHD spray and pray crowd that keeps going back to the same place they just got their head blown off by a sniper or someone controlling a choke point and then complains about "campers."

They should call this COD: Modern Warfail. I'm really disappointed as I enjoyed the multiplayer on MW and MW2 a lot, and this is really a big departure. Same engine, mostly same guns, but level design forces you into one style of play and one style of play only. Everyone I've talked to at work (except for one fanboy) agrees with me, and one already has his copy on craigslist. Just a massive letdown.

Sounds like you and I have the same mindset. Mostly, I just suck. So I prefer a game where me being intelligent about things actually pays off. I find that not to be he case with MW3 because of the playing style you're forced into.

[PIMking]

Idk I've enjoyed it so far, I like both bf3 and mw3 and haven't had a problem sniping. There are a few maps like the Paris one where a few can hold Down the top but I've been able to snipe pretty well. The bog complaint for me is not being able to play hardcore right away, oh do I hate playing core with a passion and thank god I had friend that invited me into a hc game.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[PIMking]

Sounds like you and I have the same mindset. Mostly, I just suck. So I prefer a game where me being intelligent about things actually pays off. I find that not to be he case with MW3 because of the playing style you're forced into.

Meh I can out flank without issue. You just can't jump out and run like a maniac all the time

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[gatormoe1]

Meh I can out flank without issue. You just can't jump out and run like a maniac all the time

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

Exactly, flank, stick to the outsides of the maps, know the spawns etc etc. It's a run and gun type of game but that doesn't mean you are forced into that style. I can camp, run and gun, snipe, flank, play objective or not.. all perfectly fine while keeping close to a 2.0 kd and my win loss record is like 32-4 or something right now.

[PIMking]

My K/D is just under 1 right now. It was mid 1.5's but I got on a kick with the bolt action rifle with ACOG and had a blast.

[Ericgraves]

I am not trying to attack modern warfare but a compare and contrast between moe and helix seems appropriate. I do prefer battlefield and thus my views are tainted so I will do my best to explain my "logic" behind my comments.


... and far below the great maps in MW1 and MW2.



This is what MW2 should have been and its the reason everyone was so let down after COD4.


First of all "everyone was so let down" that they made black ops the best selling game in history. Some people may have been let down, but not the majority. It is reasonable to assume the majority enjoyed the level design, and the pace of play. Personally I believe it was pretty dang good and balanced. Although it could get frustrating at times.


This one seems like it even forces snipers to run and gun, with the majority of shots being of the short to medium range variety, the locations not very well shielded or camouflaged, and the sightlines generally very obstructed.



The levels are all complex with long sight lines and a lot of close quarter points too. I suggest you spend more time trying to find a spot to camp if thats what you want to do, there are plenty of spots with longer sight lines if you're good enough to hold them.


I want to point out that helix didn't say he wanted to camp. In some sense camping and sniping are equivalent, both of them go to a place and set up shop and shoot people who may or may not be aware of their presence. But in terms of actually picking a spot camping and sniping are obviously very different. Helix is bemoaning the fact that it seems in an attempt to reduce the number of campers they have also reduced the places one can snipe from. Basically making it so that any location that would be good for sniping also leaves you highly visible which is a problem since sniping requires a lack of mobility at times. The long sight lines may exist, but aren't worth getting to if you are going to be killed before you can set your sights.


... unless you just absolutely love to run around like a noob with his head cut off in close quarters, quickscoping, noob tubing, and dropshotting like crazy without much strategy.



Also, you say you liked MW2 which was newb tube and one many army city but you're complaining about newb tubes in MW3 when people rarely use...


Well both of you agree n00b tubing is annoying. But here the n00b tubing is being used as an example of the type of player the game attracts. This type of gameplay can be associated with a person who just runs around aimlessly trying to do whatever he can to gain an advantage at the price of skill. This is not a complaint about n00b tubes, but a complaint about the type of player the game is conforming to and the general lack of strategy.


MW3 is geared for the 12-year-old ADHD spray and pray crowd...



The majority of the COD community wanted a game based mostly on gun battles.


Sorry but I couldn't resist.

[helix139]

There are plenty of places to camp if you want to. This is what MW2 should have been and its the reason everyone was so let down after COD4. The majority of the COD community wanted a game based mostly on gun battles. The levels are all complex with long sight lines and a lot of close quarter points too. I suggest you spend more time trying to find a spot to camp if thats what you want to do, there are plenty of spots with longer sight lines if you're good enough to hold them.

Also, you say you liked MW2 which was newb tube and one many army city but you're complaining about newb tubes in MW3 when people rarely use them and the damage has been dropped considerably? If you don't like MW3, you don't like gun battles, its that simple because they delivered a nice gun battle game that isn't overly dependent on killstreaks.

IF you want to camp, run around long periods of time without finding an enemy, have slow "realistic" movement, and drive vehicles around then go for BF3.

If you want fast action in your face gun battles and lots of different game types, go for MW3.

I don't camp and it's not that I don't enjoy gun battles, I just generally prefer mine to be at a greater distance where accuracy and patience can beat frantic stick-jockeying. I like being able to sneak around unnoticed, find a concealed, non-obvious location overlooking a high traffic area of the map, and take out multiple targets at distance with one well-placed shot. That is not camping. That is how a sniper realistically operates. If I miss, I'm screwed, and my position is given away. Rather than hiding in tall grass, covered buildings, or on high rooftops, and letting people pass by close to you as you wait for a clear shot at a target a considerable distance away, you're forced to stand in long hallways or open areas looking down medium-length target hallways where the people you're going to shoot can see you easily and are close enough to shoot back accurately and lethally.

MW3 does have a few long lines of sight, but chances are you're going to be nailed by run and gunners before more than 1 or 2 enemies happen to run into that long line of sight. it's more of a quick-scoper's game (which I just don't enjoy) and just doesn't have any real options for those who prefer to remain hidden. In MW and MW2, I could dictate my own style and be equally successful at any of them. This is a real departure from that.

And to be honest, the noob tubes in MW2 never bothered me because I could always pick them off at a distance well before they could get to me. Rather than complex, I'd describe the new levels as "cluttered" and very horizontal. Some have a slope to them, but they don't have true vertical components. With junk to quickly duck behind everywhere and multiple routes into every area, it's too easy to get in close, which is what kills the sniper's game. It's just not a viable option to play as anymore and have anywhere near the kind of success you can have running and gunning.

And honestly, i have no problem with a few close quarters levels in the game that snipers aren't viable options on, but pretty much EVERY level eliminates traditional sniper style gameplay or greatly reduces its effectiveness. IMO, that's just lazy level design. It's highly possible to allow both snipers and run-and-gunners to have their cake by designing certain parts of the larger maps to cater to each.

[rburnett]

Wow.. good comments on this thread, thank you all. Let me know if any of you guys try out the missions - COD has a legacy of some seriously awesome single player campaigns.

[gatormoe1]

I'm sorry sir but you are in fact a camper. Let me be clear though, I don't have any problems with campers, I do it myself sometimes. Just stating the obvious. Snipers are still campers. By definition a camper is someone that stays in one spot waiting for kills to come to him/her.

Like you said, BF is for players that like to take it slow and/or be more team oriented and MW is for people who want fast paced action all the time. I play BF every once in a while but much prefer MW and I can maintain a 2.0 KD in both.

To Graves:
Newb toobing is pretty much a thing of the past in COD. The tubes have had their damage dropped considerably and without One many Army, its almost pointless to use it. You almost have to directly hit someone to get a kill with the tube now.

[ThomasGoldkamp]

I can't speak for helix, but I move around a good bit as a sniper in BF3. You can't really do that at all in MW3, which is one of my main complaints. I like to be able to move around from place to place with a sniper, maintaining good vantage points most of the way. BF3 allows you to do that, where you'd get owned in most MW3 maps trying to do that.

FWIW, I'm a terrible gamer. My COD ratio in Black Ops was like 0.87 and mine in BF3 right now is a 0.67. I never get frustrated with BF3, despite having games where I sometimes get owned. When I get owned in COD, it's a lot more frustrating. Part of that is I feel like I'm contributing in BF3 the whole time, even if I'm not having a great game. I can find my niche on the team and help that way. Whether that's providing suppressing fire, sniping a few guys from distance, taking out tanks as an engineer, etc., it actually keeps it fun for me. Seems like in MW3 if you're not killing a lot of people and putting together a great KD ratio, you're not really helping your team. I've had games with bad KDs in BF3 and still led my team.

I guess it just caters more to my style of not being great at anything, but being good at doing certain things. MW3 is more kill, kill, kill, at least to me.

[GatorFan89]

BF3 isn't a slow camping game... Play 64 player Conquest on PC, nobody camps. People move around going for objectives all the time, I think with consoles you have campers in BF3 because you get the hardcore CoD crowd in and they start camping it up, I do know if you try that run-n-gun crap on PC, trying to one man army people with a sniper rifle you'll get dropped like a bad habit, same with campers.

I say camp in that building with your sniper, because when I roll up with my tank the building won't help you much, and neither will your sniper rifle.

But like I said, on PC nobody camps, even snipers, they'll sit in a spot and move around usually after they get a kill.

I haven't played Rush yet, but even Rush isn't that bad on PC with camping. If you play it smart, the assault team can make a good push against the defenders.

MW is the camping game where everybody focus' on their k/d ratio. Hell, even I did it when I played MW2. I had a 2.8 k/d ratio and I camped like a mothereffer. In BF3 I probably don't even sit in a spot for more than a minute, and if I do it's because I am scouting a Conquest point and waiting for a good chance to try and capture it.

[helix139]

I'm sorry sir but you are in fact a camper. Let me be clear though, I don't have any problems with campers, I do it myself sometimes. Just stating the obvious. Snipers are still campers. By definition a camper is someone that stays in one spot waiting for kills to come to him/her.

Like you said, BF is for players that like to take it slow and/or be more team oriented and MW is for people who want fast paced action all the time. I play BF every once in a while but much prefer MW and I can maintain a 2.0 KD in both.

To Graves:
Newb toobing is pretty much a thing of the past in COD. The tubes have had their damage dropped considerably and without One many Army, its almost pointless to use it. You almost have to directly hit someone to get a kill with the tube now.

No, there is a clear difference, and I don't mind campers either. Campers sit in a room and kill everyone who comes into the area by covering all the entrances. I find an area where I can conceal myself that is usually kind of tough to get to but requires exposing myself to get there, try to stay hidden from people who come into the area, and try to kill a few people in other areas off in the distance while nobody is around me before sneaking off to a new location before the people I killed respawn and head my direction. Rinse, and repeat. This is NOT to be confused with the run and gun quick-scope style that MW3 forces on you if you'd like to use sniper rifles, though. That's just plain unrealistic.

Campers rely on surprising people in relatively close quarters and don't move too much. I give up my close-quarters attacking ability in order to accurately shoot people before they come within striking range of me. If I give away my location, I'm dead. If a camper gives away his location, it doesn't really matter because the layout of the area prevents him from being overwhelmed. A sniper is beat if you know where he is and flank him. A camper sits in a location that limits his ability to be flanked. If you can't see the difference

Like I said, though, it's possible to have both in one game. Sledgehammer/IW just went and alienated a good portion of their fanbase with lazy level design, though, rather than address some fairly small issues that they perceived in the balance of the weapons. I dunno, I just like to be able to choose my method of play rather than having it forced on me.

[GatorFan89]

I can't speak for helix, but I move around a good bit as a sniper in BF3. You can't really do that at all in MW3, which is one of my main complaints. I like to be able to move around from place to place with a sniper, maintaining good vantage points most of the way. BF3 allows you to do that, where you'd get owned in most MW3 maps trying to do that.

FWIW, I'm a terrible gamer. My COD ratio in Black Ops was like 0.87 and mine in BF3 right now is a 0.67. I never get frustrated with BF3, despite having games where I sometimes get owned. When I get owned in COD, it's a lot more frustrating. Part of that is I feel like I'm contributing in BF3 the whole time, even if I'm not having a great game. I can find my niche on the team and help that way. Whether that's providing suppressing fire, sniping a few guys from distance, taking out tanks as an engineer, etc., it actually keeps it fun for me. Seems like in MW3 if you're not killing a lot of people and putting together a great KD ratio, you're not really helping your team. I've had games with bad KDs in BF3 and still led my team.

I guess it just caters more to my style of not being great at anything, but being good at doing certain things. MW3 is more kill, kill, kill, at least to me.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. A great K/D in BF3 doesn't matter. You can have a bad one, but still be the highest ranking player on your team, as Thomas pointed out here. If you're running around capping flags/planting bombs, you rack up the points. I've seen people in BF3 go like 5-15, but they have the highest score on the team and it's not even close, because they're running around capping flags for the team.

I have a 2.6 K/D in BF3, and while that is a really good ratio, the thing with me is I never get a ton of kills in a game. Mainly because I always focus on the objectives, like capping the flags in Conquest. I normal game for me is like 10-3 k/d. Because I usually try to avoid the other team and sneak into their base to cap their flag. The most kills I've ever gotten is 18 I think, I am really good at getting kills in the game, but I don't focus on it that much because in the end the kills don't help us win, it's the flags.

So with Thomas, he might not have a crazy good K/D ratio, but that doesn't matter, because he is probably capping the flags therefore contributing more to winning for his team than the dude going 20-5 with no flag caps.

[Nacho_Bandit]

Depends on your playing style. If you love COD, go with MW3. If you're one of those people that's open to trying other games and you liked some of the bigger maps and slower-paced, more tactical games in COD, then I'd say go with Battlefield 3.

I think the game engine for Battlefield 3 beats the hell out of Modern Warfare 3. MW3 is essentially the same thing as Black Ops with a slightly tweaked scoring and leveling-up system (similar to BF3, actually) and new maps.

So, which is better in your opinion and anyone else's, is MW3 better than Black Ops?

[gatormoe1]

MW3 is better than Black Ops and MW2. I still think the most enjoyable for me is still COD4 but I love MW3 because it is what MW2 should have been.

[helix139]

So, which is better in your opinion and anyone else's, is MW3 better than Black Ops?

MW3 is technically superior and I like the engine and mechanics better, but for me the level design just ruins it, much like the screwed up sniping mechanics ruined black ops. Honestly I don't really like either, though MW3 turned me off sooner. As for MW1 vs MW2, I prefered MW1 slightly.

I'd take Socom 2 and Socom 3 before the glitchers and cheaters got a hold of them before either though.

[Nacho_Bandit]

MW3 is technically superior and I like the engine and mechanics better, but for me the level design just ruins it, much like the screwed up sniping mechanics ruined black ops. Honestly I don't really like either, though MW3 turned me off sooner. As for MW1 vs MW2, I prefered MW1 slightly.

I'd take Socom 2 and Socom 3 before the glitchers and cheaters got a hold of them before either though.

Thanks for that info... :grin: guess you've helped me make up my mind!

[Sir_Gibby]

Having officially played both now, BF3 > MW3, at least in terms of multiplayer. And it's not really close either. I couldn't tell much of a difference in the graphics from BLOPS to MW3 mainly because coming from BF3 on a 1900x1200 screen with all the graphics on ultra makes MW3 look like a N64 game. That, and I absolutely slaughter through any and all competition regardless of maps and experience. Take a competent FPS player and throw them in MW3 and they're king. I think you could train monkeys to do it. No real challenge, no real teamwork, and everyone is so focused on kills and deaths that any objective games are pointless.

[yarmond1]

They both have their perks and downs. To me they are just different games and I don't play them the same way. I like them both.

[PIMking]

Having officially played both now, BF3 > MW3, at least in terms of multiplayer. And it's not really close either. I couldn't tell much of a difference in the graphics from BLOPS to MW3 mainly because coming from BF3 on a 1900x1200 screen with all the graphics on ultra makes MW3 look like a N64 game. That, and I absolutely slaughter through any and all competition regardless of maps and experience. Take a competent FPS player and throw them in MW3 and they're king. I think you could train monkeys to do it. No real challenge, no real teamwork, and everyone is so focused on kills and deaths that any objective games are pointless.

I have more friends that play MW3 and I play with a squad the whole time on MW3 too. We work as a team and kick everyones ass. However I don't know anyone that plays BF3 and it's more of a one man army to me, no one talks on BF3 and it's hard for team work to me but I like playing the game. BF3 some jackass will get in the tank, or chopper by themselves and leave me out to dry. I like playing them both.

Sent from my iPad using GatorCountry

[TimCasey67]

I'm horrible at multiplayer FPS games, but I played COD Black Ops a lot and now play MW3 when I have free time.

My brother decided to Prestige, so now I'm frustrated because I'm horrendous without any perks and upgrades. As his penance, I told him to figure out how to mod the XBOX360 so we don't get massacred so much. (I already figured out how to get the NAT Type to Open, but still get killed a lot when the killcam doesn't show me doing what I did before dying.)

The other thing that bothers me about MW3 is it seems to have a lot more spawn kills than Black Ops had. The Deathstreaks help with that, but it still sucks to get shot within 2 seconds of respawning.

I think I prefer MW3 because there aren't as many pointstreaks that just make it impossible for me (attack dogs mostly), and I can get pointstreak rewards using the Support package and not feel totally useless.

I like the Sabatoge and Kill Confirmed games more than Deathmatch because I feel like I'm helping the team win even if I go 10:30 or 8:16. (Like Thomas wrote earlier)

Send me a PM if you want my XBOX live username and don't mind carrying some dead weight on your team. :D

[TimCasey67]

I think you could train monkeys to do it.

PROVE IT! Teach me how not to suck! :grin:

[ThomasGoldkamp]

Still haven't played Modern Warfare 3 much at all. Battlefield 3 got me hook, line and sinker. It's a tough game to get away from.

I'm finally at the point where I'm really competent at just about everything. I've got my jets classed up all the way to below radar and fire extinguisher, so I can do some serious damage in the air.

BF3 is definitely a game you want to be playing with a buddy or two, though. I usually play with two friends and we've gone on like 20 kill runs and single-handedly taken over games using APCs or tanks with two of us as engineers and the other driving. Unstoppable.

[GatorInSC]

Still haven't played Modern Warfare 3 much at all. Battlefield 3 got me hook, line and sinker. It's a tough game to get away from.

I'm finally at the point where I'm really competent at just about everything. I've got my jets classed up all the way to below radar and fire extinguisher, so I can do some serious damage in the air.

BF3 is definitely a game you want to be playing with a buddy or two, though. I usually play with two friends and we've gone on like 20 kill runs and single-handedly taken over games using APCs or tanks with two of us as engineers and the other driving. Unstoppable.

I emjoy running and gunning more so I'm a MW3 person but BF3 is good also I have both for ps3

[ThomasGoldkamp]

BTW, has anyone found going from Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3 awesome? I destroy people in MW3 now. It's so much easier to kill people than in BF3. Feels like I'm playing against noobs when I switch over.

[helix139]

I'm finally at the point where I'm really competent at just about everything. I've got my jets classed up all the way to below radar and fire extinguisher, so I can do some serious damage in the air.

Wait til you get Beam Scanning...

Lock on heat seakers, wait for the enemy to shoot their flares, then lock back on almost instantly and destroy them. Its awesome! Guided missiles are awesome too, but you need teammates on the ground using SOFLAMs and nobody seems to use those.

Depending on what the opposing jets are equipped with, I'll run beam scanning with either heat seekers (if the opposing jets are active and coming after me) or guided missiles (if they are just tooling around and being controlled by the other jet on my team) and flares (if they shoot missiles) or extinguishers (if they are fond of the machine gun). I get ECM Jammer soon. Looking forward to that.

Also, had a 330+ meter headshot with the M40 the other day against a guy on the run. That was flat awesome. You're right about grabbing tanks with engineers, too. You can take over some games doing that.

[endabcs]

I have to wait until after Christmas and I'm probably one of the oldest on this thread :(

[endabcs]

on the flip side of that, I also got a Z-10 cyclone rake, and a season pass to the local ski resort... take that suckas. (there's a reason I'm never good at these games.)

[ThomasGoldkamp]

Wait til you get Beam Scanning...

Lock on heat seakers, wait for the enemy to shoot their flares, then lock back on almost instantly and destroy them. Its awesome! Guided missiles are awesome too, but you need teammates on the ground using SOFLAMs and nobody seems to use those.

Depending on what the opposing jets are equipped with, I'll run beam scanning with either heat seekers (if the opposing jets are active and coming after me) or guided missiles (if they are just tooling around and being controlled by the other jet on my team) and flares (if they shoot missiles) or extinguishers (if they are fond of the machine gun). I get ECM Jammer soon. Looking forward to that.

Also, had a 330+ meter headshot with the M40 the other day against a guy on the run. That was flat awesome. You're right about grabbing tanks with engineers, too. You can take over some games doing that.

I can't seem to function without air radar, I get shot down much quicker. So I switched that back on in place of beam scanning. I'm only a hundred or so points away from ECM Jammer, but I can't see myself using that much.

[helix139]

I can't seem to function without air radar, I get shot down much quicker. So I switched that back on in place of beam scanning. I'm only a hundred or so points away from ECM Jammer, but I can't see myself using that much.

I find air radar not all that necessary at all. I frequently switch to the external view of the jet to find my targets, though, then switch back to cockpit view to destroy them once I have them in front of me. ECM Jammer basically will take the place of flares and works more effectively against opponents using beam scanning or SOFLAM lock-on.

[ThomasGoldkamp]

I find air radar not all that necessary at all. I frequently switch to the external view of the jet to find my targets, though, then switch back to cockpit view to destroy them once I have them in front of me. ECM Jammer basically will take the place of flares and works more effectively against opponents using beam scanning or SOFLAM lock-on.

I do the same thing, but my problem isn't spotting people it's knowing when people are tracking behind me about to blow me up. Usually by the time I notice they're on me I'm already having to use my fire extinguisher, and nine times out of 10 when they hit me first I'm done.