(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Something that's been bothering me lately is the amount of BF3 fanboys hating on MW3 for no apparent reason. The reason I say that is because anytime I ask, I never get actual responses as to why they have so much hatred for the game. So now, I'd like to go over a few things with you.

For the people saying it's the same game as MW2:

Here's my biggest pet-peeve when it comes to the subject. This is one of the most common arguments in a BF3 vs MW3 debate that is rarely followed by any intelligent or logical insight, due to the fact that there is absolutely no way to back this statement up without looking like a fool. My rebuttal is that everything about the game is new. Try and argue the fact and you most likely will have nothing to fall back on. What separates this game from Modern Warfare 2 is as follows:

• MW3 has all new guns (I understand that some guns have appeared in past games, but they will have all new mechanics).
  
• MW3 has all new maps.
  
• MW3 has new perks (some irreplaceable perks have returned, understandably).
  
• MW3 has new killstreaks.
  
• MW3 has new gameplay mechanics.
  
• MW3 has new attachments for weapons.
  
• MW3 has a continuation of a great campaign storyline.
  
• MW3 has a tweaked and upgraded engine (to any BF3 fanboys who argue with "the engine is exactly the same as the MW2 engine": good. It doesn't need a brand new engine. It's the smoothest and most responsive engine I've ever seen).
  
• MW3 is devoid of some of the biggest pains of the CoD community, such as Commando, One Man Army, Last Stand, and more.
  
• MW3 has an all new Spec-Ops mode, featuring brand new gameplay mechanics never seen in Call of Duty before.
  

All this, and not to mention there are two new studios working alongside Infinity Ward that we've never seen Call of Duty content from. Some things are sure to be completely different. How is this the same game?

This is why I just don't understand the argument "it's the same exact game". It never makes sense and it makes you sound stupid. If you wanna go that far, BF3 is the same thing as BF2. Using your logic, any sequel to any game is the same game. And if you're looking for MW3 to be completely different from MW2, tough luck, because the franchise is Call of Duty, and changing that feel would forever change to franchise.

From CoD4 to MW2, Infinity Ward was still making improvements, such as adding and testing the killstreak system, and the variety of attachments CoD4. MW2 to MW3 will be different. Infinity Ward has built a sturdy and plentiful system with MW2, however, since it was the first game to contain all of these mechanics, it was essentially a test run to see what the fans did and did not want. Now that they have this information, they will use it to make MW3 the ultimate experience for consumers.

For the people who are saying BF3 is so much better than MW3:

Why? I simply want to know what's so groundbreaking about BF3 that separates it from MW3's new content. If you like BF3 better just because that's what you play, fine, I understand that, not everyone has the same tastes. But if you're hating on MW3 at the same time, I wanna know why. There's a reason it's one of the biggest franchises in history. I encourage a BF3 fanboy to step forward and share their thoughts on the game. Don't get me wrong either, I'm excited for BF3 and thoroughly enjoyed BC2, it just annoys me at how many people hate on MW3 with no reasoning.

If it's any consolation, I won't contest that the community generally sucks. It is very much filled with annoying little kids, but that's expected with a franchise so vast. If that's reason enough for you to hate the franchise, fine. But otherwise, I want to know what you hate about the game itself. Also, this is another reason for this post, to inform you skeptics that the whole of the CoD community is not filled with unreasonable, ignorant, immature children. But expect a portion of your beloved Battlefield community to go sour with BF3's release, with as much hype it's getting. Fair warning.

So if anyone would like to step up, I'd be more than happy to hear your debates.

Edit: I feel like a lot of people are taking my arguments as hostility towards BF3 fans; this is not the case. I'm simply debunking some of the rather unreasonable arguments proposed by them. This post isn't to prove that MW3 is/will be better than BF3, quite the opposite in fact. I'm excited for both games' releases and this post is simply to hear the legitimate and reasonable arguments on why they hate the CoD series so much. I am not here to argue their points. I'm here to restore sanity in the MW3 vs. BF3 debate, due to it's extreme lack of intelligence I feel it displaces.

I stated the reasons why we fan boys dont like COD. Now your telling me to leave with them? Why ask for something you dont want.

Your previous reply "Actually the whole point of this thread was for SOMEONE TO TELL YOU WHAT PUT BATTLEFIELD ABOVE CALL OF DUTY.", made you come off as a huge douche. I'm not asking you to leave with your opinions but if you're going to be hostile then don't bother visiting this thread.

I Capitalized what you said. If it came off as shouting. Well. Whoops. But thats what you said you wanted. Thats what I gave you.

I love how you state a bunch of opinions and use them as valid "reasoning" to why BF is better than COD. Herp derp its a tactical shooter. So? Some people prefer the run and gun nature of COD and if they prefer that who are you to say that they are "so far behind" for it. A lot of gamers don't have the option to put in serious numbers of hours into a game so when they do jump on they want something that is fun and easy to get into. Then you talk about rage as if COD is the only game that incites rage. That is entirely dependent on the player and is completely pointless for you to even bring it up. As for camping, there are infinitely more campers in BF than in COD. In a single game there are at least 8-10 wookies sitting in some bush just looking through their scopes with no regard to helping the team. Top that off with the joke of a "killcam" that DICE implemented and you won't actually know where you got killed from. Half the time the killcam is ****ed beyond belief and if you are lucky all you might see a close-up of their face or perhaps a patch of grass that they happen to be standing on. How DICE cannot implement something as simple as a killcam, something that has been a staple of COD is beyond me.

Don't even try to say that BF requires more skill either. A game that requires skill wouldn't have full auto (yea you read that right FULL AUTO) sniper rifles, full auto shotguns that has 5-10 times as much range as the original models from MW2. They also wouldn't give assault classes grenade launchers with ammo kits. 90% of the time you will see assaults sitting in a corner with explosives upgrade just shooting tubes and reloading. What that essentially means is that there is OMA/DC in BF. Then there is the subject of the magnum ammo and armor upgrade. Magnum ammo is the equivalent of Stopping Power and armor is essentially juggernaut. Somehow DICE thought it would be fair for players to go 15 levels without having access to either while facing people who have them. Good luck getting kills before level 15. Top that off with what is essentially the poorest hit detection in a triple A game. You can literally shoot someone square in their body and not get any hitmarkers. If there is anything that incites rage in BF players its the shoddy hit detection, something that all BF players can attest to. This is obviously a byproduct of the bullet drop feature, but if DICE couldn't have gotten it right they obviously shouldn't have put it in. So good luck trying to kill that camping sniper in the corner of the map because even if you are positive that you head shotted him the game most likely won't even give you a hit marker.

All in all they are both good games but they tend to different crowds. There is no one game that is miles ahead of another and if you were smart you would just get both. So stop the fanboyism because neither EA or Activision is paying you for riding them.

If you used a normal font and layout I would answer your questions.

But I say this, It's all about opinions.

EDIT: The guy above me explained pretty well what I wanted to say.

They just mad 'cos they know MW3 is going to the whole battlefield series go :yuno:

---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 AM ----------



They just mad 'cos they know MW3 is going to the whole battlefield series go :yuno:

i dont understand why so many people care about this... mw3 and bf3 will both b pretty cool and everyone will buy both lol.

Im sorry but isnt battlefield the same engine just upgraded? Frostbite is the engine for Battlefield, 2.0 is the upgrade for Battlefield 3. IW is the engine for COD, IW5 is the upgrade for MW3. So Battlefield hasnt got a "totally new engine" its doing exactly the same as COD you dumbass. And im sorry but in real life can you take a whole mag in the chest and be revived? Can you fix a broken tank with a drill? Can you drive a boat or a plane then kamikaze out of it and survive? NO didnt think so.

You guys say BF3 will be the same as BF2. That's not true, because BF3 will have all new guns and perks too. I STILL don't see nearly as many noobtubers, rush knifers, or spawn killers in BF2 as compared to MW2. Furthermore, a flaw in MW2 (that is supposed to be revamped in MW3) is that 1 guy could win for the whole team without anyone's help this includes all game modes. In BF2 & 3, you NEED teamwork to get anywhere. Personally, I'm a fan of games where teamwork is needed to get places. If you want a real war simulator, get BF3. If you want a game where you don't have to be a professional to get 50+ kills in a game, get MW3. I will get both because I have been following COD & BF since there beginnings on PC.