(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.

to start an argument
you said BF3 vs Mw3
then you said Ps3 vs xBox 360
the first ones are always the better BF+Ps3 FTW!!!! .....jk but not with the ps3

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------



not bigger maps its just the BIGGEST MAPS

They both have their fair share of problems, hate comes from the predecessors flaws. Depending on where things are heading into the topic, stating an opinion is going to either argue one of the sides or even both. But **** it.

MW2:[/u]

• Has a massive hosting issues because IW did not implement dedicated servers, and MW3 will continue this trend further. This results in unbelievable lag.
  
• Overpowered guns exist in MW2, being able to shoot large distances with Submachine guns, such as: UMP.
  
• Shotguns had the tendency to be a bit too overpowering at times from Mid-Range. From Close Range is fine, but at Mid-Range leaves unbalance, this is debatable for MW3, hopefully.
  
• Quickscopers. Using a Sniper Rifle at every possible range as a OHK with ease presents more unbalanced problems.
  
• Grenade Launchers are going to continue to exist in MW3. Nothing is known about their status and if they've been nerfed.
  
• The riot shield had a tendency to be very resistant to explosives without Blast Shield. Usually a nuisance.
  
• Ragers and little kids making the online community suck.
  
• Hitboxes are far too large.
  

Those are the general MW3 flaws.

Battlefield 2:[/u]

• One of the biggest issues was the effort to make the game balanced, but the M60, AN-94, and CG completely destroyed the balance within this game.
  
• Camping is a huge fundamental in Battlefield 2.
  
• One of the biggest issues to me was the lack of personal friends on here that made the experience dull. (Opinion, not fact.)
  
• Online Co-Op isn't that great.
  
• To newcomers, can be very difficult.
  
  Those are most of the flaws I can think of. However, refrain from calling me a fan-boy because I still play MW2 over Battlefield over one flaw Battlefield had, which was publicity. The honest truth is that Battlefield 2 is a superior game because of MW2's flaws.
  
  How does this relate to MW3 hate? Fanboys come in and continuously bash MW3 without a proper reason stated. If my friends were to play BF3, I would have changed games by now. The reasons I listed on MW2 are possibly issues that could still exist in MW3. Because of that, that's were a lot of hate comes from.
  
  But truth is, the time to hate will only happen when we personally play both games in the near-future. Nothing in here is for sure.

aren't most of them calling it Mw2.5? Lol

I don't mind the fanboys, it's the COD players who have converted after watching trailers. Talking like they're battlefield veterans... Now that's what pisses me off. Especially considering the fact half of them are probably going to switch sides again, after Mw3's release.

it is now mainstream to be anti-mainstream. these kids think its cool to like bf cuz cod is 10x more popular. but they dont realize its for a reason.. cod will always surpass battlegarbage. bf is heavy, boring and all everyone does is hardscope across the entire unneccessarily long map. basically a place for all kids who cant qs like me and my clan

cod is not better than battlefield and battlefield is not better than cod. they both have good points to them and bad points to them. as for the snipping, dont be a little bitch and think your better just because you quickscope. snipers are supposed to be used at long ranges to provide cover so your team can get to the objective. battlefield for me is not boring, its actually fun if you are on the front line and trying to take the objective. snipping in it is also fun because it more satisfying to take out an enemy at long ranges that is running across a field than quickscoping them from 2 feet away.

I LOL at the Battlefield fanboys posting in this thread. Battlefield just bores me. CoD has zombies, QS, etc. Go ahead Battlefield fanboys, groan at my post. :carling: uMad???

I wish I could, but I can't find the groan button anywhere.

BF3 good for 1 week play, After that, sell it for MW3 when you finally get bored.. Do yourselves a favor.

You have the nerve to call people the internet cliche of kids when you just said Hardscoping is bad and quickscoping is cool...Wow.

I have no issue with hardscopers or quickscopers but most quick scopers I see or scrubs trying to run around a map, willing to die 5 times just to get 1 successful quickscope. The kid word is so overused online anyway. Kids quickscope just like some adults do. Kids play videogames, I would assume more kids play games than adults. I mean when I think of videogames I think of kids anyway. I am an adult btw, but that isnt really relevant to the discussion.