(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Decide for your self.

@TheMGOkilla Yes, I agree 100% it's all about personal preference! They're both great games and I cant wait for either of them. People should be enjoying what both games have to offer instead of buying just one of them. I mean they're both first person shooters; so why not? I just cant stand the ignorance of the people that fight over which game is better because in the end of this whole feud they'll both be amazing games. Just play a game and have fun. GOD DAMMIT

NullReact 1 minute ago
@NullReact finally someone who isnt completely biased, i think the same for the most part, its just that BF does keep me entertained, its all about preference, but most kids just get CoD because all their friends have it... i dont like it because its the same thing every time once you take time to look at it.

TheMGOkilla 19 minutes ago
I'm a fan of both Battlefield and Call of Duty, but In my opinion Battle Field will defiantly fall short in sales compared to CoD. Graphics wise, BF no question. Game play, CoD. It just seems more arcade like and fun, which in some cases could be good or bad its all a personal preference. BattleField is more hardcore and realistic. Also, the replay value of Mw3, will be higher. BF is fun, but it doesn't keep me playing as long as CoD always does.

Both games are great and I can wait! BF~MW3

NullReact 24 minutes ago 2




^ How I feel about both of them.

IMO they will both probably be great games.

I like the ground war (no tanks etc) of COD so it will be MW3 for me.

No no no, it's because CoD has killstreaks. Without killstreaks, CoD would be pwned by BF. If CoD never had killstreaks everybody would pretty much get tired of playing. + the invincibility of campers is another notorious factor that CoD will never balance out. I know everygame has campers, but at least I can blow the living crap out of where campers are hiding. Or just run over them, either way is satisfying.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------



Bro, go watch Sgt Enigma's videos and tell me how BF is NOT fast paced. Jeebus, don't criticize about the fact that BF is slow paced when you don't know how to rush around the maps.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------



Or you could have pre-ordered one, rent one and decide if you want to buy it. Which is exactly what I did. (I'm so smart that I deserve a Nobel Prize)

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------



Will a 64 player VEHICLE MATCH with Jets, Tanks, HMVs, LAVs, & more change your mind? CoD does have a 32 player "Bomb" game mode but the title really gives me reasons to doubt if it's good.

Battlefield 3 looks like a better game but I'll enjoy MW3 equally... they're both worth the money. I don't see why it should ever be a choice between the two unless you're the type of (boring) person that just plays one game all the time.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Will a 64 player VEHICLE MATCH with Jets, Tanks, HMVs, LAVs, & more change your mind? CoD does have a 32 player "Bomb" game mode but the title really gives me reasons to doubt if it's good.[/QUOTE]


BF3 will be a great game, but NO change... I play Hardcore S& becouse it is faced paced... most games end with players killing each other one on one until the 3rd or 4th round then you get the killstreak kills. I am just a COD player. Thou if they dont get the dedicated servers for MW3 (& future COD games) I will see you on Battlefield

i return from Hschhool in 3:15PM i play BF3 till 6:15 do my home work till 9M and play MW3 till 11 PM i have no life :carling:

They are both going to be great games , they are both shooters but they are 2 different types. BF3 is a war simulator, MW3 is a arcade shooter.

I prefer MW3 man :p