GB : EDGE scores are out and they are a little controversial.
don't know about the controversy but god on swear, BF3's single player was not as great as i expected...:(:(
The single-player was an after-thought and has never really defined the Battlefield series. Battlefield 3 has ALWAYS been about MULTIPLAYER. SP has just been a recent addition to cater for console gamers. Battlefield 3 eclipses MW3 is almost every aspect when it comes to MP (scale, scope, depth, visuals, comlpexity, technically and competitive integrity) and the only read advantage COD has over BF3 is that its far easier to pick up and play. Don't get me wrong, I like MW3 but whereas BF3 feels like a refined, well-oiled war machine, comparatively, MW3 represents ADHD one-night-stand gaming.
Scale and scope I agree 100%. Visuals on PC I also agree, console there is a edge vs MW3, but its still nothing close to PC. Competitive integrity? Come on... The scale actually hurts it in my opinion. IF I was playing on a PC with full visuals enabled, 1080p, as close to 60 FPS as possible, with 63 other people, then I might have a totally different opinion of the game. I however have only played at 30 FPS (and I don't care what anyone says, it hurts the game not being at 60 FPS) with only 23 other people. Lots of open space. Lots of trying to get to an engagement point when a squad gets wiped out. Lots of wide open room for snipers to sit and camp all day long. The pacing isn't for me. I prefer the fast pace of the CoD series. Oh yeah, and EA can suck my *#!*@$. Not DICE though, they're cool.
Sorry grahf, but I compeletely disagree with you. "Visuals on PC I also agree, console there is a edge vs MW3, but its still nothing close to PC." BF3 has more than a mere 'edge' consoles vs MW3 and the superior PC version doesn't take anything away from that. "however have only played at 30 FPS (and I don't care what anyone says, it hurts the game not being at 60 FPS)" This might be your personal complaint with the game but 30fps didn't hurt many seminal FPS titles such as Halo, Killzone not to mention the Bad Company games. "Competitive integrity? Come on..." It has FAR more competitive integrity and I think this can be proved objectively: * Dedicated servers- MW3 still has the horrid P2P network and whilst I'll admit, connection issues aren't as bad as the previous games- this model still leaves a lot to be desired and compeltely strikes at the heart of real competitive play: If one of players on the enemy team is the host, they can quit to dashboard and the WHOLE game ends? How is that competitive? Also, the hitboxes are a mess- you think you have run round a corner and are safe from being shot? Wrong- you'll die and watch the killcam which shows something completely different regarding your position. One of the follies of the P2P online system. * Server browsers * Spawn points- MW3 has a worse spawning model than MW2 and that is saying something. It really is horrid (no doubt due to the enclosed map design). I have had countless moments already where an enemy has respawned LOOKING at me and on a few occasions respawned actually touching me. With BF3- you have a choice where and when to spawn. *Quick-scoping- this addition kind of sums up my point. I tried this with my friends the other day (and I actually had a bit of fun with it) but it is RIDICULOUSLY easy to quick scope. Stay still, cross-hairs over enemy, scope in before actually in scope and fire (also see drag-scoping). COmpare this with BF3 where if you're sniping you need to think about the distance and then elevation. Battlefield 3 is for the more discerning MP gamer. It requires a lot of teamwork, coordination and thought. I have a NEGATIVE W/L ratio onm BF3- whereas my W/L on MW3 is something like 3.0 +. The game is much harder and more cerebrally demanding. MW3 is the burnout of FPS military shooters (great fun but over the top and silly).
Bubbled up for a well laid out argument. I won't argue/defend all the points, but I'll touch on a few. 30 vs 60 FPS. This is personal preference. I really just started playing online FPS-ers the past 12 months. I played a LOT of Halo: Reach, it was really my introduction to the genre after 25 years of RPGs, Action/Adventures & MMOs, so I honestly didn't notice it was running at 30 FPS. Had a blast, and it hooked me on the genre. A few months later my brother got me into Black Ops and it was too fast! 60 FPS? WTF! After getting used to that speed, after a few months I tried to go back to Halo... I couldn't do it. It was pretty funny actually, I was on with my brothers and I was complaining that there was something wrong with the game! "Why is it so choppy?!?!" So yes, this is a personal preference. Spawn points : I haven't had a real problem with spawning in MW3, and have only been spawn killed a handful of times. No worse than spawning into a squad in the middle of a firefight and getting your lid blown off immediately, right? While I did like that aspect of BF3 (spawn into squad), I didn't like being so far removed from the conflict when not squad spawning. Again, personal preference. Quick-Scoping : yeah, people do it, and it is almost necessary "feature" for snipers. With the map design this time around, there is hardly anywhere for a sniper to set up shop and select targets at will. If a sniper quick-scopes me at close range then I messed up and didn't take him out fast enough. BF3 has wide open spaces with 360 degree exposure, ideal for snipers to set up shop. I don't know if BF3 is for the "more discerning MP gamer" or not, but what I have come across is that SOME people that choose BF3 over MW3 tend to be a little self righteous about their convictions and elitist... kind of like the hipster equivelant of the FPS world. Not accusing you of that, as you actually laid out points/counterpoints to your argument. I will admit your post out of all the others I have read gave me pause, and for a split second I considered giving BF3 another go, but then I realized that it was published by EA and they have lost the privlidge of earning my money. Too bad there is an online pass, otherwise I would rent or buy used. Oh well.
Fuck EDGE! Battlefield 3 is the best Multiplayer Shooter!
If BF3 came without a SP campaign like BF1942 and BF2 did then reviewers would still give MW3 a higher score than BF3. I just feel reviewers used the SP flaws to really lower BF3 score although MW3 SP is no better. It's all about the money and free stuff reviewers get from Activision. Anyway I've played both games on Ultra and BF3 hands down blows MW3 off the battlefield completely.....it ain't even close and BF3 best maps don't come out till December. Dedicated servers and super tight gameplay with HUGE maps and a very well balanced system along with teamwork and tons of options makes BF3 my choice. But that's just my opinion and most gamers don't have a Core or hardcore game play desire like i do.....they just want to hit start and run n gun which makes MW3 so attractive to casuals.
Yeah I think the single player dragged it down.
What's with the disagrees? He's right. If it had no single player, it probably would've scored higher everywhere. It is sad that it'd score better if it had less but that is how it is unfortunately.
What's with sonic generations getting a 5 I mean come on seriously it can't be that bad! Skyrim should be a 10 Mw3 8 Bf3 8 Sonic 7 or 8 What score does saints row the third get?
Edge only gives Mario games 10's.
Sonic Gen is actually good. It kept the feel from both original style and made the 3D style sections not annoying. It's about the pacing of sonic, which is keep going and going, in which that's what the stages in the game accomplished (except for the Sonic Colors stage), but aside from that, it is a fun game that one should check out, and it's in no way JUST average.
Sonic Generations is the best Sonic game in years. Edge is just stupid. They have monkeys reviewing their games while flinging crap at each other and eating it.
It really came down to how MW3 is a complete package in single player aspects and multiplayer variety. I still think BF3 is better, but what brought down its score in reviews was the fact that the singleplayer was bad to OK and the multiplayer was amazing. That lopsided a lot of people's opions in terms of content. If you want variety, mw3 is the way to go, but if you want an in depth multiplayer experience, lean toward bf3. And its hard to justify a $60 purchase if only 1/3 of the content is worthwhile.
Chocolate por la Noticia
is this more bf3 and mw3 flame bait.cause' seriously it's getting old.
bf3 neeeds to release karkand right now...if they wnat any hope of keeping their fanbase...i go tbored already, once karkand comes out ill be back on
"bf3 neeeds to release karkand right now...if they wnat any hope of keeping their fanbase" How do you know that they are losing their fanbase? Or are you just saying that?
SP is useless but console games require it. Counter-strike has never had a SP version of the game but when CSGO is on consoles I think there will be. I personally when it comes to a competitive MP FPS SP is useless lol its funny when I got BF3 the only reason why I wen to SP is to change my settings before I started playing online. that took 1min I never played SP again.
So, the magazine that gave KZ2 and KZ3 7/10 for "lack of innovation," "linear shooting" or "cliched story", gives COD's next copy-past iteration a 9? Tintin gets almost the same score as both KZ and the same score as resistance 2? PSX Extreme were right. Edge are a disgrace to gaming jounalism.
PSX Extreme is actually a great website. I like them because, IMO, their reviews are the best for people looking for an unbiased (despite what you make think because of their name) opinion and they really know how to give you a sense of what a game will be like and do a great job of pointing out the things that you'll love, you'll be bothered by, etc. I'd recommend them over any other website other than N4G :)
I used to stick up for them, but they're getting to be absolutely inane lately. The reviews are still well-written and a pleasure to read, but they're opinions and reviews have become intolerably biased towards corporate interest lately. Granted, almost every major publication gave MW3 an obviously undeserved 9 or 10 ("We're no trying to bribe you, see? No money! We're just inviting you to stay at a 5-star hotel in Las Vegas on the house and to have a big party on us with strippers and free stuff! That's a perk!"), but it somehow shocks me when it comes to Edge. RIP, guys.
I'm not surprised, MW3 is the superior game. Sales and reviews don't lie. Also the 3+ million people on MW3 on Xbox Live is a pretty good indicator, though Battlefield 3 had an impressive 60k the other day /s
There are more burger flippers than CEO’s also, what’s your point? BF3 Destructible environments, vehicles, and unique weapons, come on, it is hands down way better than COD. MW3 is a upgrade from Black Ops. If you own Black Ops and bought MW3 and not BF3, not a smart choice.
To be honest, I could give two craps less about destructible environments,I also actually avoid games with vehicles. Unique weapons is a staple of the COD series, MW3 has the most choices per weapon to customize out of any game I've ever played. When you say BF3 is "hands down better", what exactly are you basing that on? probably just your own personal opinion seeing as how sales and scores indicate MW3 is the clear winner in both quality and quantity.
Play Black OPs then switch to Modern Warfare 3. They are 2 completely different games.
Just because Justin Bieber sells 9 million albums and has 3+ million fans doesn't mean he is the superior artist of modern music. Let's not mention all the little girls posting on the internet about how amazing he is. MW3 has to have some of the most biased reviews to date, saying this is amazing, that is amazing, but then going on to state that the game has a general mediocrity and dated feel to it. After pointing out the game's major flaws, it is awarded a 9/10, 5/5. C'mon. Judging by your reply to Saryk, it seems as though you play only games that resemble CoD or in fact ARE CoD in the first place, and just because YOU think a game is defined by its "unique weapons" (nearly all of which we've seen in the past MW's and other game series), doesn't mean we all do. Your argument is weak. Sales and scores? Haha, please. Try harder next time, fanboy.
are you kidding
MW3 deserves a 7 or an 8 at most. It's the same shit again. While changes were made to the multiplayer, it's essentially the same thing again. It certainly doesn't feel as polished as the MW2 and the game felt more like a james bond movie than a COD. In any case, i'm finished with the series. There is so only so many hours you can spend playing COD. And its time has most definitely run out for me.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.