EDGE December 2011 Scores out; MW3 Outscores BF3

GB : EDGE scores are out and they are a little controversial.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Ezio20482437d ago (Edited 2437d ago )

don't know about the controversy but god on swear, BF3's single player was not as great as i expected...:(:(

Septic2437d ago (Edited 2437d ago )

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.

grahf2437d ago

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.

Septic2437d ago (Edited 2437d ago )

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).

grahf2436d ago

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.

Andreas-Sword2436d ago

Fuck EDGE!
Battlefield 3 is the best Multiplayer Shooter!

ATi_Elite2436d ago

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 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.

Karooo2437d ago

Yeah I think the single player dragged it down.

ShoryukenII2436d ago

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.

xflo3602437d ago

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?

arnyftw2437d ago

Edge only gives Mario games 10's.

radphil2436d ago

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.

ShoryukenII2436d ago

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.

Hufandpuf2437d ago

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.

Show all comments (29)
The story is too old to be commented.