BF3, reason; i honestly dont believe call of duty can continue to compete with BF if the keep using the same graphics and multiplayer models... #2 BF is more epic and you can do way more than just kill people in it #3 BF is incredibly squad based which allows for amazing friend to friend experience which COD lacks entirely #4 blowing up the sh*t out of litterally everything #5 did i mention blowing things up?
Why does everybody assume Call of Duty uses the same animations, models and what have you? Why would they have a team of animators and modelers working for them if they're just going to use the same ones? The only thing that is "rehashed" is engine syntax. They might rebuild the engine or extend on to the extending one (like in ODST) with common syntax but that's about it. If you want to complain about rehashing, go to the Halo: Anniversary forum. As you'll see there, "rehashing" isn't always bad. They try to fine-tune the series and it's hard to tell if they're doing the right thing if it's one of the, if not the most played game on XBL. I don't even like Call of Duty that much. The whole "rehash" argument is childish though.
i'm not into anniversary because it is a rehash. i've played that game entirely so i have no reason to get it (again). although MW3 will improve on MW2, it will do so very marginally. from what i have seen, on SNL etc., it doesn't match up with todays standard. i.e. you could mistake MW3 as the direct sequel to COD4.
While you can say that people are merely judging the multiplayer aspect of both games without enough evidence, surely you can understand the idea that games in a series generally have similar gameplay. I've played every Battlefield game since Battlefield 1942 (excluding Battlefield 2: Modern Combat) and every Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 2; based off of experience in all of those games, Battlefield has generally had the superior gameplay. Thus, I make the assumption that Battlefield 3 will have better gameplay than Modern Warfare 3. Now, sure, both games could completely break their molds and surprise everyone. Really though, based on previous games and using common sense, that's a far cry. Plus, in the defense of Battlefield 3's popular positive regard, are you not aware that there is currently a private alpha in progress for Battlefield 3? There are multiple gameplay videos taken by players participating in the alpha testing that have been uploaded on YouTube (yes, even back when you made your post). Just as you so presumptuously pointed out the "flaws" of others' assumptions, you've assumed that people are judging Battlefield 3's multiplayer positively without evidence while you have no idea how much they've actually seen of the game. Regardless of that fact, and as I've already said, I believe it's fair enough to allow people to make a simple opinion based on their own personal experience with other games in the series.
Neither. I choose Skyrim. For a serious answer, Battlefield 3. Battlefield has always had better gameplay than CoD. Now that it has better graphics than CoD, I see no point in even playing that garbage franchise. It's getting milked to hell at this point.
I'm hoping both of these games offer something fun come fall, however as it stands CoD hasn't changed their game up a whole lot over the last 4 years and Battlefield just looks like a much more promising fit. BF3 for my vote.
Believe it or not, there's actually a reason that I added "(yes, even back when you made your post)" after saying that there were multiple videos of leaked alpha gameplay. Spoiler
To show when he made the post in comparison to when the videos were uploaded. Why else would it be there?
Nope, no gameplay videos were present at the time he made that post. We looked, it wasn't until days later that they were posted. Otherwise, they would've surfaced onto this thread immediately. They did not.
Do you have any sort of proof? Being as how you can't see the actual dates of posts here, I see no way of deciphering the dates as anything other than 2 weeks. Also, you say that those gameplay videos would've surfaced immediately, so why have they still not been posted? Regardless of that tangent, I believe everything else that I said: ...still holds a valid point.
And yet we still haven't seen a single Multiplayer match of the next CoD surface. You never know, this one may blow you away, or it might fail. We're still waiting to see if we can truly compare both games. Logically, his point still stands.
Haven't I already acknowledged this? I would quote myself, but apparently, I'd come off as a tool. Oh no! By the purest form of logic, sure. The thing is, logic won't get you anywhere if you don't throw a bit of common sense in as well. I'm sorry for not wanting to repeat something that I've already said? Also, telling someone else that they'll come off as a tool doesn't really help your cause, either. Sorry, not everyone has enough money and some people can't just throw $60 around like nothing.
They're really keeping the multiplayer for MW3 under wraps. Maybe they have something great up their sleeves. Or not.