Battlefield 3: Multiplayer (+MW3)
Lets look a perspective that pretty much sums up what to expect in this game vs other shooters.
Obviously, there are vehicles. If you like playing with missles, turrets, heat seekers, jets, helicopters, tanks, you name it... this game has that for you. It has fun on-foot combat as well, but the focus is split between both in terms of expirience points and gameplay. There are modes for no vehicles, but in my opinion, it is better to play the playlist that has a few maps of no-vehicles mixed in with the rest. There is not a huge focus on challenges for this game either. What takes its place is ribbons and medals. These act as challenges, but are rewarded per match, usually by winning, or killing or using equipment in a certain way for however many the ribbon asks for. You earn these ribbons over and over, and at a certain interval of ribbons, you get a medal that rewards you much more XP. The only other extra awards are service stars on your weapons. Although this is different than Call of Duty's list of challenges, it can still be fun to go for them!
So will I like this game or the new CoD?
I always say that if you like playing with vehicles over running 'n gunning, you may just like Battlefield 3 because it is a fun game. There is a bit of a learning curve on this game, however, as the vehicle controls are new to people not used to battlefield's control style, and the shooting is pretty quick. It is easy to make yourself vulnerable, and with the BACK button letting the entire opponent's team where you are, you can get cleaned up pretty damn quick. But in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you would need to pick up on moving very quickly with your team and trying not to get shot in the back. Modern Warfare 3 focuses on the weapons and killstreaks like usual, where Battlefield 3 gives you much more equipment and vehicles to use while you are battling it out.
Another great difference between the gameplay of these two war games is the teamwork vs lonewolf qualities. BF3 introduces the squad system, which works out very very well for this game. The downfall of this, is that you will want to play with 3 other friends, which is not always easy to do with their lobby squad party system. But when you eventually get everyone in the match in the same squad, you can enjoy partnering it up in helicopters and tanks, taking turns reviving and supplying ammo, helping to secure a position, spot out enemies, and spawning on your teamates' positions. MW3 does not have this system and runs the same as previous games. A noticable difference is the new methods of killstreaks, which seperates the normal system with attacking killstreaks, to a collective system (not bound by your death) that contains helpful, or supporting, killstreak awards. You are still encouraged to move as a team around the map to avoid enemies sneaking up on you, but the spawns on many of the maps seem almost random and sometimes makes you feel like you are still fighting alone.
There's no doubt that both of these games are fun, and different people are likely to have different opinions about both of these games. Many of the maps on Battlefield 3 are large for vehicle and battling in stages (such as when in Rush mode). The maps are condensed when playing team deathmatch for example. But in Modern Warfare 3, many of the maps are very small and condensed with many open pathways to chose. This does limit people from camping from critical spots on the maps, but also increases the run and gunning. Moving as a team helps to watch your back, as in a blink of an eye someone could sneak around to get behind you and your teamates for a nice surprise. So with that, if you don't like playing with vehicles, you probably will not want to play Battlefield. And if you don't like running around a lot in a fast paced close-quarters fighting, you may not play MW3 as much.
I like both games, but personally I like to play with vehicles which led me into really liking battlefield 3. I tried out MW3, and a lot of the maps were very condensed, and NOT very linear like many of the maps in the older games. I did enjoy running 'n gunning in Modern Warfare 2, but I miss the longer range aspect that I could do on the same map when I wanted. I did not like black-ops, so this game I felt was much better, but my favorite MW would have to be 1 and 2.
This is how I rate the games based on thier Multiplayer:
Battlefield 3: 9/10
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3: 8.5/10
Both are enjoyable games, but I think MW3 could've done better based on its successful predessors. Some may feel like one of these games are much better than the other, but it varies based on what you are looking for in a video game
An optimistic reviewer
average review lol
IGN's review (9/10)
I did enjoy running 'n gunning in Modern Warfare 2, but I miss the longer range aspect that I could do on the same map when I wanted. I did not like black-ops, so this game I felt was much better, but my favorite MW would have to be 1 and 2.