Being someone who is probably going to buy both of these games, I thought I'd make a forum where people can (peacefully) discuss the ups and downs of each multiplayer.
Battlefield 3 has got a lot of reputation at the moment, with the success of both Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2, as well as releasing a beta. Their multiplayer offers a lot of variety, now that they have more vehicles. And the destruction certainly mixes things up and forces you to think on your feet. Squads also promote communication and teamwork, especially during clan matches. I'm sure I don't need to mention graphics.
However, it's not perfect. As I'm sure you know, the beta had a huge list of bugs, including stuff that should have been noticed during alpha testing. Gameplay can also be a little slow at times. If you were on a large, vehicle-based map and didn't have a vehicle, you were pretty much screwed. It's no fun to run from one side of the map to the other, only to get killed by the guy hiding in the bushes. There's also little in the way of reward systems, which makes people less motivated to do well. The Battlefield series has also been known for being difficult on new players, and if this game is taking some stuff from the Medal of Honor multiplayer, it's going to make new players very demotivated.
The Call of Duty series has had a history of being slightly more popular than Battlefield (don't ask me why, that's just how it goes). It's much easier to pick up for new players, and customisation is always fun. Call of Duty also has much smaller maps than Battlefield, making things much faster-paced. It's also a good move for Modern Warfare 3 to have a streak system based on points rather than kills, as it can work for a lot of players, whether they're run-n-gun assault players or tactical, team players, with their new "Strike Packages" offering multiple options for different play-styles. Call of Duty has also had much more game modes than Battlefield, with Free for All and Capture the Flag, with Search and Destroy being particularly popular.
But people do have good reason to be sending so much hate towards this game. It's reputation isn't exactly stable after what happened in MW2 and Black Ops, and Infinity Ward haven't helped themselves by limiting the amount of gameplay they show. I mentioned customisation as a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing, with players creating those cheap classes like they did in MW2; let's hope they've sorted that out. IW are also using an engine that looks very similar to that of previous games. They say they've been improving it, but only on a small scale, and at a glance it looks very much the same.
So, write opinions about each multiplayer and which you think is better. Just think about what you write; it won't do well if this forum becomes a mass argument.
Battlefield 3 has got a lot of reputation at the moment, with the success of both Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2, as well as releasing a beta. Their multiplayer offers a lot of variety, now that they have more vehicles. And the destruction certainly mixes things up and forces you to think on your feet. Squads also promote communication and teamwork, especially during clan matches. I'm sure I don't need to mention graphics.
However, it's not perfect. As I'm sure you know, the beta had a huge list of bugs, including stuff that should have been noticed during alpha testing. Gameplay can also be a little slow at times. If you were on a large, vehicle-based map and didn't have a vehicle, you were pretty much screwed. It's no fun to run from one side of the map to the other, only to get killed by the guy hiding in the bushes. There's also little in the way of reward systems, which makes people less motivated to do well. The Battlefield series has also been known for being difficult on new players, and if this game is taking some stuff from the Medal of Honor multiplayer, it's going to make new players very demotivated.
The Call of Duty series has had a history of being slightly more popular than Battlefield (don't ask me why, that's just how it goes). It's much easier to pick up for new players, and customisation is always fun. Call of Duty also has much smaller maps than Battlefield, making things much faster-paced. It's also a good move for Modern Warfare 3 to have a streak system based on points rather than kills, as it can work for a lot of players, whether they're run-n-gun assault players or tactical, team players, with their new "Strike Packages" offering multiple options for different play-styles. Call of Duty has also had much more game modes than Battlefield, with Free for All and Capture the Flag, with Search and Destroy being particularly popular.
But people do have good reason to be sending so much hate towards this game. It's reputation isn't exactly stable after what happened in MW2 and Black Ops, and Infinity Ward haven't helped themselves by limiting the amount of gameplay they show. I mentioned customisation as a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing, with players creating those cheap classes like they did in MW2; let's hope they've sorted that out. IW are also using an engine that looks very similar to that of previous games. They say they've been improving it, but only on a small scale, and at a glance it looks very much the same.
So, write opinions about each multiplayer and which you think is better. Just think about what you write; it won't do well if this forum becomes a mass argument.