One of the hottest debates right now has to be MW3 vs Battlefield 3. I myself share an equal love for both the COD and BF series of games so it's amusing, (and equally frustrating,) hearing my friends different opinions on the matter. The most popular argument being, "Battlefield is s***." and when asked why they respond with a smug, "because it's not COD," and vice versa. So I had a think about their argument, I understood what they we're trying to say but surely their argument undermines itself. Surely one of the best things about these games is that one is not the other. If you had BF for example trying to be more "COD like" then why not just play COD? And exactly the same the other way around. Each game stands on it's own and that's what I like. If I want vehicles, mass destruction, and massive open maps, BF is the way to go, if I want CQB tight narrow streets, corners and alleys then COD it is. I've often wondered what it would be like to have a bit of cross over between the 2 games like size of maps or BF style destruction in COD, or the way COD's shooting feels in BF but having said that, I don't think I could choose a clear favourite when the ability to have both games in my possession is the same as having my cake and eating it!
Should my friends have they're collective heads banged together and be told just to stop, stand back and look at each game separately to realise just how amazing each game is on it's own? Or will they never be enlightened?







