Tell GR: History Is Decided by the Victor, MW3 or BF3?

Can I choose neither?

In its first week of release, CoD:MW3 outsold the entire run of Battlefield 3. I'd say MW3 won this one.

That's not the question.

I think it's a bit unfair all the criticism that CoD series gets, especially when you compare it's incredibly well done (at pair with your standard Hollywood summer blockbuster) single player storyline and set-pieces, with the embarrassing, Daikatana like single player offering of Battlefield 3, I know that people love BF3 multiplayer, even more than MW3's, but to me the difference in the singleplayer mode is simply too big to say that BF3 is easily the best FPS of the year, even with the big difference in GR grading (grades that I don't agree with, obviously), so to summarize after my rambling, MW3 is the best FPS of the year. But honestly, neither of those games are close in the race for best game of the year.

Battlefield. And I'm not biased towards one or the other because of some fanboy-ish preference. BF3 simply feels like a better game. The graphics are unprecedented, the gameplay and cooperative maps are outstanding, and there's vehicles, 64-player maps, and unlimited potential in the upcoming expansions. At this point I've played most of both Call of Duty and Battlefield games, and it simply seems like "Another year, another CoD". But when a new Battlefield game comes out, it trumps the competition. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity.

I think it's a bit unfair all the criticism that CoD series gets, especially when you compare it's incredibly well done (at pair with your standard Hollywood summer blockbuster) single player storyline and set-pieces, with the embarrassing, Daikatana like single player offering of Battlefield 3, I know that people love BF3 multiplayer, even more than MW3's, but to me the difference in the singleplayer mode is simply too big to say that BF3 is easily the best FPS of the year, even with the big difference in GR grading (grades that I don't agree with, obviously), so to summarize after my rambling, MW3 is the best FPS of the year. But honestly, neither of those games are close in the race for best game of the year.

Completely different games, but since we have to compare:

Modern Warfare 3. It's a a complete package.
Campaign, Spec-Ops (Missions & Survival) which lends to replayablity, and an amazing multiplayer package.

Battlefield 3's only crutch to lean on is multiplayer. What do you play when the internet is down? The campaign? Er.
MW3 has tons of way to play, in terms of initial offerings. You have a lot of options for custom matches, split-screen, etc.
BF3 is "play the way we built the game". That's just how I feel. Plus, I can't really get into the large scale battles, never really could. I'd take Op Metro Rush and nothing more.

It just seems as if DICE takes things to seriously, there's nothing wrong with letting loose every now and then. I mean, I love a good multiplayer shooter, but I don't always wanna be gungho!
The highly toted destruction ended up being a disappointment, but it seems more prevalent in the Karkand expansion, but I won't be playing.

My personal pick is MW3.

With all that being said, I also think its a bit unfair to give MW3 a B.

MW2 was garbage and it holds a 90+ Metacritic score. If a sequel, (no matter how iterative) goes back and fixes pretty much everything wrong with its predecessor, then I think it should get at LEAST the same score.

MW3 brings balance to the multiplayer that no longer has my screaming about someone commando-knifing my ass from 15 feet away... It's made the multiplayer enjoyable again for everyone.

What you described is a patch, or expansion, not a sequel.

DOOM 2 is a DOOM patch.

Sorry for the double post there, sucks you can delete them ):

They're both terrible.

So is your breath.

It is like deciding the winner between a Giant Douche & a Turd-Sandwich

A turd sandwich isnt a sandwich without miracle whip.

Nominated, TPS

I might sound like a robot troll or troll robot, but I'll wait for Counter Strike:GO.

No classes, no perks, no weapon customization, no achievements or unlockables, no map-specific factions, no worldwide stats.

Whichever way you look at it, a varied and feature-packed title.

Skyrim! It's kind of a FPS. Anywho, I currently only have BF3 since it came out first, and I am a much better BF3 player than COD player. However, I know that when I get around to playing MW3, I will end up liking it more than BF3. BF3 is just one of those PvP games where there is a "correct" way to play and a "wrong" way to do things. COD lets you do your own thing. BF3 is the thinking man's FPS, but COD gets my heart racing.

Is RAGE any good?

I love it, it's an FPS that lasts around 15 hours or so. There are lot of distractions and nifty stuff going on with it, but don't mistake it for an RPG. It does have RPG elements to it, but it is far from an RPG. It's more like an FPS you level-up in with equipment and armor.

I still enjoyed Rage but I hold Fallout in a much higher regard, especially modded. Those Rage mutants have awesome AI and mobility, but the mobility isn't passed onto you.

With Skyrim out, why the hell would I be playing a shooter? Shooters are a dime a dozen these days, it feels like ages since an RPG game out that's held my attention the way Skyrim has.

Black Ops wins this one for me.

I haven't played Modern Warfare 3 yet, but I feel like I have a pretty good idea of what to expect from it and still plan on playing it at some point. Atm tho, I have my fps fix with BF3, but if my squad isn't going well it's a pretty quick excuse to hop back into Skyrim.

I bought MW3, I have a great time playing it, it's more of what I love.
I didn't buy Battlefield 3, I was put off by a promotional event in my city, and the quality of the beta/mp demo and I've never had as much fun with it's prequels as I have with any COD game.

MW3 for me.

MW2 successfully got me back into the fps loop, and when Bad Company 2 first came out I bought it... and traded it back in, initially being turned off by the game. I hadn't really thought about it at the time, but I was still playing Bad Company 2 like a CoD game and that's why I didn't like it. I bought BLOPS on release, but it didn't hold me for near as long as MW2 did, so I bought Bad Company 2 again and have been enjoying the Battlefield series more since. Still, CoD got me there.

CoD wins by being more approachable, simplistic, and easy to pick up & play with anyone and faster paced. Battlefield wins by being more complex, team and objective based making it more fun to play with friends that have headsets.

i'm sorry, but me being a CoD fan from the start, i actually have found myself NOT wanting to buy MW3 but wanting BF3. and, not to cast any intentional malicious blame anywhere, i am going to say it is because of GR. i was very excited about MW3 when i heard it was being made, but at the time had made GameRevolution a very regular site for me to visit.
to be honest, all the hype and info both games were getting before they were both released, i already felt that you guys(GR) were on BF3's side.

i have not played either yet. but, i will most likely buy mw3 for the campaign, then spend 6 months increasingly getting bored of the multiplayer because even in Team Deathmatch everyone just runs and shoots for kills (may as well just be playing Free For All....which in reality is all i play), and end up buying a game like Arkham City, where i can have as much (albeit more fun) all by my lonesome.

When I look a the solid release line-up this holiday quarter I start to think that the real winner...is me.

What should these games be judged on? They are two completely different games. Battlefield always has - and always will - be known as a sandbox multiplayer experience. CoD always has - and always will - be known as a highly cinematic rail shooter. It's apples and oranges. As a veteran gamer who has grown tired of fighting AI enemies in too many FPS games over the last two decades, CoD has absolutely no appeal to me, but it is certainly not a bad game. Likewise, I won't be playing the BF3 campaign either, but BF3 offers a multiplayer package that awards the player who coordinates with their team and comes up with creative solutions. CoD does not offer that - it's a straight trigger fest.

To be fair, I haven't played MW3 yet (though I certainly will at some point) but BF3 won my launch-day money. I prefer COD's campaign and I love the Spec Ops co-op, but Battlefield is a much better online multiplayer experience in my eyes. BF3's is nearly perfect.

Battlefield 3 for me.

It just feels so intense: explosions rocking your screen, jets screaming by, squads ripping each other in a firefight in the distance and aa fire arcing from the horizon. Plus the graphics.... my god.

MW3 its good, I love the single player stories but the MP feels more like Quake 3, and frankly it feels small and less epic.

Several features in MW3 feel like an afterthought. Battlefield 3's entire singleplayer campaign feels like an afterthought.

Multiplayer comes down to preference. Both are fun, both are addicting. If you gave me either one, I'd be happy. And I think that would be the case for most people.

There is a lot of bias when it comes to BF3. Not in the reviews itself, but the perception of the game.

It wasn't judged as a game with a campaign, a co-op mode and multiplayer. It was basically scored on it's multiplayer component alone. If the campaign was legitimately taken into account, it deserved a B at the most.

Duke Nukem, I choose you!