Battlefield 3. I don't need to explain anymore. Riney is merely biased towards the Call of Duty franchise. It's hard to listen to his point of views anyways. All Call of Duty games, including Modern Warfare 3, uses id Tech 3. An engine used to develop Quake III Arena since 1999: heavily outdated. Rage uses id Tech 5. Doom 3 runs id Tech 4, which is more recent than id Tech 3 and that game was released in 2004. Modern Warfare 3 lacks any new changes and innovations, yet attracts the mass casual audience that calls themselves "professional".
I have 2 copies of Call of Duty 4, a broken copy and another copy of World at War, 1 copy of Modern Warfare 2, 1 copy of Black Ops on the Xbox 360 and another on the PlayStation 3. I have beaten COD4 to MW2 on Veteran, beaten Black Ops, yet I still consider the Battlefield franchise over the Call of Duty games. I refuse to buy any map packs exceeding $10 (such as $15 maps, especially ported maps), despite I despise priced map packs and I endorse free maps. Years ago, I considered buying Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, but I didn't. I bought Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and I don't own the predecessor, yet I consider it to be miles ahead of any Call of Duty game in terms of gameplay. Battlefield 3 runs an entirely new engine that improves itself in every way possible. The developers and publishers of Call of Duty refuses to develop a new engine, and calls that counterproductive. Infinity Ward and TreyArch merely take turns releasing a Call of Duty game each year, becoming a milk cow with only 2 years or less of production of each product.
Call of Duty is heavily outdated. Even Halo: Reach and Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary has better graphics and more balanced gameplay than Call of Duty.
Call of Duty is extremely linear in terms of story gameplay, while other developers hopes to expand on more open gameplay and to the extent of open world. World at War is the only Call of Duty game with co-op, Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 only hosts "co-op" in terms of mission mode. Battlefield 3 will feature co-op. World at War and Black Ops featuring Nazi Zombies is perhaps, the biggest main attraction that's bigger than its multiplayer counterpart. Multiplayer being the same gameplay, different maps, charging players with old maps that are remakes, etc.
Battlefield has larger scale maps, allows players to drive vehicles, utilizes environmental destruction. Call of Duty has smaller maps, uses killstreaks to aircrafts and does not utilize environmental destruction but shooting through walls. Call of Duty consists of random grenades while Battlefield does not. There is so much explanation of how Battlefield 3 is better than Modern Warfare 3 such as graphics, gravity, team gameplay, realism, immersion, etc. Modern Warfare 3 is a joke. Developers usually take the idea of fairness in multiplayer while Call of Duty encourages players to be as unfair as possible, thus awarding these players with killstreak rewards to provide themselves an asset to be increasingly unfair and unbalanced.
I want to explain more how Battlefield 3 is set to destroy Modern Warfare 3. The only thing Modern Warfare 3 has is perhaps the sales and its fanbase exceedingly handing over their money over to Activision. If I recall correctly, Modern Warfare 3 will rely on local servers rather than dedicated servers.
Oh, and the story in Modern Warfare 2 is
FULL of plotholes, Riney. It's not funny.
None.