Why Modern Warfare 3 Can’t Do Weapon DLC Like Battlefield 3

A couple of weeks ago, Infinity Ward took to Facebook asking for feedback on whether a double weapon XP event would interest Modern Warfare 3 players. Shortly after, the first double weapon XP  event was announced.

The interesting thing about the Facebook tease was the image Infinity Ward picked to go along with the message. The image includes the AK-74u, as you can see below, from Modern Warfare 3’s single player.

This prompted many fans, including our forums, to predict that the weapon would be making its way to MW3’s multiplayer. Also, let’s not forget, former creative strategist Robert Bowling did tease about weapons DLC in January and March.

Infinity Ward’s Executive Producer Mark Rubin, who’s been rather chatty lately, clarified that the AK-74u will not become available in Modern Warfare 3’s multiplayer. It was a “rumor that started when Tina Palacios posted a pic of all the weapons from MW3,” Rubin confirmed via Twitter.

As for the lack of weapon DLC in general, Mark Rubin explained that “the main issue is RAM. All of the weapons, characters, models, textures, and geo have to live in RAM. There is only 512 [MB] on the consoles. The problem then is adding weapons adds memory, and there isn’t much or any left.”

This led fans to wonder why Modern Warfare isn’t able to do weapon DLC when DICE’s Battlefield 3 has seen 20 weapons released in DLC form thus far. Rubin stated, “[it] just means their [Battlefield’s] maps, character models, weapon models, etc are smaller. We both have the exact same amount of available RAM.”

“It’s not size of the map. It’s texture space, unique models etc. So more/larger textures on small map = more mem[ory] than fewer/smaller textures on a larger map,” Rubin clarified to Twitter user, Weston Kaszer.

“Not everyone wants new weapons. But for those that do. I’d rather not put it in DLC. I’d rather give them away for free,” Mark Rubin assured.

With all that being said, Rubin left the door open a crack for weapon DLC when he stated, “I would love to [introduce new weapons]. Seriously. I’m going to be review the roadmap for MW3 during the next few weeks. We’ll look into it. I just didn’t want to set unreasonably expectations for anyone. I’m trying to be as upfront and honest as I can.”

“I don’t think we can do Gun DLC, but I want to look at the possibility but I don’t have high hopes for it.” He added, “I would love to do Gun DLC, and we will look at what it would take, but I think the tech issues are too high. We’ll see,” he concluded.

If the folks at Infinity Ward manage to find a way around the RAM issues, what guns would you like to see added to Modern Warfare 3?

  • That’s seriously BS. The size of one BF3 map is like 10 COD maps combined. BF3 also has all the vehicles that take RAM as well, and way more attachments. CoD is one of the most oversimplified games on the market – if they are really lacking memory space, they have some serious efficiency/allocation issues.

    • hgdsraj

      But as a BF3 player i realized that the bf3 maps are actual very simple. There are FAR FAR more textures and different areas throughout mw3 maps than bf3, bf3 actual repeats textures over and over and every wall looks the same (which makes destruction easier) texturs in bf3 are just super super repetitive, mw3 has many many more textures. The gun attatchments also all have same textures and so do most of the vehicles…look closesly ..bf3 is a bunch of repetition in different polygons.

      • maybe but there are way more weapons and even the grass moves ..that should take some ram too

      • Bf3’s power is it’s overall warfare: a bucketload o weapons, a handful of vehicles and rather large maps. I, as a die hard bf3-player and former cod-playercan live with those repeated textures, as long as the gameplay delivers. And boy it does! 😀

      • dakan45

        finally, someone who gets it, go into a building in bf3, EVERYTHIGN IS EMPTY, there is no art in bf maps, there is no detail, cod maps are populated with diffirent objects and textures.

        To put this simply in 3d graphics terms, a identical model/texture is an instance, it doesnt take anything extra, diffirent models and textures though even if used once are heavier on memory.

        • DarthDiggler

          Bullshit BF3 buildings have items in them, there are lockers chairs sometimes tables. Nice thing is when you put a rocket through the wall a hole will appear. Also when was the last time you brought a building down in COD (outside of scripted single player)?

          • hgdsraj

            Its great that bf3 has destruction 🙂 I find it hillarious how agressive bf3 players are at hating on cod lool no one has said that bf3 is worse than cod! Just saying that its much simpler, less textures, less work put into it, less memory taken per item…are you a computer programmer? If i was to declare a variable in a programming language like “Dim pctWallTexture as picturebox” i could use that variable over and over and over and over and over for different walls but it would still just be one wall texture and it would only take up one instance in memory, if i had pctWallTexture1, pctWallTexture2, pctWallTexture3, it would take up more memory, regardless of the engine/language… cod puts alot of work into having creative and different maps with different materials making up wals, ground etc.. bf3 has better LOOKING textures and destruction but it lacks the fluidity of cod due to lower frame rates. Both have their plusses and minusses but overall the reason why they cant have guns clearly is the fact that they have alot of different things on their maps.

        • uwantSAM0A

          Grand Bazaar has a hookah.

          Your argument is invalid.

      • bleh

        Lol at all the butthurt bf3 fans who thumbs downed this:)

  • Viktor Frankl

    Can someone explain to me how this is possible? BF3 has maps 10X the size of MW3 maps, but can still get new weapons and have destructibility. While MW3 maps are tiny with zero destruction and no new weapons? This honestly makes no sense to me, since BF3 maps are just as detailed as MW3 maps… MW3 is shit.

    • MikePembo951

      Mw3 uses a cheap VERY OLD engine which isnt optimised. The engine came from id tech and almost dates back to the 90s with doom. IW have to push a game including dlc content every two years. Thats almost impossible and the only way they can do it is to reuse the same engine every year making only minor tweaks.
      Battlefield 3’s engine, frostbite 2, was designed and created from scratch and is probably the most optimised game engine you will find for current gen consoles. Optimisation can only get so far, frostbite 2 has reached the consoles limits.
      IW dont have time to do the sort of thing dice do.

      • Frostbite 2 has reached it’s limits? They have at least 3 more DLCs planned and the next one will have the biggest map in battlefield history. Each one will have new guns or vehicles or both. Sounds more like they don’t have the ability to convert hard-drive space into RAM.

        • bossjedizohan

          He’s talking about optimizing for the limitations of current-gen consoles and that FB2 is probably the most well optimized engine out right now, not that it’s reached it’s peak in regards to expansion or deliverable DLC.

          You would do well to reread the comment and rethink your assumption.

        • bossjedizohan

          ” Frostbite 2 has reached the consoles limits” i.e., the consoles’ hardware limitations, not the engine’s coding.

      • dakan45

        i wanna seriosuly punch you in the face, mw3 has NOTHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING from doom. It was based on quake 3 engine and that was ONLY on cod1 and slightly on 2, after than, THE ENGINE HAS BEEN COMPLETLY RE-WRITTEN. ALL THE CODE IS REPLACED. Look at the screenshots you moron, cod does not look ANYHTING like quake or doom, bf3 on the other hand looks alot like medal of honor and bad company 2.

        Anyway you see it, its not the same enigne, eg id tech 3 is now under the GNU license, IW engine is not the same, so it DOESNT fall under the license.

        AGAIN anyway you see it.

        The cod engine is VERY optimized, it looks better than rage’s id tech 5 engine, so YEAH it IS FUCKING OPTIMIZED.

        The problem is that you work on dated consoles and strife for 60 fps.


        You fucking morons. Compare bf 2142 with bc1, DO YOU SEE how diffirent it is? that IS a “new engine”

        i trully laughed at “most optimized engine” its not far from bc2 on consoles. On pc its a diffirent matter, unreal engine is far better than this.

        • asspicklev2

          Dude you are definitively a fanboy. Call of duty mw3 runs on a modified id tech 3 and mostly every single game since cod 4 looks the same with minor changes. Frostbite 2 was built from the ground up. BF2 and MOH look WAY different compared to bf3 you must be blind.

        • jaskdavis

          BC2 FB looks NOTHING like BF3 FB2 look at the Screen Shots you Moron! Oh That’s how you should have said it, because you look like the Moron 😉 IW and Treyarch’s “Upgraded/Recoded” iD Tech 3 Engine from 1997 shares about 75% code gives why Their Games look very Similar to each other. Oh and FB2 Means Frost Bite 2.0 and BC2 ran on FB 1.5 and BC1 ran just FB! No One ever said It was a “BRAND NEW” engine silly.

        • MikePembo951

          Lol. IWs engine is very unoptimised, no doubt. Just from the tweet he sent you can tell the engine is not programmed well or it would easily be able to cope with more weapons which will barely use any ram nor hdd space. A weapon will have these assets: a mesh built of vertices normals faces, texture coordinates, texture, specular texture, bump map, then finally weapon specs which should barely use any memory if types are correct. Just remember that things like bump map, hq mesh, hq texture for other players unless you are in spectator since bump map and high mip textures are unnecessary. The tweet is suggesting they load all weapons and weapon assets for every game, no matter if the player does not have them in the custom classes, they are still loaded with all assets. In my opinion, there is a lot of waste in the iw engine. It needs a complete rewrite, from scratch, by iw or treyarch themselves. You really believe IW (who are basically professional modders) wrote the cod engine from scratch, think again. Its a fact that frostbite 2 was written from scratch. (Source: Repi – developer presentation last year, graphics architech for dice).

        • MikePembo951

          Yes idtech3 is under gnu, but it wasnt when iw first used it. They “modified” it and called it the iw engine.

          Its also highly likely that core script from old engines such as the one used in doom still exists in iws engine. Not sure when idtech came up with the fast inverse square root wizardry but it is most likely in iws engine

        • MikePembo951

          Btw battlefield 3 feels nothing like bad company/bc2. I loved bc2 but hit recognition was awful on that game. Frostbite 2 > frostbite. By far. Feels completely different, even though gamemodes are the same

        • nate

          tl;dr version: Herp Derp DONT TALK SHIT ‘BOUT MY FISH!!!111!

        • ss

          Bro seems mad that all CoD does is change lighting effects on textures and pretends it’s a new game

          Bro should have his balls drop and get laid

        • MasonMei

          Yes, I will just take your Saying that the Engine is different from DOOMs id tech 3 as a fact. But how do you explain the fact that CODMW3 didnt change or even modifiy the engine of MW2s? They just changed few lines of codes, put some new texture, and replaced the nice MW2 gun sounds with the farting noise? How do you dare to compare this MOD with BF3, which used a brand new engine. Oh right you are blind. Makes sense now. MW3 should sell for $15, not $60 as BF3, right?

        • PKHavoK

          Do you like, suffer from ALL CAPS Terets? I’m sure we can all do extensive research on these various game engines, but I highly doubt CoD’s MW3 is fully “optimized”.

          I find Mark Rubin’s reasoning in this article a little fishy.

        • *FANBOY ALERT*

      • Dane Curbow

        I wouldn’t use the word optimized really to explain the actual problem at hand since as time goes on they still make changes to the engine itself which do optimize it how well it runs. The problem is that the underlying framework itself is old and how they hand resource management is where it fails.

        A long time ago when people were first writing games they made this thing called a “Game Object” which held the base similar functionality of all game objects as to not rewrite the same thing and then when you needed something specific you would “derive” from that object and create a new one with that specific functionality added to it. The problem is that a lot of things end up being REALLY close to the same thing so people just put it in the base “Game Object” and that results in a very bloated base “Game Object” structure. In the last unreal engine a bullet had the ability for a camera to be mounted on it and camera shake to be applied, by default. It was just in the base “Game Object” class.

        I would assume that the CoD engine is in that situation. Once a method of resource management is chosen you can’t easily change that without taking a considerable time so you might as well wait till you write a new engine ( which they probably are doing for next gen consoles right now on the side and you don’t get to hear about it ).
        So a gun’s definition could very well be hundreds of kilobytes in size making it hard to add more guns to the game, especially with a limit of 512MB ( which is both general and video ram and textures take up a lot of space ).

        The frostbite engine is much newer so I would assume they have adopted the newer method for “Game Objects” where the base literally has almost nothing in it and you then define components such as “attack” or “health” and then add them to the object itself allowing for more appropriately sized objects since the bullet doesn’t need a camera component or a health component. Just position, collision, and damage. And that would be why the frostbite can have more guns and larger maps. Especially if they stretch smaller textures over larger things, which on the 360 they do.

        When IW first wrote this CoD engine it was probably top of the line. Over time is has changed considerably so anyone saying it is the “SAME” engine is wrong. A lot of stuff is new within the engine they just haven’t rewritten an entirely new engine because it wasn’t necessary and why fix what isn’t broken. Also as it gets closer to the next gen consoles it becomes less desirable to write a new engine. I highly doubt most people expected this console generation to last as long as it did.

    • homefrontman

      idiot, it was mentioned that the map RAM allocation of bf3 is smaller which means to say it has fewer elements and so not much detail, bf3 maps as detailed as cod? BS. just look at the color of the maps, it looks like bf3 only uses one pallete.

      • Glock Lover

        BF3 maps are not as detailed as cod, they waaaaayyyyy more detailed than COD, and there’s no pallete or color that surpass the destructability of BF3 in terms of memory. COD is running an old engine, Frostbite 2 is a new engine optimized for graphics, destructability and animation without sacrify memory, that’s the Frostbite 3 power. He said BF3 maps bigger-less detailed, but how can you explain close quarters quarters smaller maps looking way better than COD maps, and still have detailed destruction and still have new weapons.

        • Glock Lover


        • dakan45

          SHUT UP IDIOT. mw3 maps are fileld with objects, bf3 maps are just lik bc2, EMPTY fuckign EMPTY.

          I wish you idiots reallized that, bf maps have no art, they are bland and borring.

          • Jaskdavis

            Haha your fucking Stupid, and the Minority! Yes COD is Filled with Solid Objects that cant be destroyed, let alone moved and has NO physics, wanna keep going?

          • Angelreborn96

            Your a cod fan Stfu.. Cod sucks bf3 rules. More weapons more fun. Not using the SAME lame ass guns like in mw3! Learn kid

            • IhaveThemBoth

              In mw3 weapons are much more unique than in bf3, for example I take SMG vs. LMG, in CoD if 2 guys see exactly same time at close range its pretty obvious that SMG wins the situation and otherwise if at long range LMG should win the situation. In bf3 LMG´s are way too good at close range, too often there dies at close range even if use PDW or shotgun. Sorry if you can’t understand my explanation because of my bad english but im happy if someone understands what I mean and agrees what im trying to say 🙂

            • PKHavoK

              Hmmm… I don’t know my friend, I’ve always thought that if you’re good then you can overcome any situation with whatever you have. If I mount a close quartered sight onto a M39 EMR, I can still effectively run and gun despite its intended use. (but as a DMR, I’m not too sure)

          • MasonMei

            You said fuckign?? What did IGN do to deserve that?

      • Damdn

        Which is why we lol at that…clearly not true this is just what you get for using the same game engine for ten years lol

      • Random

        Have you not seen the infantry based maps?? Especially the close quarters maps? You have no idea what you’re talking about…

      • dakan45

        This man is correct, but they are so many retards who downrated him.

        Cod has a very large variety of objects in its levels, they are basicly populated with objects. Bf3 as bc2, are on a pallete, same colors, same empty enviroments.

        SADLY many morons do not even reallize what that means.

        • CodNoobfag

          Grand Bazaar, all the CQ maps, Kharg Island, Norshar Canals.

          Look at those colors and tell me they are all the same palette.

          You can’t even spell palette right fuckwit, much less pretend to know what it means.

        • MasonMei

          Downvoted you as well. I’m double retard now! Ok. So basically all you codtards are arguing about adding more useless objects in the maps to make it look less war torn. Huh. I will not try to say which game is better (since it’s as clear as crap), just look at the fans! BF3 players’ posts are practically based on, like how this game can be more balanced or something, or on how the gameplay can be enhanced. COD tards?.. Quit saying you needed more breakable vases or TVs or windows or even invincible telephones. (Cod never improves since you guys just cry or make yourselves ignorant.) BF3 maps are populated with players, tanks, IFVs, jeeps, choppers and jets. COD? Lol, vases, paintings, lamps, TVs and CHICKEN THAT BLEEDS LIKE HUMAN! Wow GOTY, yeah.

          • Don’t for get that same old 86 Ford truck model they use in every game since MW and the same old Black Jeep in game promo since Black Ops

            • MasonMei


      • Die

        Fuck you, we have trees.

        • PKHavoK

          lol I love it

    • dakan45

      explain me why in saints row 3 they said the same about the dlc weapons.

      Its basicly how its built in.

    • Angelreborn96

      Well said bro

    • MW3 is shit i hate that game and the maps in BF3 are 30X the size

    • MasonMei

      MW3 is shit? Cmon wut is wrong witcha? Shit is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than MW3. Fact.

  • PTFO Nico

    so MW uses more memory than BF… lmao great job on the rendering and optimisation there IW, not like you’ve had long to perfect the engine I guess…

    • QwietStorm

      lol I don’t even know how to react to that explanation

    • dakan45

      the game runs on 60 fps you moron, OFCOURSE it will use more memory so the resources are always there, loaded into the memory to be accessed.

      • h

        frames/sec have no issue with ram. Seeing as we can only visually percieve about 20~ frames/sec as a completely moving image, cutbacks COULD have been made. They were not because your mother will still spend 100$ for the game and DLC regardless.

      • 60 Frames per second is nothing but refresh rate, which is only achievable for them by dropping the games native resolution to a crappy 640p.

    • bleh

      At least there isn’t giraffe neck medics and planes sticking their noses in the wall

  • Two points I left out of the piece:

    1. Battlefield 3 using a texture pack to remedy this issue
    2. Call of Duty utilizes 60 FPS compared to Battlefield’s 30 FPS

    Because I couldn’t be sure of how much they affect the RAM usage, I decided not include them in the article. Any comments on that?

    Edit: I reached out to Rubin on Twitter and he has this to say on the two topics:

    “60 vs 30 isn’t a RAM issue. A texture pack is for high mips. They don’t have high mips with out pack. We have them already on disk. That’s a very simplistic explanation just so you know. I just don’t have enough characters.”

    • not on PC !!

      • Absolutely, but PC isn’t held back by “RAM limitations,” I think it’s fair to say that this discussion only pertains to consoles.

        As Rubin said, “The main issue is RAM. All of the weapons, characters, models, textures, and geo have to live in RAM. There is only 512K on the consoles. The problem then is adding weapons adds memory, and there isn’t much or any left.”

        • Niosus

          512M 😉

    • MikePembo951

      Maxing at 60fps instead of 30fps wont have effects for RAM issues. RAM is simply dependant on the programmers, how much time is spent optimising, how well memory is allocated etc. And of course high res textures will use a lot of ram. I think dice made the high res texture pack optional mainly due to harddrive space and not ram.

    • WasabeJuice

      If 30 vs 60 fps isn’t a RAM issue and why is frostbite 2 running at 30 fps?

      • RogerL

        CPU/GPU processing (calculation) limitation – dynamic lightning, …

        See this presentation (for PC but you get an hint of what is going on)

      • DarthDiggler

        Because there is much more going on in the dynamic Battlefields of BF3, COD the maps are static. You could run COD on a Pentium III if you wanted to. 🙂

  • I don’t think its bs its just frostbite 2 is WAY more advanced than cod whatever engine.

    • The good ol’ unreal engine. High framerates but not efficient at all when it comes to using it’s resources..

      • Jurgen

        All COD games run on a very heavily modified Quake 3 engine, not unreal.

        • jaskdavis

          FACEPALM! lol tell em

          • dakan45


            If carmack had that engine he wouldnt make rage.

            frostbite 3 is basicly an upgraded frostbite 2.

            The morrons who believe those things trullly make me wanna punch them in
            the face. id tech 3 is free, iw enigne isnt becasue the code is totally

            for crying out loud

            • MIKEYYABOI

              Yeah, MW3 might look a bit worse than Quake 3, I see your point.

            • swagsnipsor42069

              At least I don’t feel like a retarded catfish jacking off with the back of my knee when I try to move in bf3

            • Jaskdavis

              Ok ok, Calm Down man, I know FB2 is not a “Brand New Engine” as i explained in an earlier post that BF3 runs on FrostBite 2.0 (Recoded as well) and BC:2 ran on FrostBite 1.5 and BC1 on Frostbite Debut, and I know That COD engine has been completely rewritten Code wise. BUT That does not change the Similar look to it, for example, when Halo Reach came out they said they Rewritten all code in the Engine and Called in the “Reach” engine but looked very similar to Halo 3’s engine, same thing with Farcry 2 only using 37% code of Cryengine and called it “Dunia” engine but still looked very similar! As for punching me in the Face, I’m 6.2″ and a Solid 205lbs sooooo, go for it 😛 I’m sorry for being mean 🙂

            • no

              Trust me, it’s just a Quake 3 engine.

              Otherwise, where is your destruction and bullet drop? almost all other FPSes have em.

        • dakan45


          If carmack had that engine he wouldnt make rage.

          frostbite 3 is basicly an upgraded frostbite 2.

          The morrons who believe those things trullly make me wanna punch them in the face. id tech 3 is free, iw enigne isnt becasue the code is totally rewritten.

          • noob

            We don’t have frostbite 3 yet.

            Don’t they teach you counting in elementary school?

          • DarthDiggler

            Dude when the devs of COD were working on MW3 they said they were going to use the same engine. It wasn’t until the game was released they backpedaled and said no this is highly modified, ignore the fact the game acts and looks just like it’s Quake III predecessors. They didn’t change the core engine, they just modified it.

            • swagsnipsor42069

              But does it really matter? The controls in bf3 suck and it feels glitchy thts y CoD outsells BF by BIG MARGINS

      • dakan45

        it is, on pc it runs very well and looks better than most multiplas, in consoles they had to do crazy thigns to get 60 fps. AGAIN bf3 runs on HALF THE FPS.

        • noobfag

          half the fps for x10 the graphics, vehicles, destruction, player count, map size.

        • You are stupid, the only things they have done to make the game 60FPS on console was decrease the player count from 24 to 18 player max and set the native resolution to 1024×600 sub HD which can be upscaled. Battlefield is sub HD also on consoles at 704p to conserve more memory to do other things but it’s a higher resolution and upscaled it looks so much better than MW3 and even Black Ops 2

    • dakan45

      bullocks. If the hardware they run on is from 2006, there is no “advancement” i

  • MasonMei


    • Dafuq did I just read?

      • Daniel Brady

        He’s saying that IW are so lazy they don’t even change the 3rd Person of an animation when using a grip. Notice how there’s a grip on the M4 but it’s not even being used.

        • MasonMei

          You got it. Mr. Brakel can’t understand my English. That’s common.

          • asgaro

            I could understand it. And I’m not even native English 🙂

        • PKHavoK

          Why sir, would anyone vote down your comment for just honestly explaining MasonMei’s thoughts, is beyond me.

          • MasonMei

            They don’t agree with me, then.

  • ” It’s not size of the map. It’s texture space, unique models etc. So more/larger textures on small map = more mem[ory] than fewer/smaller textures on a larger map,” is this guy saying that mw3 has more texture and better graphics than BF3!!! WHAT A JOKE even so how come BF3 HAS MORE WEAPONS ?

    • dakan45


      Go to a bf map, the map is bland and repettivie, no object variety, no texture variety and all the guns have the same colors and textures.

      GO to cod, enter abuilding, many diffirent objects laying around, diffirent textures provide for a more believalbe and detailed enviroment and the guns have alot of detail on them and dont look like they use the same color and material.

      Infact the camos alone must take alot of memory. Ever thought of that?

  • kylegetsspam

    What a crock of shit. No coder in his right mind would load up ALL the guns every match in lieu of only the subset used per match. Especially in a limited-memory situation like on a console!

    Not only that, but only a couple high-res models need to be loaded at any given time since you can only carry two guns! Everyone else is carrying low-poly models designed specifically for third-person rendering.
    MW3 doesn’t add guns because they don’t want to put any real effort into their added content. There’s too much play testing, balancing, and UI editing necessary for it to seem like a good idea. I’m sure they also don’t want anyone who didn’t pay to be able to use them, and being able to swap out for a DLC gun you didn’t pay for would never fly with Activision in charge.
    You may be wondering how they can release new maps then since those would also require a lot of work. Well, you ever notice how the DLC maps are never quite as good as the vanilla ones? That’s because the DLC maps aren’t new — they’re just reject maps that never made it into the main game because they weren’t good enough. They release them later as DLC because, hey, why pass up free money for work that’s already been done?

    And to compare MW3 to BF3 in a technological sense? Are you kidding me?! BF3’s engine is many times better than MW3’s in every conceivable manner even right down to bullet physics (of which MW3 has none).

    Mark Rubin is a god damned idiot. I’m wondering if one of his coders just told him some bullshit to get him off their case, and now he’s spouting it about in public without a clue as to how stupid it’s making him look.

    • One logical explanation: a gun from MW3 must have a ~120mb model! :p

      • dakan45

        why not? cod has the most detailed weapons ever.


        • gamer4-ever

          You would think that if they did have amazing gun models they would at least make them sound realistic, instead of having the guns make a weird muffled “khunk” sound.

        • Angelreborn96

          They have the SAME GUNS, okay they change the skin of the gun! In example, the ACR, looked different In mw2 now look it at in mw3. Same shit! Battlefield 3 more guns than ever before. Best gameplay. And final statement, HOW THE FUCK IS MW3 GOTY?? Bunch of idiot voters.

          • MasonMei

            Huh. Simply it’s titled after Call of Duty.

        • nope

          BF guns are how they actually look in the field, and contain actual dust, grime, and other features. MW3 guns are little cardboard boxes that are chosen because little kids think they look cool. Also, when we add foregrips, flash suppressors, bipods, laser sights, tactical lights, suppressors, and heavy barrels, we can see the detail on our guns, unlike CoD weapons.

          • Wade R

            Yes, cardboard boxes, that’s what they look like

          • swagsnipsor42069

            Too bad when u use a fore grip you do not actually grab it. It just falls thru ur hand

          • xboxfan

            true very true.

        • PKHavoK

          I agree with gamer4-ever.
          There may be disputes between Call of Duty and Battlefield, but I’ve always applauded the audio quality of Battlefield’s weaponry over Call of Duty.

    • u d man

    • dakan45

      actually cod’s engine can do everything, eg on pc it has ragdolls, the dated conoles and design of the game is what hodl it where it is.

      I canr belevieve you argue “bullet physics” on a game that has 1 second delay since the very first bf game in 2002.

      Fix your shit code dice and then we talk about realism.

      • MArko

        This guy has to be trolling. The one second delay is travel time, it is realistic physics. The bullets drop over range unlike the easy mode cod snipers. I’m sure you have never played a battlefield game…

        • v0id

          There is also networking delay in bf3 and bfbc2 (and probably other dice games), that adds up with bullet travel time. It’s usually several times longer than latency(ping) value which makes it so unbearable. It was way more obvious in beta before they transfered many server-side decisions to client (e.g. breaking glass with the knife). Dice managed to hide this flaw to some extent but it’s still a gamebreaking issue for many ppl. Look for bf3 netcode threads in battlelog for more info on this.

      • Angelreborn96

        Okay are u stupid? Realism.. Haha. Cod is about as real as it GETS! Bf3?? You actually do realistic shit in that game. Plus don’t even compare real world to a video game. I bet how many Real US soldiers would think mw3 is realistic. NONE! Battlefield 3 is muchhh more better! No spawn trap and all that stupid crap

        • swagsnipsor42069

          Yup. I like battlefield but its not realistic. I bet soldiers spawn off beacons and fly in the air. I also bet they get stabbed in the throat but a medic is there with paddles to shock them in the foot nd then their better. They are both great games people just don’t like the styles

      • MasonMei

        Hey! Which asylum are you from? Shit they have patient leak!

    • I agree. They don’t understand what a free weapon pack (and possibly 2-3 Elite only guns) would do for this game after Black Ops 2 comes out. I guarantee if they refreshed with throwback weapons and new weapons, the game would get more love after the fact. I know new guns would make me come back to it more often.

  • Adam

    btw xbox 360’s have 512mb of ram not 512k someone mistyped.

  • david

    Everything in Call of duty looks a lot smoother, plays a lot smoother and the maps though smaller look a lot better, like people have said bf maps are just the same walls/doors stairs etc. over and over.

    Im not a fan of how the weapons look in bf either, To play bf you need a high spec pc to get the best out the game, console it just looks crap. Be very interesting to see what happens with warfighter as they look to have really used the frostbite engine and got more out of it.

    it should be a written rule in fps that if the ak is in the game then the 74u should be in just like the m4/m14 and mp5’s

    • Darksid3r

      Love how these COD fanboys jump to defend their beloved game. Saying that COD maps look better its just desperate BS. Apart from the size, BF maps are more complex in terms of geometry. The way DICE resolves the RAM limitation issues is through streaming. Why would you load an entire map when you van be in only one place at a given time? Why load all the weapons at high res when u can have only 2 (3 if u count RPGs, etc.) at a given time?
      And saying the textures are much more high res in COD is BS too. Just check out the maps in the new CQ DLC in BF3. Even tho the maps are still bigger and more complex then most MW3 maps, they still look much better.
      COD is just obsolete, and nothing is gonna change while we keep on buying this game in record numbers (including me).

      • dakan45

        and i lvoe how fucking stupid you are.

        HOW they are more complex in terms of geometry? mw3 has more objects and every single building has more variety and stuff put into than bf3.

        yes cod has better guns. objects and bigger variety, yes the maps look better and so do the animations.


        • darksid3r

          HAHA, my point exactly fanboy. As long there are people like you, IW is gonna make millons selling mods of the same old piece of crap at the price of a full game.
          Sit down, you don’t have to get hysterical, fanboy, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • Atlas7O2

      Are you high? Saying COD maps look better. What a load of crap. Please step in front of a bus.

      • Langley

        I agree but suggesting someone to kill themselves is going to far bro…

      • dakan45

        yes they look better you moron, all maps in bf3 are empty and bland, no art design whasoever.

    • dakan45

      well fuckign said, agreeed 100%

  • ian

    there is destructibility in mwf 3 you can smash a window 🙂

  • Intervention!!!!!

  • Wade R

    So any weapon dlc is going to be free? muahahaha that’s one big joke. at least in BF3 there’s more map variety than weapon variety. They’re trying so hard to keep COD alive for the mindless kids

  • The Frostbite Engine is 100 times better then the outdated MW engine(whatever it’s called),judging by what I’ve seen in the new Medal of Honor videos(which uses Frostbite 2 also) the Modern Warfare franchise may need to run for cover. Battlefield 3 trumps MW3 on all levels and I for one am not overly impressed with Black Ops 2 looks kind of cheesy to me but that’s just my opinion. Infinity Ward and Treyarch won’t be getting anymore of my money anytime soon.

    • dakan45

      hahahah no, just no. its crap.

  • uwantSAM0A

    Yeah, sure, you’d rather give weapon DLC for free.

    Free to COD:Elite premium members.

  • Wade R

    lol free weapons what a joke. Yay more marketing spam. they’re try so hard to look good for more core gamers. go back to the mindless kids, Activision 😀 It’s quite the mindset they have going on. Pay for this content,pay for that DLC, pay for those stats. Ok so I don’t know much about coding, but anyone unbiased could see that Battlefield 3 is way more advanced in every aspect.

    • Wade R

      oops, I couldn’t see my other comment so I posted again sry

  • It’s funny how they’ve said multiple times that they’d like to give out something for free. Then people think that it means that they WILL give it for free, which anyone with half a brain knows won’t happen.

    So he’s saying the size of the map doesn’t matter? So all those boat loads of extra polygons that BF maps have over CoD maps just magically don’t take up any RAM?

    And he basically said that it works for BF because their maps are less detailed. I’m sure a part of his soul died at that moment for saying such a blatant lie. Even if the static terrain and buildings don’t have as much textures, there’s also the 8 billion effects that come from the destructible environment. Do those not use RAM either?

    So, if what he’s saying is right, BF3’s engine must be more efficient at using resources to be able to support the dlc weapons.

    In conclusion, there is a 99.9% chance that you will NEVER see any gun dlc from CoD because not only would it require time and resources that they don’t want to spend money on to make the dlc, but also because it would force them to make a new engine, which requires even more time and money they don’t want to spend.

  • I understand if they can’t make the DLC for PS3 because it has 256mb RAM, but Xbox 360(slim) has 512mb RAM, now that I think about it, they shouldn’t do gun DLC for consoles if only Xbox slim users are going to play it, after all everyone is looking for an even match between the consoles.

  • shooter

    These BF idiots all of a sudden know everything technical in the cod engine and frostbite 2, and all hail to frostbite, the truth is you all dont, so everything you all say is crap

    • says the CoD fanboy that dosent know two shits about what he is talking about

      • Says a human who also don’t know nothing about engines 🙂

        • I dont really care im not a big ass geek that has to know every thing about a Game

      • dakan45

        you the moronic bf fucks are wrose, you THINK you know what you talking about but its nothign but lies and missconceptions.

        • Cheese

          Were you dropped as a baby?

    • meatpopsicle

      “These BF idiots all of a sudden know everything technical in the cod
      engine and frostbite 2, and all hail to frostbite, the truth is you all
      dont, so everything you all say is crap”

      • IHaveThemBoth

        Im still so F*CK*NG confused HOW everybody still keeps going whining about wich one is better CoD or BF. They are not SAME game they dont have to be same looking or same feeling when you play them.

    • Glock Lover

      BROTHER is time for your conversion before it’s too late, the destruction of COD as you know it is near. Come, take our hand and walk with us through the valley of the real Battlefield, AMEN!!! DOWN GO THE DEVIL ACTIVISION AMEEEN!!!you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor AMEEEN!!jajajajajjajaja, dude everyone knows MW3 wasn’t that good and unfortunately we have COD players in BF3 ruining the game for us.

      • dakan45

        what detrustcion dipshit? cod is getting more sucessfull every time, gtfo troll

      • WasabeJuice

        MW2 in XBL is now one spot below BF3, give it a few more weeks and MW2 will be on top BF3. And MW3?, still no 1 since launch,
        Coz you’re ignorant, EA has been voted the most hated company in America.

        • Jeronimo

          Influx of cod kiddies keeps it at #1, no children want to play a game that takes skill and effort…

  • The AKT

    Bf3 runs 30 Fps and Mw3 is 60 fps so

    • asgaro

      It’s the same on PC. Its hilarious how BF3 runs smoother than MW2. (I dont have BO or MW3).
      Really shows how old and garbage their engine is…

    • OWCY

      mw3 peer to peer hosting, as in a human other player host the match, Battlefield 3 has dedicated servers as in all players connect to a server in a room, not to a another players.

    • Niosus

      You’re talking about network lag. BF3 uses dedicated servers which guarantees lower ping. MW3 uses peer to peer which makes you depend on another user’s network connection. This often results in lag.

    • Anonymous

      because mw3 doesnt have ded servers (except maybe on pc); to my knowledge bf3 does, or at least better monitered servers. However, to solve the issue of fps, bf3 runs in 720p on consoles (HD), while mw3 runs below HD res (480p or something like that. Both games have their issues, but i just think that mw3 is more flawed, despite being better than mw2. I also find it more rage-inducing, and i’m a very laid-back kind of guy. thats actually why i stopped playing cod………………. In conclusion: BF3 is more fun and better in general!

  • RogerL

    “the main issue is RAM. All of the weapons, characters,
    models, textures, and geo have to live in RAM. There is only 512 [MB]
    on the consoles. The problem then is adding weapons adds memory, and
    there isn’t much or any left.”

    Wrong! It has to remain in some memory but not RAM.
    Video RAM – generic RAM – HardDisk – DVD/Blu-ray – Server(!)
    fast access – slow access
    small – big

    A modern engine should dynamically load its content. I thought MW3 at least did stream textures.

    • Niosus

      Streaming only gets you so far. To render a frame everything on the screen needs to come from the RAM. At 60fps you got 16.67ms to render the frame from start to finish. No hard drive, optical drive or server is fast enough for that. If you add more weapons there is a possibility of having needed more textures and models in the RAM to render your scene.

      I’m not saying it is a good excuse, but they have a point. However I don’t believe that with the millions the make literally every day there is no way to solve that problem. Thinking something is impossible is the first step to making it impossible.

      • RogerL

        Yes, everything you draw got to come from RAM. But you are also wrong. There is no need to replace everything in memory between every frame! Streaming dynamically changes the contents of the RAM depending on where you are in the map. And since you can not teleport your next location will be close to the current one – so most of the contents can be reused. You load more detailed models and textures for things you approach and load less detailed models and textures you move away from – but most can be the same. This “caching” can be done according to a pre-calculated plan since you move along a path the engine can “know” what models and textures to prioritise (in BF3 this plan might change during gameplay due to destruction). If your disk can’t keep up you render with the lower quality model and texture until the higher quality texture and model is fully loaded.

        You might notice this effect in BF3 but it is VERY rare. Maps are optimized to be within disk budget, and disk operate quite independently from CPU. When flying you do not need to load the highest quality textures – you will not be able to see the finest detail anyway (unless you hover close to a wall).

        You can load 35 MB/s from disk (when starting a PS3 round contest is copied from Blu-ray to a disk-cache, on XBOX the hires pack installs all hires textures on disk – DLC exist on disk but might reuse data from Blu-ray/DVD…)

        With 35 MB/s you can replace ALL RAM memory in 15 seconds…
        – but you will not need to do that (no need to reload your active weapon model and its texture, nor game engine itself, …)

        Future: BF3 on PC already uses 250MB models and 1.5GB textures meaning that with currently rumoured PS4/XBOX720 streaming will be needed to reach that level. But I expect first EA FPS on that hardware will use lots more…

        • Niosus

          I know that. But imagine the worst case scenario: Every player is on screen and close to you, and they all have different weapons/loadouts. It could be possible that they go over budget that way.

          I know that is not a good excuse and a developer should be able to work around that. I’m just trying to say that it is not _completely_ bullshit what they’re giving as an excuse.

          • RogerL

            Every player can’t be that close to you to require the highest resolution model and textures. This things drops of fast.

            Would think that the worst case scenario is 12x scoping in against something (a distant group of solders).
            – Distant = no real need to have anything hi-res loaded
            – Scope = ‘immediate’ need to have at least medium resolution
            But this can be handled by keeping higher resolution/polygon objects of the object in cross-hair in memory. There are some scope in time that helps too…

  • Casavult

    The real reason;

    “We can’t provide you with new weapons because if we did then it would have to be free for everybody to download which we won’t do because we love the money to much to give it away for free. $15/£12 is a good deal for 4 new weapons, wouldn’t you say?”

    Yeah, something along them lines.

  • Aria

    THREE simple reasons:

    1.BF3’s Frostbite2 engine read n stream most of the textures from Hard drive to free up the RAM.
    2.Call of duty Devs do not really invest on their engine.

    3. Because of lack of new contents in the recent COD games, they would prefer to save such items for their new games.

  • Jackson

    I’m trying not to say anything rude here, so I will just shut up on this one.

  • Eberton Konieczny Sobreira

    Galil and FAMAS would be a nice pack of weapons.

  • Jaskdavis

    So BF3 has 30+ Vehicles, 90+ Weapons, and the New CQ Maps look AMAZING on Console (With Hardly any “Copy-and-paste” Textures) and they say That BF3 is Less Detailed? I’M CONNNFUUZZED 😛

    • dakan45

      cod has a far bigger variety of textures and objects in map along with light maps.

      THey put more crap in each map, how should i exlpain it to you, the maps are more detaield, more artistic, they have more work put into them.

      Get it? I can walk into a room and find objects related to the map, in bf the rooms are EMPTYYYY.

      • jaskdavis

        I get what you mean, but Consoles are to blame for the Lack of Detail, believe me they are Holding The FB2 engine WAAAYYYY back of it’s potential. No offense console gamers

      • CoDFaggots

        We have bushes that we can actually blow up, we can make craters with explosion on our grounds, we have details and textures on every single thing, we have ambient lighting, we have ANT movement.

        goml CoDfag.

        • swagsnipsor42069

          R u saying this because u have a 1.1 bf3 kd and a .6 CoD kd?

      • MasonMei

        Empty since the place is AT WAR you stupid arse. And CoD maps have more useless crap since it’s SMALL. TINY. In BF3 people spend most of their time PTFO or running around or kickin’ some arses. In COD you make telefon calls or sth? You watch MLB on the TV? Or you look at the gay pictures of dev team hangin’ on the wall? LMAO. That’s why COD never improves. All his supporters put their attention on miscellaneous stuffs. Not anything practical.

        • swagsnipsor429

          Most people in bf3 sit in windows with m240b’s. Btw. Im 5 colonel in bf3 with a 2.4 kd. The game is frustrating

          • MasonMei

            lol really? huh i got only 1.2. i must be a stupid arsehole

      • PKHavoK

        So… you mean to tell me that with weaponry, vehicles, destruction, audio, teamwork, customization, and a vast playing field aside, you’re basing your opinions on what you can see inside a room? Frankly, I’ve never even noticed because those “empty rooms” in Battlefield explode and collapse.

    • Angelreborn96

      Well said

    • MasonMei

      (Digression) I think all the bulidings in Noshahr, Kharg and Firestorm are copy-and-pasted…… But new CQ DLC is simply awwwwsome! Look at the vivid destruction! But I think the train passing by in Scrapmetal is a little bit nonsense

      • MasonMei

        Lol my digression post received two up votes …. Thanks guys 😀

  • Random

    It’s not size of the map. It’s texture space, unique models etc. So more/larger textures on small map = more mem[ory] than fewer/smaller textures on a larger map,” this doesn’t make sense Battlefield 3’s close quarters DLC has small maps with amazing detail, two new game modes, 21 new weapons (M320 jnv), new dog tags, ect and they still add weapons. Why cant Mw3? Seems to me BF3 has more memory and IW does’t know it.

  • bossjedizohan

    COD runs on a very old engine that was built for older consoles/systems. When you constantly upscale something like a game engine instead of rebuilding it, you lose efficiency and flexibility.

    BF3 was built on a brand new engine that is optimized for current consoles/systems. It’s inherently going to handle the limitations of what’s available to run it on better.
    While I agree that it is very lazy of COD devs to keep reusing and modifying the IW engine, it’s probably the only way they can manage to put out a new title every year. MW3 was built in 8 months, which is insanely amazing and equally stupid.

    COD’s primary issue is the lack of a dedicated dev team big enough to handle a new release every year, hence 3 devs working on MW3 and probably partly on BOs2. If Activision would just pony up some COD points and actually put together a decent dedicated dev team, COD would be greatly improved. The problem is Activision is only in the industry for money. So long as COD makes money, they’re going to let it, which means not changing it.

    BF3 was a HUGE risk for DICE/EA, new title in a long-standing franchise built on a NEW engine that plays differently in a lot of ways from previous titles. When you have to compete with something as giant as the COD franchise, you have to go big. And that’s what DICE is doing. Everything about BF3 is designed to be bigger and better than COD. The CQ DLC is just further proof of that. All the CQ maps play like amazingly well made COD games and CDOM plays almost EXACTLY like DOM in COD. The key difference is that you’re playing BF, not COD and camping is not an option because of destruction, the random/team-only spawns, and how fast flags can be capped.

    BF3 is the next step in FPS gaming. COD and BF3 are not comparable in the sense that one is better than the other. They’re different and unique from one another, their marketing is just where most of the overlap occurs.

    • dakan45


      First of all, current consoles are dated.

      Cod runs on 60, bf3 runs on 30.

      Do you see the diffirence here?

      bf3 is designed for next gen system.

      You can take advantage of dated consoles. IW doesnt even need to use a new engine, all they need is new consoles.

      The cod engine, runs amazingly well on pc, it looks far better than the best lookign games on consoels and most pc multiplats and doesnt even need a good system

      It is optimized.

      Times like this i wished they changed the game to 30 fps to shut up you idiots.

      • Angelreborn96

        And yet BF3 still works great for ps3 haha. Mw3 still same shit.

      • DarthDiggler

        Have you seen BF3 on the PC? Textures are way better and the game supports 64-players.

        I get it you are a fan of COD, but there is no argument as to which game has a more advanced engine. DICE wins hands down.

        Do you hear about other Activision games (beyond James Bond) using the IW (quake III) engine? No because the engine is only optimized for a shitty sub-par FPS experience.

      • Mirdautas Vras

        fps dont matter on either cause both consoles are build differently same goes to PC. I rather play a game that is based on realism, not arcady. Dont know why people say COD is real than BF3 when you cant even destroy a building in COD. I dont care if i have to run a huge map on BF3 cause thats what you are going through when going to a real war, not like in COD with their small maps.I was a fan of COD4, but when each release looks the exactly the same, then it get boring.

        as for the engines, IW engine was never tweaked to surpassed the FB2 engine. since activision is busy releasing new COD titles they never had someone to rebuild the engine as for DICE they did. BF3 showed everyone that they can also make small maps and make them destructible not like in COD when a RPG cant even destroy a small house, it like they were build from steel. if COD wants to wow me they got to step it up and rebuild their engine cause right now BF3 is beating them.

    • Lkjhgf5482

      Technically speak, yes BF3 is very much so the next step. However, you have to take into consideration the branching story lines and multiple endings of BLOPS 2. This is something that no other recent FPS can boast.

      • Metro 2033 had 3 different endings I believe and there are number of ways you could go about most of the missions(mostly just stealth or combat) there have been multiple endings in FpS before, it’s just new to CoD which is good as they’re finally catching up in something

  • pieter

    Battlefield sucks EA games had nothing to do so they made a game that retards can play

    • dakan45

      how you like the hit delay takes away all the skill from the game, seriosuly why people play this trollolish skill less game?

      • S Dandruff

        Yous sound like a butthurt fanboy. For me BF3 is the superior game by far. Ive played all 3 cod’s to death, but became bored with MW3 very quickly and sold it 3 weeks after launch, its basically MW2 with worst map design. Sure BF3 has its problems, no game is perfect. But when i die in BF3 i dont feel like ive been cheated like i do with MW3, 12yr olds running around with akimbo isn’t skillful whatsoever to me. The maps in MW3 are the worst in the series, there generic and ill conceived. Also you mention MW3 on PC, i nearly died with laughter at your statements. MW3 is a laughing stock in the community, it looks garbage, and ive played it on max settings on a 2 grand pc, comparing it to BF3 is ridiculous there no comparison whatsoever. BF3 maxed out at 50fps looks amazing.

        Lastly. The way your calling people ‘fucking morons’ and ‘idiot’s’ because they have a different opinion to you is totally un called for. The way you blindly defend MW3 and its engine screams one thing to me. You need to lighten up and get out more.

      • S Dandruff

        Its only a videogame, try to remember that you’ll have more fun.

    • yruadumbass

      Typical COD 12yo

  • LaDewd

    Seriously… how far can Activision push the current engine for CoD?
    I doubt CoD will meet the standards in the next two years if they keep their current engine.
    They will HAVE to greatly update their game engine for CoD… but every year… more kids become 12… and more kids each year demand CoD from their parents… thus reeking in profits for CoD and dettering Activision from updating their engine.

    • dakan45

      as far as this fucking generation of dated consoles.

      A new engine wont magically make games look better, you need better hardware.

      BF3 has less variety of objects and textures, therefore less memory usage and it runs on half the fps cod does.

      • It runs on half the fps because of all the destruction effects that can happen.

  • bossjedizohan

    Regarding DLC weapons, the COD engine has never supported that because it was never designed to. When that loading bar zips across the screen before a match starts, it’s loading everything from the disc into RAM that needs to be loaded. That means every weapon, the map, and character models are being loaded into a finite space. Inefficient though it might be, it’s how the COD engine was designed to function. In that regard it does a fine job (MW3 is still a load of shit IMO).

    The Frostbite 2 is a much more dynamic engine that was designed specifically to meet the needs of BF3. Frosbite 2 doesn’t have AI vehicles, dynamic killstreak systems, or perks that heavily modify character functions/animations. Of course it does a lot of other things that COD can’t., but if COD used the Frostbite 2 engine, it would play like shit because FB2 was designed for a game like BF3, not COD.

    COD needs a new engine, but if it messes with the look and feel too much, it becomes a huge risk for Activision. So you can understand why they would hesitate to take such a gigantic risk as building an engine from scratch that does everything the previous engine did, but better.

    The bottom line is that COD is designed using old COD for old systems. Until one or both of those fundamental elements changes, COD is going to stay the same. Which might sound bad, but new doesn’t always mean good.

    Treyarch/Activision have a lot riding on BOs2 and they know it. They’re going to put more effort into it than any past COD title, but that doesn’t mean you should expect next-gen graphics and vast technological leaps.

    Just wait until new consoles come out, that’s when the real innovations will have to happen.

    • bossjedizohan

      The bottom line is that COD is designed using old *CODE* for old systems.

      • dakan45

        the consoles are old systems. just saying.

        • aargh

          your mom is old too

          • Dakan45

            silence fcuktrard

  • david
  • snunz

    I have a good idea: Remove guns and add guns :DDD
    Why not replace the RSAS with the Ak47u?
    And the m16 with a galil (exactly as in blackops?)

  • Elsguapo

    Aaaah i see so its ” Ram Compensation ” thats keeping you guys from truly making a great COD game. I understand know, I mean just cuz games like BF3 have maps that you could fit 6 COD maps on with tons of vehicles, weapons, destruction, better lighting, particle effects, animations etc. We all know COD are at the cutting edge and require minimum 2 gigs of Ram. I mean take MW3 and BF3 and put them on. High end gaming rig and youll see what i mean…….. On second thought dont.

  • Zack

    The game has to optimized for things like gun dlc before they come out. Battlefield 3 did this. Mw3 didn’t do this because they weren’t expecting to have gun dlc

  • cggreene

    When people say the mw3 is shit, then look at the new spec ops missions, their are some of the best ive played in mw2 and mw3, the new sniper one for example and the tank one, i play bf3 alot, but the spec ops missions are better then the co-op in bf, which is pretty much he same(except for fire in the sky)

    • Lorenxo KKAIN

      No one playd co-op in BF3 unless they are doing it for the weapons you unlock from playing. MW3 is shit, no one is buying it for co-op.

  • KillerSparrowThing

    I couldn’t get through the comments, they’re filled with a lot drivel from both camps.

    To those saying it’s bad coding to load all weapons in COD, please don’t forget 12 players with multiple classes means it is possible for each weapon to appear in any given match. So they have to have a max reserved amount of memory to account for that.

    Also, if I’m not mistaken, the current consoles don’t have dedicated video memory, it’s shared.

    I’m not sure if the tech3 engine had it, but I believe most games today will load multiple occurrences of the same object once. tech3 might load multiple occurrences of the same object separately thus eating up more memory.

    As far as the BF3 maps vs COD maps thing goes. BF3 has outdoor maps, which I found to be kinda bland as far minor details go. That said, I haven’t played the CQ maps, but I would imagine they would surpass COD maps in that respect if they are smaller then the average BF3 map. I love COD, but the engine is dated.

    Finally, if the destruction is procedural that’s a CPU and GPU thing. Not a RAM thing, it’s just drawing from a pool of already load textures.

    Quit the fanboy bullshit. They both have pros and cons.

    • RogerL

      Destruction is very much a RAM (or storage) thing!
      You need to save what have been destroyed and not.
      Take a map and all small parts that can be destroyed – even if Frostbite 2 would use only one bit per destructable piece they add up…

      – How many trees are there, how many lamps, how many part of a wall can be chopped away, how many walls, how many houses, how many chairs and pillows (in CQ), …

      Everything has to be remembered during a game…

  • ImSometimesRobert

    BF3 uses a higher poly count, but a much lower resolution for their textures. They also use less total textures in the game than MW3 does. How many “yellow dumpsters” do you see in BF3? I think they have them in just about every single map. They have the same three crates on most of the maps. -(The ones on Kharg Island TDM) – the weapon textures are probably 256×256 – MW3 likely uses the 512×512 textures.

    MW3 definitley DOES have more stuff to load into RAM than BF3. But, BF3 still looks much BETTER graphically when you take EVERYTHING in to account (702p Resolution, Destruction, Character animations and draw distance). CoD games look decent for what they are though and I’d concede that the Weapons and weapon animations in COD are better than BF3s. The higher texture quality is more important than the higher poly count, and the animations are much more diverse.

    The game itself sucks though…How can anyone still want to BUY a COD game when they haven’t changed anything since CoD 4?

  • Me

    You can say what you want about BF3’s large maps being less detailed and being the same thing over and over, but the close quarters maps are FAR more advanced and detailed than any of CODs maps

  • jgalena

    They should do what DICE does and repeat textures so that they can free up ram.

    • DarthDiggler

      All games repeat textures you ass hat. 😛 Maybe they should do what DICE did and actually code a NextGen game engine.

  • Yanneck Mock

    FAMAS, Intervention, AUG HBAR, VECTOR, M1014. IF they find a way on this old engine.

    • MasonMei

      AUG Heavy Barrel as LMG isn’t my choice. I like the A3 variant more

  • If Activision would (if they already aren’t) invest in creating an engine solely with the purpose of catapulting CODs efficiency into the next generation of gaming as DICE has – they might be able to utilize resources better. It’s all about coding something to be as efficient as possible.

    If you code it right – the memory will come 🙂

  • DarthDiggler

    No it’s because they are using a 21 year old game engine a hack job of Quake III if they knew how to program properly they could pull it off.

    DICE can do it — why can’t they? Because they suck. 🙂 COD devs would probably fuck up a LittleBigPlanet level.

  • dd dd

    Screw MW, they are just taking our money and giving us the same old shite.
    The weapon DLC is useless because all the weapons in MW feel the same, they all sound awful, have no recoil and are too precise. And the loud in game music that cannot be toned down is just another turd on the pile of turds that is Modern Warfare.

  • AScaryGhost

    I have a feeling that everything IW does is outdated, well, it is. I’m still trying to get how in BF3 they’re able to give 10 weapons, modes, assignments and maps with increased destruction and RAM isn’t an issue. Please, if you know about this whole thing please explain it. I’m not even being sarcastic. I genuinely want to know.

  • uwantSAM0A

    To those who believe BF3 has ZERO detailing in buildings:

    Grand Bazaar has a hookah.

    Your arguments are invalid.

  • Jamic

    people are stupid, the base of the engine doesnt qualify you to say that the engine is bad or cant become good.
    one example of their “work” being that their engine supports multithreading which requires one part of the engine to be totaly rewriten from the scratc.
    they just dont want to improve it more, 60 fps and simplicity is their way to go, ok ?
    but “lack of RAM” isnt valid point to wipe off a whole gun from MP, the game doesnt have to know all the guns when you are playing, it just has to know guns that you are seeing. guns you can hear would only have a audio in the memory and when you would need to see new weapon they would be streamed into the memory (while removing other unnecesary props)

  • jack

    Ya i’ll tell ya what mw3 doesn’t have. fuking gigabyte updates. What you don’t have that stuff you gotta buy? What? Your not going to buy it? Well piss on you your downloading it all anyway!!! mwahahahah

    You can have 100 damn guns rpgs, shields, knives. In the end a handful work the best and they are the norms. The only reason to use anything else is for xp.

    Can’t wait for the next update. This update requires 4.63 GB’s We have fixed a few things here and their and.. oh ya we also included 3 expansion packs that are available once you pay us. We accept visa MasterCard and American express.

    mw3 might be annoying for sure, though bf3 has done something no other game has outside of an mmo. Piss me off outside of the damn game!

  • miggles

    Ya i’ll tell ya what mw3 doesn’t have. fucking gigabyte updates. What
    you don’t have that stuff you gotta buy? What? Your not going to buy it?
    Well piss on you your downloading it all anyway!!! mwahahahah

    You can have 100 damn guns rpgs, shields, knives. In the end a handful
    work the best and they are the norms. The only reason to use anything
    else is for xp.

    Can’t wait for the next update. This update requires 4.63 GB’s We have
    fixed a few things here and their and.. oh ya we also included 3
    expansion packs that are available once you pay us. We accept visa
    MasterCard and American express.

    mw3 might be annoying for sure, though bf3 has done something no other
    game has outside of an mmo. Piss me off outside of the damn game!

  • UnknownUser28

    Today has been a very good trolling/argument day today!!! 😀

  • sneak972

    If it’s a RAM issue then remove some of guns no one cares about (

    M16, pm-9, dragunov, etc.), and add some guns people actually want! Honestly, who’s really gonna bitch if we loss the pm-9 to gain something like the AK-74u? Very few if any..

  • Pingback: New DLC()

  • Hey hey sir, I’d like you to know that you shouldn’t just post peoples name. I’m flattered that my tweets caught your attention, but please ask before you publicize my name. Thanks 🙂

  • i would like more bull pup guns on mw3 like the F2000 they need to bring that back, the Tar-21 the AUG and having an L85A2 assault rifle not a L86 for a LMG I like the L85A2 more

  • Dude

    First off i play both games but outa of the two BF3 is better and second HAHAHAHA dakan45 is an idiot. He brings up realism for COD. oh ya running around hip firing a shotgun and hitting ppl halfway across the map cause you have some dumb perk is so real. Oh and the automatic sniper rifles that shoot the whole mag in 3 seconds is so real right? cause you know real snipers go out and just pull the trigger as fast as they can and hope they hit something. BF3 is better in terms of realism. how about you try actually going to war then play both and tell me what one has more realism to it. I just got off COD and everyone was running around hip firing shotguns and toobing. oh ya so much realism there since thats how war is really going on. Nice try though but you are by far trolling. I like both games for different reasons but in terms of realism COD doesnt even come close.

  • Personal opinion

    Bf3 had shitty graphics because of the map size, the tanks and planes were op and people don’t use their guns… At least mw3 you had to earn a helicopter or an AC130… I agree about the poor destruction rate of MW3, but at least you don’t camp on objective based maps like “conquest” with one of those tanks and spam zones and spawn trap…personally I thought MW3 was a little better, just a little

  • andrew

    the name is taint13ssnorma1

  • xboxfan

    bf3 is better by far then mw3.

  • COD sucks :)

    Hahaha. What a terrible article. Nothing against the website, just against COD. Every Call of Dooty that gets released is made for a less skilled audience. MW2 was a good challange, Black ops 1 was easy as F, MW3 was easy as F, and Black Ops 2 just looks terrible. Once I played BF3 for the first time, I instantaneously knew that I’d never buy another COD game ever again. HHUUUUUUUUUUGGGEE maps, WAY more guns, YOU CAN FLY JETS AND HELICOPTERS, you can destroy entire buildings, SNIPING TAKES ACTUAL SKILL, I mean come on, how can quickscoping, or essentially aimbotting, compete with having to adjust for bullet drop and moving targets? Bullets aren’t made of light, they take time to get to where they’re going hahaha.

  • ROFL, BF3 has more weapons, better graphics,more maps, bigger campaign, bigger maps, and TONS OF VEHICLES, AND DLC WITH MORE OF ALL THOSE, AND MW 3 CLAIMS IT USES MORE RAM?RODFGNJKFD1GJ

  • Pingback: Call of Duty: Black Ops II krijgt uitbreiding Revolution | fanSte.nl()

  • V2_zViRuS

    M200 intervention

  • causie little

    why dont they take out a gun that sux like the dragnov or the usas

  • COD

    COD is best

    BF3 sucks

  • Troy Parrish

    why not just make it a non dlc and just put it in the game perm…

  • Pingback: Terets |()