- thebig100
- |
- Veteran Mythic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: X El BaZzA X
Neither, they are both terrible. Halo 4 is full to the brim of casual nonsense and little flaws, but Battlefield 3 is just awful. It's a generic 'realistic' (lol) reflex shooter where whoever shoots first wins and aiming is pathetically easy because of how slow you move.
Everyone always tries to argue how realistic BF3 is - but it isn't. BF3 has good graphics, and not much else. I never realised respawning was realistic. Or healing bullet wounds with a defib. Or health being measured as a percentage. Or bullet wounds regenerating over time. Or being able to put floating orange arrows over enemies heads.
As soon as you mention these things to a BF3 realism fanboy, they realise that perhaps BF3 isn't so realistic after all. But that's because it's for 'good gameplay'.
TL;DR BF3 tried to balance realism with gameplay and ended up doing them both horribly.