That kind of makes more sense than you think as I think some of the same people worked on both games. If it is good let me know, I have been thinking of checking Battlefield 3 out.
I should be playing Modern Warfare 3 before the week is out.....finally.
I beat Battlefield 3. It does require a little bit more CPU and memory than Modern Warfare 3. I have a Intel Q8200 2.33 quad core cpu and 8 gigs of ddr2 memory and this is my
graphics card.. I did play slow on certain parts. And parts using the night vision scope were a little slow and the cut scenes were slow.Perhaps a faster CPU would improve this. Most of it did play alright. Where you can take a a grenade or rocket launcher and tear out chunks in a building was not as prevalent as it was in Battlefield Bad Company 2. The multiplayer version might have more of this that the single player.
The only thing I did not like was what was called quick-time event action scenes. The quick-time event action scenes in a sense are interactive cut scenes which usually involve the protagonist in a hand to hand fight or struggle and you hit the corresponding keyboard key that is displayed. Because these scene may have ran lagged that is probably why I didn't really find them all that enjoyable. Regardless of the difficulty settings you choose I think the difficulty of quick-time event action scenes are the same,I played a little bit on medium and restarted and played easy. The single player on this did seem like a longer game than Modern Warfare 3, but that could be due to the fact I played a little on medium first and then restarted and played on easy.
It was still a pretty enjoyable game.
I did play single player on Modern Warfare 3. I beat it on easy first and will play it on medium later. I just love the hybrid sights when you can get them. It didn't require the same hardware that Battlefield 3 did so game play was a lot smoother overall.