Well, apparently you do take the game very seriously. I want you to open your eyes, and take one neutral look at all the aspects of the game and then tell me if you still find it a progressive and good game.
MW3 encourages people to earn things by just gaining exp for a weapon e.g an assist here, a cap here. whereas BF3 makes entire parts of the game inaccessible to new players seeing as they need to get kills in order to unlock the most basic equipment.
I dont get how it helps them. I havent played BF3 so idk if its the same but on COD its always been pros vs the noobs. I was lucky to get 2 kills in my first few matches of MW3.
The best guns in mw3 are early to unlock and there's things like deathstreaks to help them out. BF3 on the other hand back loads all the good weapons so if you get in a 1-1 gun fight with a player of a higher rank, chances are you will loose. Also things like vehicles and flying they give you perks and abilities based on how long you've had to use it, and the lack of a comparable single player experience means that new players have to spawn camp a plane the entire game and then crash it the first 20 times they try to fly it, before even becoming remotely competent, let alone able to interdict targets
Although this may be reason enough for some to not play it at all, it doesn't make much sense, and it isn't a very critical argument against playing the game at all. In fact, barely any argument to any game is worth enough to say you shouldn't play it, unless it's, say, Custer's Revenge or that other game with that racist guy. Also, it isn't really necessary to coax anybody out of playing any game, MW3 or BF3, or anything. It depends mostly on what you like, the time you have to play and you wanting to sit down, play and really get into the game. To me, that was very challenging, and brought about a certain playstyle to it. Instead of rushing and shooting rockets at every piece of wall to smash players six feet under or beyond, higher ranked players prevented me from doing that. They had longer range due to advanced attachments, knowledge of where things are, what to do when certain points are on the enemy team, how to hit a person from as short as 25 metres, or 200 metres, etc. That provoked me to think tactically, to avoid direct confrontation and to make them come closer to me, at certain times. Sometimes things don't go all to plan, but that's fine, you don't have one or two chances to do something, and if you don't, that's still fine, you've still helped your team and yourself. Things like these change the game, not because it's "Fair to the new players", but because you're doing it yourself, you can whup Colonel ass if you think about what you're doing. And it is amazing, it is a grand experience and continues to grow once you gain stuff. On the other hand, MW3 was fun at the start, as was every other CoD game, but I immediately had the know-how of the game in it's entirety, due to the game barely changing at all. From that, it went downhill. It is a fairly balanced system, but sometimes, when I want to think tactically and do something that requires time and focus, I don't get to do it, ever, and it pisses me off. I don't know about you but I don't like to play videogames that keep making me angry every time I do something. This is all a matter of preference, though, I prefer tactics, strategy, and all that jazz to shooter games.
