That depends entirely upon each and every induvidual's taste and preference.

Game preference could be based on several things, to include genere. I have not experienced either game, so a valid comparison can not be made by me.

I do know this, chances are slim that I will play BF3, but, very, very strong, that I will play Skyrim.

This is because I have played all the other TES games, and like RPG style. But that is a personal choice,

However, just because I have a preference, does not cause all the other available options to be not good, or not worthy of consideration by others.

THIS!
Two completely different games, its impossible to compare.

Anyone who says that something svcks when they havent played it or any of the previous games is a moron. Sorry, you can't convince people out of stupidity....its inherent.

Exactly my thoughts this morning bliviongate:

Why do people say he soundd like a 13 years old and why do people care and complain about people who think fps' are the best genre of gaming I struggle to find complaints about people who think puzzle games are the best and hate all other genre. if he think it svcks to him he's got his own opinion. And the sterio-typing just because he may only like fps' he's likely to prefer graphics over gameplay. And calling someone an idiot through the internet to about thier opinion. And offensive comments implied against 13.

the world seems to get more corrupt every day.

And they aren't released . Skyrim could end up a horrible game and I doubt many if you have played it. How can you type skyrim has better graphics. I know someone who think black ops had better graphics than killzone 3. And there's no official title ' game of the year' many companies have there own.

all this from someone who's 99% sure he's not getting bf3

As Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation says, "A full priced game has to stand on single player."
To which battlefield most likely won't.

For me? Why? Because I have an interest in Skyrim and its role playing approach. Battlefield 3 (or any of them) doesn't interest me at all, never really played any of them. I prefer Arma2's approach to realism and immersion over all the other (often more popular) games, when I want to play a 1st person shooter (err, military simulation game)

That's like comparing a BMW & a lettuce.

that's total [censored], though, especially when it's stated straight out that a game's core draw is the multiplayer. back when multiplayer in games rarely went beyond two-player splitscreen, yeah i'd've agreed with that, but multiplayer today and multiplayer ten years ago are so wildly different it's not even funny. i mean i agree with it to a point with regard to all the Call of Duty clones we're seeing lately (Medal of Honor, Homefront, whatever else) because they don't offer anything new, but Call of Duty's still good games, and Battlefield is good games. BLOPS might be hilariously overpriced for what it offers compared to MW2, but $60 for MW2 was a fair price for what it offered as a game.

i'm perfectly willing to spend $50 on BF3 and i fully intend to, in fact, if only because i've gotten more hours out of Bad Company 2 than i've gotten out of most single-player games i've played this gen and everything i've seen about BF3 sounds like it'll be both an improvement and a return to form.

Skyrim won't be a better game than BF3. that's a stupid thing to say. that's like saying Portal 2 will be a better game than Crysis 2, or Dragon Age 2 will be a better game than LA Noire.

i don't get how this thread's reached seven pages.

Depends on the versions; for the PC bf3 is THE GAME it is the second coming. 64 players +, huge maps (strike on karkand), DX11/10 only (no xp lawl), full peripheral support, pc is the target platform. Yeah multiplayer is going to give some good replay value; with BF games who cares for SP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA378g_gD1I

Now Skyrim we know we have mod tools but we dont know what kind of PC support there is.

but really it's like comparing apples, and some type of meat, totally different things.

As for games "standing on single player" So that means every MMO svcks, the original BF games blew, counterstrike is crap, TF2 is terrible..yeah..

According to how many hours i play the games:

Battlefield Bad Company 2 > Oblivion

Battlefield 3 = Skyrim??????

I'm a huge battlefield fan, as well as a huge TES fan. I will certainly play them both a lot (Oblivion= 400 hours / Bad company 2= 500 hours).

I'm equally excited for both games. But i don't know enough about either yet to make a decision.

Battlefield = Elder Scrolls > Call of Duty

That's for sure... IMO

Dug up this week old thread? I was hoping it disappeared.

Are you both 10 or something?

Geesh.

Well I did a search to see if anybody has been trying to compare the excitement. the Skyrim trailer and the Battlefield trailer were equally cool to me

What?

^this (what SkyrimBGS said)

I was responding to the OP. Fighting over which games are the best when they're completely different genres and not even out without even putting forward actueal readoning sounds like something a bunch of ten year olds would do.

i want this thread to die....

heres why its better!
Skyrim has a lore, battlefield 3 probably wont have any real storyline, its a shooter game and its storyline in single player is only built to show off the games features.
Skyrim is a game with a new combat system that took years to design while battlefield is using a combat system that has been in use almost since the dawn of first person shooters
Skyrim is a roleplaying game and has characters you can interact with while battlefield 3 only has the same in value of multiplayer thus it isn't really better, its just got real players so the programmers wont get a headache
Battlefield 3 is a game that took like a year to design, Skyrim has been in the making ever since Fallout 3 was released (many years)
Skyrim has dragons... come on put a dragon in a first person shooter and i'll admit "its a great game!"
Skyrim has supposedly the best dragons ever made in gaming history that took 2 years to develop, just the dragons alone!
Skyrim has a free roam feature in a very big world
Skyrim has hundreds of hours of gameplay while battlefield will have like 5 if it even will have a singleplayer campaign, then just multiplayer
Skyrim IS a better game. but Skyrim is of another genre and is therefor incomparable to Battlefield 3. A good game does not neccesarily have to be a game everybody can have fun in and enjoy. i can almost promise a lot more people will play battlefield 3 than skyrim, but i can also promise that a lot more hardcoe gamers will play skyrim than ever will play Battlefield 3.

I rest my case (but i could keep counting)

oh yeah, i thought you were talking about me. sorry, i guess i shouldn't be so self-centered.

could you guys please stop keeping this stupid [censored] thread alive?

I don't know about that. The battlefield fanbase is pretty large and hardcoe.The call of duty games are the ones with fair-weather players

That being said, the hardcoe Elder Scrolls fanbase is very large too, I'm just not sure you can guarantee one game has more hardcoe fans than another

It's a disgrace to Skyrim to be compared in any way to Battlefield.

Its like trying to buy pet bears with fish

Why was this useless thread never closed?