I think both games are great in their own ways. I know that I've mentioned this before, but since I keep seeing posts about how BO is so much better than MW3, I suppose it's time for it again. Here are a few things that I have perceived as of late.
Every new game that comes out on the Wii, the previous game is "better" and is less hacked and is ___ better/cooler/less hacked/etc. than the current game. So, according to most posts I have seen, here is what we left with: MW3 < BO < MWR < WaW.
I completely disagree with that; in fact, I would reverse such an assessment. WaW Multiplayer was extremely truncated. Fewer players, poorer graphics, fewer mp maps, maps that were either too big or too small, etc. I enjoyed it, but clearly it was lacking.
MWR came out, and it was a much better iteration on the Wii. Of course, MWR had extra development time for the Wii. But hacking exists, and it is just as bad now (or worse) than when it was first being hacked. Oh, and lag shooting stinks.
BO came out, and everything was better. Of course, I was using a usb-to-lan adapter, so even though I hosted a lot, the framerate was much better. Lag compensation was much more effective. More tactical gameplay due to the size of and multiple levels in the maps. Chokeholds existed. Of course, there are the hacks.
MW3 came out, and though there were a few steps back - loss of the stats and extra game modes from BO - the graphics are better, the maps are as good (just different; they are more run'n'gun), and KC is great. Of course, there are the hacks and FMG9s.
My four cents.
mw3 stresses me out to much 