Why Battlefield 3 will beat Modern Warfare 3

[+JonathanRL 974]

Aight, settle down. I know this may stir the hornets nest, but simply put - there is no way that Modern Warfare 3 can beat Battlefield 3. While I still maintain they are two different kinds of games, many observe that Bad Company 2 was trying to be more like Call of Duty.

 

I do not agree.

 

Bad Company 2 was a transfer, from a large, battlefield map into a more close quarters tactical format. There are many who never got past the Rush or Squad DM modes in Bad Company, and even as a devoted Battlefield Fan, I am among them. Until I played Conquest for a few hours, I had felt Bad Company 2 to be the black sheep of the series. There are of course really big maps for Bad Company 2 as well, but due to the player limit, they are not used to their full potential.

 

It still is not what Call of Duty is. Call of Duty is a Squad Deathmatch game, in the same formula as Counterstrike. Tough you can just as well remove "Squad". When I have played Call of Duty Online, your teammates are more people you choose not to shoot rather then someone who help you defeat the enemy. Winning and loosing matches seem not to matter to most players, as they go for personal scores. CoD has gone a long way from the slogan "In the War that changed the world, nobody fights alone."

 

Battlefield is different. Here, teamplay is emphasized and a critical part of gameplay. Vechicles are not unlocked by kill streaks, but is a natural part of gameplay. Anybody can pick one up.

 

In Short, it is what the name suggests. A Battlefield.

 

To this day, we know next to nothing about Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. We seen some action from a heavily scripted campaign from Battlefield 3 and while I applaud their dedication to the Single Player experiance, there is no need for it. Honestly. If you say Battlefield, I say "Multiplayer". And so does all the other fans.

 

CoD on the other hand has been a clear Single Player title. And it was good at it. Its only lately when Multiplayer has become more important that its multiplayer part moved away from the basic "Shoot the enemy" formula. Now its "shoot the enemy, while random stuff happens on the screen". I cared little for the Bad Company team. They where fun, they are entertaining to play with, but I would not bat an eyelash if anybody of them died.

 

Anybody remember a slightly different sensation at the end of CoD 4: Modern Warfare?

 

It is the Counterstrike generation that drives CoD forward and I do not think its a good thing. CoD has gone stagnant. They refuse to adapt and develop. Black Ops tried to be Modern Warfare instead of take risks and the result was plain silly. In feel and touch, it was almost the same as the first Modern Warfare game.

 

Battlefield has always tried to move forward. While it is a mistake of them to look to CoD for their Single Player, their return to the grand formula of big, grand battles where every player plays their part in a team will again win over the small, close quarters battles where your teammates are simply in the way.

 

Not my two cents. But rather my two very big, G3 Assault Rifles.

Edited May 17, 2011 by JonathanRL

[macelena 1,070]

I love Battlefield and G3 rifles. But CoD is a filmgame. Each one has it´s own thing. What i miss in MW that the original CoD had, was the hunting. Now, everyone is a bunny hopper, it is more like making combos in Tekken or DOA than the hunt in the first one. Those battles in a clever environment with only bolt action rifles is no longer happening in the newest CoDs. And of course, the vehicles are something wich really make it up for Battlefield. While COD may be better if you go infantryman, the environment and the "combined arms" make BF much more enjoyable. Never got tired of Hueys in BF vietnam or Abrams in BF2 or Battleships in BF1942. I should get my hands on the new one. On the other hand, CoD is not the first videogame which puts modern warfare as a show, Delta Force Black Hawk Down kicked ass.

Edited May 17, 2011 by macelena

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

CoD only a single player game?? I've been playing CoD since the beginning and whilst having a good, long SP experience, Multi was a BIG element of it from the DM/TDM/CTF beginnings and CoD:UO with it large BF1942 style maps and armour/jeeps through to some seriously good squad battles in 4. Online multiplay was never something that was overlooked like it was with something like Doom 3 or HL.

 

To this day, we know next to nothing about Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.

http://kotaku.com/5801345/where-youll-go-how-youll-kill-and-who-will-die-in-modern-warfare-3

 

There you go. Now you know more. Personally, I think you're jumping the gun considering the two haven't been released yet, but you have some interesting insights.

[Teras 67]

COD really need a new gun sound system just like BFBC2 the story always good but i've lost my interesting with COD because of the really bad gun sound

now i am a fan of all new BF3 and BFBC2

[MaverickMike 10]

While this is an interesting point. I see no reason to compare battlefield and Cod. Personally I buy both games and for the majority of the time only play single player.

 

From a singleplayer perspective the two games can co-exist in my collection quite easily. The only cod game I enjoyed playing multiplayer was the first modern warfare. Simply because it didnt stray too far from the realistic shooters I like. The rest of the cods have gone way beyond this (Stupid perks being a prime example) so i dont play them online anymore.

 

Anyway I cant wait for both these games to be released simply for the singleplayer side of them.

 

Mike

Edited May 17, 2011 by MaverickMike

[JediMaster 451]

I quit playing online DM/TDM years ago. I think the last games like that I played MP were MOH: AA, RTCW, NOLF1, and BF1942. Haven't played any of them in years.

 

All I care about now is coop with objectives.

[+Muesli 2,171]

I play both CoD and BF series in MP, and I play all game types except FFA and TDM.

Love em both, both have their plusses and faults, I bet I will love BF3 and MW3 too!

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

All I care about now is coop with objectives.

 

Amen. Although I really hate it when a developer gets cheap and say advertise co-op as "play co-op with your buddies against up to 32 other players". That's no Co-op, that's frigging TDM. And Tedium is about right. I think I saw that advertised (or something very similar) on early copies of BF2 before their very pedestrian co-op was released in vers 1.3.

 

I really don't get the disconnect between how players have been demanding co-op for years and how devs/publishers tell us that we apparently we want DM because it's all the rage on 360 and PS3. Yeah, because we want all our FPSs to resemble crappy console shooters. Give me online co-op without the 14yr old Xboxing numb nuts any day.