Why Battlefield 3 Will Trump Modern Warfare 3

COD4 was something truly special, in my opinion the best shooter to date, simply because of how fluid and complete the multiplayer was. Modern Warfare 2 had too much of what I like to call, “bitch shit” such as sniper glitches, ‘danger close’ being compined with ‘scavenger’, and some glitches in the maps themselves (such as the fuel rocks), in it to be a truly great game, and black ops seems like too much of a gimmicky intermediate COD title, but thats because treyarch doesn’t put the same amount of effort into their artwork, I will credit them with fixing many of the issues found in MW2 though. Bad company 2 outside of the vehicles just wasn’t as good of a shooter, the aspect ratio is too zoomed out, the maps are sometimes too big to find your opponents, and the fact that you can practically snipe people with shotguns can be frustrating to say the least.

This article clearly isn’t biased. /sarcasm

I believe this article was great, even though it could have used more good aspects for CoD’s defense. I have played Battlefield since 1942 and played every single one releaced from then on, but I also stuck with Call of Duty since the first one. When CoD 4 was released, i completly forgot about my love for battlefield and played that like there was no tomorrow. Soon enough more CoD titles came out and I bought them for my love of CoD 4 and friends also that fell in love with this new type of shooter. Soon enough though Activision caught on and decided to go with this yearly sell just like they did with Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk series (where are those games now?). I felt like I was playing expansions. Buying them for $60 for a campaign that didn’t interest me at all(not that it wasn’t good, im a multiplayer guy, just for shooter games though), I just felt tired of it for some reason, they all felt the same and they changed it so much from the game that i fell in love with in the first place, CoD4. I hear the expression to defend CoD, “if it’s not broken, dont fix it,” then why do they repeatedly giving you the same game (multiplayer wise) if tweaks and small addition for the staggering subscription fee of $60? I have decided not to buy MW3, but to buy BF3. I made this choice because DICE that doesn’t just care about money, actually created expansions for their games that felt like another game but it wasn’t made into another game because it still had the feeling of that same game. BF3 looks fresh and adding enough content to actually be another title, a title that grows fit to have its own expansions in it. I may be wrong about this but Survival mode could have been an update for MW2 as it even uses the same HUD, and I’m pretty sure the multiplayer will have a couple of new things added and new maps but the same game is still there, its just an expansion. So again when people state if it’s not broken, don’t fix it, the annual release doesn’t seem necessary right?

dice did have prone before what are saying lol

“since it doesn’t see an annual release, the developers have had time to put care into every single aspect of their game ranging from animations to content. With Call of Duty games seeing a yearly release, its hard for the devs to come up with very many new ideas before they come out with the newest edition. Instead of being a full sequel, it turns out to be Modern Warfare 2.5 instead of 3. Battlefield 3 has seen a vast array of improvements since both Bad Company 2 AND Battlefield 2. With new additions such as a prone option and updates to their class system and already amazing multiplayer, Battlefield 3 has looked to make improvements with each game instead of copy and pasting their features every year.”

But it DOES see an annual release every year. It’s just called something other than Battle Field. ie- Bad Company, Medal of Honor….all made by dice.

1. Medal of honour was not made by dice, dice had input into the multiplayer which in itself was great.
2.Bad company was released in march 2010, a full year and half before the upcoming release of battlefield 3
3. Shut up and stop arguing over a damn game!

While these are valid points and I thank the author for putting forward such well worded arguments with very little bias I don’t agree with what is said about the story. While Battlefield 3 has shown some great set piece elements and story telling devices which no doubt is sure to shape its solid single player campaign there’s no doubt that MW3 also has in-depth characters and a good story.

Quoting “In MW3 we can look forward to a load of explosions and adrenaline fueled moments brought on by two angry British dudes and the American Army,” is just ignorant. The MW series has a complicated and coherent plot which demands your attention if it is to be properly understood, like any good story. For want of a better word it tells a ‘political war’ story through a series of cutscenes where the dialogue is militarial and political, sort of like a Tom Clancy political-war novel, only simpler and easier to understand, and also through the eyes and ears of soldiers on the frontlines of war who speak this military style dialogue. While no politicians are present in the games the way in which the story is told is reminiscent of that particualr genre.

Also I’ve seen the same amount of if not more explosions in BF3 than MW3 from what footage we’ve seen so far of both games so hmmmmmmm…

And “Adrenaline filled moments by 2 angry british dudes and the American Army?” HA! The only thing I’ve seen of Battlefield 3 IS adrenaline filled moments. Tanks, jets, falling buildings, near-miss sniper moments, earthquakes and giant explosions! They all come under the same “Adrenaline filled moments” category that CoD is so famous and apparantly criticised for. Who’s campagin is starting to sound like who’s now??? Please, pick a better argument.

And Modern Warfare 4??? Well, if you had already done your research you would know that when the leak occured for MW3 the entire plot was released in which the story comes to a conclusion, signifying the end of the series and no cliffhanger ending. And come on, anyone could tell that this was gonna be a trilogy, MW2 had that essence about it where u could tell it would conlcude next game, and u never make 2 cliffhangers in the same series. I’ve never ever heard of that happen except in lame T.V. soap operas. Sure more CoD’s will be made, maybe some set in a modern era, but the original MW plot reaches its end in MW3.

The Modern Warfare story: a sophisticated and interseting plot with likeable and developing characters told through high action war scenario gameplay and poltical style cutscenes. Or as some like to put it, “Explosions and angry dudes.” Come on, your supposed to be a jounalist.

@mxpxboy

Do your research before posting like an idiot, they all had more than a year between them.

bad company 2008
bad company 2 march 2010
medal of honor october 2011(completely different develeper and only did the multiplayer)

medal of honor is not battlefield, and it still came out 1yr and 8 months after.

Battlefield 3 looks like a really good game. It’s like the next big thing. I totally agree that Battlefield 3 will have the best graphics and game play, and it will be one of the best first person shooter games in the world.

@jordon
How stupid do you sound? medal of honor came out in October 2011? Its august 2011 right now…soooo ummmm….yeah

dude, do you (the guy who wrote this) have any clue about battlefield.
Battlefield has allways had the prone position, allways, right up untill the battlefield spinoff “bad company 2”. yes, it was just a spinoff and hardly even simular to all the past battlefields. And worse af all, you claim in this article that this is the first attempt at battlefield at having a single player. battlefield had ALLWAYS had a really good single player with 100’s of mods made for it to boot. The original single player was exactly like the multiplayer (which was hard to do back in the day because there was dial up only) except during the original single player you played against computer bots on large open map. Not like the “new” scripted call of duty cope single player they will have in battlefield 3. Dude, you need to do some research before you write about something you have no idea what your talking about.

and ive already said something about prone being used by DICE it was used way back for ppl that didnt know. If you never played it before then stick too that crap that COD has the game is lame and unreal lol. when COD has a new engine and something better too offer then we shall see lol

I’ll tell you why: Because CoD has been the same shit for the past 8-9 years now.

DICE doesn’t put out a new Battlefield every year? Ummm… what was Battlefield: Bad Company 2 last year, then?

Looking at gameplay for both, Battlefield 3 is definitely the game that will push the first person shooter genre forward. This is more important for gamers than cashing out on a franchise.