Article first published as Battle of the Battlefields: Battlefield 3 vs. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 on Technorati.
(Items that appear in yellow and in parentheses are updates)
There's no doubt that these titles are gunning for each other as evidenced by a release schedule separated by only two weeks. Battlefield 3 launched on October 25th and Call of Duty MW3 launched on November 8th. Rumor has it that Battlefield 3 was actually rushed out to steal Modern Warfare 3's thunder.
That shouldn't be a surprise since both franchises sit at the top of the list for First Person Shooters on the PC platform and are likely to attract the most Pre-order and Christmas sales. So why choose one over the other?
That will depend on the type of FPS gamer you are. The decision will come down to how important factors like visuals, multiplayer experience and storyline are to you.
Let's start with the commonalities of the two. Both games are visually stunning even on low graphics settings. Both offer single, multi and co-op player missions and have the ability to play with online friends in both co-op and multiplayer modes.
Both games play well on Windows 7 and I tested them on both ATI 6900 series as well as older Nvidia 260 series graphics cards. It's important to note that Battlefield 3 will not install on an operating system lower than windows Vista since it's Frostbite 2 engine requires at least Direct X 10. Modern Warfare 3 will Run on XP or above and includes DirectX 9 support.
It should also be understood at the outset that these games will likely experience a number of patches over the next year. Both are 1.0 releases and game bugs and crashes are to be expected. As such I can't fault such issues at this point. Fortunately, such events are not a regular occurrence and haven't hampered my experience with the titles.
The primary difference between the two games has more to do with plot than game mechanics. Battlefield 3's single and co-op missions are loosely based on a squad based storyline that focuses less on plot and more on objectives. In contrast, Modern Warfare 3's single and co-op are tied more closely to a story akin to a Tom Clancy novel. In fact Modern Warfare 3's single player mission begins where Modern Warfare 2's ended.
Battlefield franchise devotees have been salivating for a full sequel to Battlefield 2 since the disappointing launch of Battlefield 2142. I should mention at this point that Battlefield 3 even bothering with co-op is an obvious admission that the lack of this game play option put the franchise at a disadvantage compared with previous versions of Call of Duty.
Modern Warfare 3 is the DeFacto sequel to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 with both single player and co-op picking up from where Modern Warfare 2 left off. Modern Warfare fans were ill served by the recent Call of Duty: Black Ops whose single player campaign was acceptable but it's multiplayer only marginally redeemable with additional paid DLC content.
Battlefield 3 is similar but relies on a web based interface instead of an in-game interface for all game interactions including game type, statistics and online functions.
This is both an advantage and an annoyance for Battlefield 3. The game requires Internet Explorer 9 and frequently needs to update browser plug-ins before any game session is initiated. This extra step creates opportunity for game bugs and disconnects due to this required abstraction from the primary game environment. It does allow more rapid updates to the player profile and statistical functions however. Finding online friends is also more natural than in Modern Warfare 3.
Multiplayer is frequently the barometer used to judge games like this so how do our contestants fare?
Hands down, Battlefield 3 is a much better online multiplayer experience. You have the option to select servers, jump into a game with an online friend just by searching their name and filtering the list to reflect the type of game and skill level of your opponents.
Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer is enjoyable but instead of choosing servers or finding your friends you are immediately matched with other online players with your only choice being the style of game you want to play such as Deatchmatch, Capture the Flag or Conquest. (Team Fortress 2 recently added a co-op play mode which uses the same kind of player matchmaking and it's just as dreadful)
To its credit, the online multiplayer matching does make for a more even balance and more productive game play in Modern Warfare 3. (If deathmatch is your thing that is. I don't play it at all anymore)
In contrast, Battlefield 3 will allow you to drop into an online game with far more experienced players which generally results in numerous rounds of "whack the noob" before you finally get off of the offending server. For some that's challenging, for others it's pointless. I fall into the latter category and generally look for "calmer" servers. (Things have changed after my first 190 hours with BF3. It's still pretty much the same but perseverance does pay off. As most FPS gamers will tell you, BF3 is indeed a more tactical game and once you figure out the strengths of a chosen player class it's far more rewarding than MW3 could ever be. The biggest downside now is EA's discrimination against players that choose not to subscribe to their "Premium" (think COD Elite) membership. ))
In short both games offer a similar experience with the only difference being their context. Modern Warfare 3 is for gamers who enjoy a good story. Battlefield 3 is all about action with a nod toward a modest storyline. Modern Warfare 3 is a better single player title where Battlefield 3 is much more focused on online multiplayer. In either case the experience lives up to the hype and both are worthy titles.
For either game you can believe the trailers, they really are that good.
(I updated this article because it seems that we're doomed to repeat history and I'm positive we'll see the same issues with BF4 and the next MW)
No comments:
Post a Comment