Why Modern Warfare 3 isn't Battlefield 3

Article first published as Why Modern Warfare 3 isn't Battlefield 3 on Technorati.

I've already written an article comparing Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 and in that article I said that Modern Warfare 3 was more like playing a movie than a game.  I still hold that opinion.

Since that article I've had more time with it and just recently completed the Single player campaign.  It took about 9 hours culminating in a textbook Modern Warfare boss battle.  Very satisfying but a bit short for $59.99. 

Recently an article on Kotaku entitled "Why Modern Warfare 3 Remains an Un-game" again criticized Modern Warfare 3 for being more spectator sport than game.  A sentiment commonly echoed from fans of Battlefield 3.

I've noticed fans of Battlefield 3 (BF3) have an almost visceral reaction to Modern Warfare 3 when the two are compared.  It's understandable but a bit unfair.  The two share little more than a setting (World War 3) and game play modes. 

Fans of the Battlefield series love it for the game play.  A quality somewhat lacking in Modern Warfare 3.  Modern Warfare's strengths have been the storyline and the cooperative modes.  In Modern Warfare  3 the single player campaign is tightly scripted with scant opportunity to stray too far off the beaten path. 

One of the primary complaints from the "un-game" article comes to mind here.  The author expressed his feeling that the player was always put in a deprecated role subservient to other non-player characters.  Anyone who's spent any time with the Modern Warfare series knows that nothing happens until the player takes some kind of action. 

The game relies on trigger points that prevent NPC's from doing anything until you trip it.  So the player is critical to the action but enjoys few laurels aside from completing the mission. This is likely where much of the discord between Battlefield Fans and Modern Warfare fans lies. 

Modern Warfare 3's (MW3 from now on) single player doesn't allow you to freely roam around the map or cater to your Rambo fantasies.  Your role is to complete the objectives or rather to survive them.  Instead of clever tactics the player needs to overcome obstacles in a well defined path.

I've also commented on the visuals of MW3 which while well implemented do fall flat from the perspective of a FPS gamer.  For example, in one of the later missions in MW3 you are attempting to surreptitiously cross a courtyard guarded by snipers, assorted militia and attack dogs.  While I was waiting for the "Go" signal I looked around the environment and decided to zoom in on one of the brick walls.  What I saw was a texture that reminded me of "Doom"

In the world of custom cars a paint job that only looks acceptable from a distance is commonly called "a ten footer"  Visuals in MW3 are meant to be experienced this way.  Much like the false front buildings on a Hollywood movie set have little detail on close inspection and so it is in MW3.  The story and not the visual detail is what immerses the player.  Battlefield 3's visuals while not used to their full potential are better than MW3 but the BF3 story lacks depth.  Visual detail in a FPS is critical to success as distinguishing an enemy from a rock often determines the outcome of a skirmish.  RPG's while attractive are much less dependent on that level of detail. 

It's not unlike the difference between a simulation and arcade racing game.  For Example; Consider the difference in game play between Need For Speed Shift with its detailed textures and realistic physics and Need For Speed Hot Pursuit with its endless nitrous boosts and impossible driving maneuvers.

Being a veteran of a number of games in the Call of Duty series I have enough experience to notice when a shortcut's been taken.  If it weren't for a good storyline I'd almost call MW3 a re-run.  The reason being that I felt a strange sense of déjà-vu as I went through the single player missions  Often  it seemed as though the same missions from Modern Warfare 2 were reused with a few subtle changes.   

It was more than just familiar game play rather it seemed as though the mission objectives were applied to a similar map with different textures.  For example; there's a mission where you must use a predator drone to take out waves of baddies threatening your squad in a disused diamond mine.  This was almost the same experience as the Sniper Fi  cooperative mission in MW2. 

After finishing the Single Player Experience in MW3 the game takes you to the cooperative mode of the game.  As in MW2 you can play these missions solo or with a friend and just as in MW2 the first mission you're presented with is the timed shooting gallery mission. Déjà-vu indeed.

It's understandable why MW3 enjoys the popularity it has even with Activision's reluctance to offer any discounts on the title.  An MW3 player is generally not the hardcore FPS gamer but more likely a fan of the RPG genre.  MW3 caters to such a player with an immersive storyline and compelling characters.

BF3 fans will bemoan the lack of tactics and weak "run and gun" game play options of MW3's multiplayer.  Such comparisons ultimately fall flat simply because it's an apples and oranges comparison.  It would be just as incorrect to pan BF3 because of a weak story as it would be to pan MW3 for its game mechanics.

In short there really isn't a comparison.  MW3 exists in its own right as does BF3.