Why Battlefield 3 Will Trump Modern Warfare 3

With October 25 fast approaching, I have come up with a number of reasons as to why Battlefield 3 will be the best shooter to come out this year, especially over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Before anyone starts screaming “fanboy” and “paid by DICE” know that I am a huge fan of both games but I just see more potential in Battlefield than in the Call of Duty series as a whole. So here goes my point of view as to why I believe Battlefield 3 will be the best shooter we will see this year.

My first, and biggest, reason that Battlefield 3 will shut out the competition this year is that 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.

The next big point to touch on is the graphics and animations in Battlefield 3 compared to Modern Warfare 3. If you are to compare the two side by side, Battlefield 3 does look better both graphics wise even running at half the frames per second in a slightly lower resolution and in the animations department. From reloading your weapon in a half and full state to vaulting obstacles, going prone and crawling the animations are full and smooth with everything having that small added touch to detail due to the power of the Frostbite 2 engine. Modern Warfare 3’s graphics do not seem to have improved much at all over Modern Warfare 2. Things do seem slightly more polished but there is only so much you can do with an engine that was used for the past 3 Call of Duty games. If it’s not broke don’t fix it right? (Or improve it.)

My third and final point is the story in the two games. While they both deal with war against the Russian army, Modern Warfare 3 continues a story that should have, and could have, ended in the second title. But Activision loves their money and saw the opportunity to make this a trilogy so they went for it. Battlefield 3 is coming into the console era with their first attempt at a single player campaign in what used to be a multiplayer only PC title. From the two videos seen so far on the single player portion of the title, it looks to give players an engaging war experience putting them in control of some intense moments. Seeing one of your squad mates shot right before your eyes and then dragging him behind cover, a man looking at a toy dinosaur from his son then being told that he will be home in time for his birthday, all of these elements can come together to make excellent story telling devices. We can look forward to depth in the characters as well as their development and possible attachment to them. In Modern Warfare 3 we can look forward to a load of explosions and adrenaline fueled moments brought on by two angry British dudes and the American Army. Oh don’t forget the high possibility of yet another cliffhanger leading into Modern Warfare 4…

I believe that both of these games will be great in their own respects to their different fan bases but Battlefield 3 is something new that shooter fans have not seen on the console. But as is how the world goes, fans of Battlefield 2 that still play it on the PC as well as fans of the upcoming game will always argue that their game is better than the other, as fans of Call of Duty will always argue that theirs is better. But I will leave you with this: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was the beginning of Call of Duty’s rise to fame when it released in 2007. Battlefield 2 held the title of best Modern Shooter before that in 2005 for 2 years and still holds popularity and is still widely played by fans without having to put out a new title every year.

Why Battlefield 3 Will Trump Modern Warfare 3, 7.8 out of 10 based on 109 ratings
Be Sociable, Share!
Richard Subia


29 Comments

  1. Matt
    August 9, 2011, 9:41 PM

    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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. monkeysemun
    August 9, 2011, 9:56 PM

    LONG LIFE BATTLEFIELD!!! lalalalalalalalalalalalalala

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  3. Ryan
    August 9, 2011, 10:28 PM

    This article clearly isn’t biased. /sarcasm

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  4. Trevor
    August 9, 2011, 11:19 PM

    It’s sad you said new additions such as prone…really…it took DICE THIS LONG to add prone… psh…lame

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  5. Tony
    August 9, 2011, 11:37 PM

    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?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  6. josh
    August 10, 2011, 12:19 AM

    wow this is the most innovative game!!! no way it is anything like call of duty
    -With new additions such as a prone option
    -Seeing one of your squad mates shot right before your eyes and then dragging him behind cover

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  7. chris
    August 10, 2011, 12:22 AM

    dice did have prone before what are saying lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  8. john
    August 10, 2011, 12:35 AM

    to trevor prone has always been in battlefield just not in badcompany they took it off for experimental reasons one being so people wont camp

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  9. mxpxboy
    August 10, 2011, 1:21 AM

    “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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  10. Ace
    August 10, 2011, 2:49 AM

    Let me start by saying I love COD and have been played all of them to death since number 2. I have played Battlefield maybe 3 times total. Battlefield is a better game for graphics and realism but MW3 will still sell more because Battlefield’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness it’s too realistic. COD players are used to going online running around and point and shoot kills, they can also play as lone wolfs but when the go on to Battlefield its a very team-based game and you have to take into account wind-speed, distance ext. So the reason MW3 will sell more than Battlefield is because it is open to a more casual, simple play audience. And just on the “If its not broken don’t fix it”, think if you had a job where you did not really have to put in much effort but still know you where going to make millions anyone would, its just like Fast and Furious

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  11. Patrick
    August 10, 2011, 3:52 AM

    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!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  12. Mike
    August 10, 2011, 4:36 AM

    Not a bad read although some glaring omissions.

    Although COD roughly has a yearly release schedule, the alternate games are devised and built by separate software houses, Treyarch and Infinite Ward (although i guess we can throw ‘sledge hammer’ in their to now.) Each has the licence to work independently on the next COD game and have the final product tied together under the Activision label thus giving the games almost three years between releases.

    There will always be people who hate on either game but personally i find them very different experiences. If i really want to knuckle down to some advanced planning and tactics then it’s BF i break out, if i want some good old fashion shot in the face fun then it’s COD.

    Both games, in my opinion, are awesome. Without them both existing and pushing the other, we’d not have seen either game come as far as it has.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  13. Demo
    August 10, 2011, 6:39 AM

    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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  14. Muzzle
    August 10, 2011, 7:13 AM

    Both games will be great but BF3 for me anyday. :)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  15. jordon3211
    August 10, 2011, 9:46 AM

    @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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  16. Leif
    August 10, 2011, 9:57 AM

    LoL prone is awesome, its guaranteed headshot if they are facing you… otherwise its tags.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  17. Bob
    August 10, 2011, 12:35 PM

    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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  18. Mark
    August 10, 2011, 1:58 PM

    Meh.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  19. Clutch
    August 10, 2011, 2:12 PM

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

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  20. CamperChaser
    August 10, 2011, 5:58 PM

    The opinion of this article is so erroneous you wonder why this thing even get published. The first reason pointed was that COD was a yearly release so they have no time to fine tune it. What a dumbass. It’s a yearly release but built on a 2 year cycle. Not all COD every year is developed by the same developer. And looking at MW3, there are 3 developers working on this game alone. You say there was innovation in COD while BF 3 has it? Where? Prone and class? Prone has been in MW ever since and have more changes and options in classes. BF gameplay has been THE SAME in all series.

    Graphics and animation?, yes but on a high end PC. Has DICE shown any XBox360 footage of BF3 yet? Nope. That PS3 footage shown did not really impress as the graphics is not as good as PC footage they’ve been showing. And is PC the platform with the highest number of gamers? Nope. It’s the consoles especially the Xbox360 and this what makes or breaks the game.

    Story? BF3 has a better story? Damn,I can’t even recall any BF stories after playing BF for a long time while I would easily remember COD’s.

    I play both MW and BF, as this two has different game styles. But I just couldn’t help getting frustrated how amateurish and without substance this article is.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  21. sabbath bloody sabbath
    August 11, 2011, 12:32 AM

    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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  22. chris
    August 11, 2011, 3:41 AM

    actually the only reason COD will outsell BF3 ever is because of console sales enough said. its the same static game that has been revised since who knows when. COD has gotten boring for alot of ppl. BF3 has everything in a game from single player too co-op and now back too 64-player MP for PC.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  23. chris
    August 11, 2011, 3:44 AM

    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

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  24. Griff
    August 11, 2011, 11:24 AM

    I’m loving how all the proponents of BF3 in the comments speak in perfect, well punctuated English. While all the CoD proponents r lyk talkin’ lyk dis, pshh onli jst add pr0ne? das lameeeee!

    I think that alone is an advertisement of which game any right thinking adult should buy…

    By the way all people who say’s that DICE have only just added prone into the game, I leave you to research on the following:
    BF 1942 + all expansions
    BF2 + all expansions
    BF 2142 + all expansions

    One franchise of Battlefield doesn’t have prone and suddenly it’s something DICE have never done. Riiiight…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  25. Kevin
    August 11, 2011, 1:29 PM

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

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  26. Matt
    August 11, 2011, 4:42 PM

    Battledfield is for people who are good at things and Call of Duty (especially infinity ward versions)is for people who are terrible at video games and use luck

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  27. Anonymous
    August 11, 2011, 11:06 PM

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

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  28. Anonymous
    August 11, 2011, 11:40 PM

    Also, did you see the BF3 Alpha forums? No, probably not if you weren’t part of the closed Alpha. But there’s a lot of bitching about BF3 looking like last year’s Medal of Honor fused with last year’s Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  29. Eric
    August 12, 2011, 12:03 AM

    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.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

*