Rather than reviewing a single game, this article seeks to compare and contrast two of the biggest franchises in gaming today. Battlefield 3 was released in October and Modern Warfare 3 in November and critics and fans will likely argue about which one is better for years to come. Read on for comparisons and contrasts between the two juggernauts and decide for yourself which one wins.
Developer: DICE (Battlefield 3), Infinity Ward (MW3)
Publisher: EA (Battlefield 3), Activision (MW3)
Premise
The two top video game publishing companies go head to head with their premier military shooter franchises in order to try to take the Online multiplayer crown. The campaign plots are short and largely take a back seat to multiplayer suites that are at the very leading edge of the curve for FPS fans.
Gameplay
There is a good reason that the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchises are on the top of the FPS rankings as their gameplay has reached such a level of polish and responsiveness that is rarely seen in any but the best Triple-A titles. The concepts are quite similar and have a comparable mix of weapons, tactical positioning, blistering firefights, and huge set piece moments. Battlefield 3 carries over the high quality vehicle and turret sections that the series is known for in excellent fashion with a particularly noteworthy section spent as the weapons officer of a U.S. Navy F/18 from the pilots’ ready room, the launch of the fighter from the deck of an aircraft carrier, the mission, and the landing. Modern Warfare keeps its focus with soldiers on the ground but gives you ample opportunity for alternate viewpoints such as an overhead view from an AC/130 or firing missiles at enemy positions from an unmanned Predator drone. Both campaigns are four to five hours in length and offer plenty of frenetic action and water cooler moments. It seemed that while both games are balanced similarly, Battlefield was the more challenging of the two on normal difficulty.
As both of the series’ have long focused on the online multiplayer experience it is no surprise that much of the focus in either game is here. Battlefield has not had much of a change in the structure of their multiplayer and retains the large maps and large scale battles mixing infantry and vehicles that the series is known for. Modern Warfare has also stayed relatively close to the mold established by its predecessors (MW 1, MW2, and Black Ops) but adds a couple of new modes to mix things up again. Particularly noteworthy is the new Kill Confirmed mode which requires you to collect the dog tags of your fallen enemies in order to score for your team which adds an extra element of strategy which discourages camping and evens the playing field a little. Otherwise there has not been much innovation as far as these franchises are concerned. Infinity Ward has yet again decided to omit a co-op campaign even though you are rarely, if ever, alone during the campaign and Battlefield’s co-op adds little value as it is not a full co-op option but rather a few selected missions that you can play with a partner. MW3 attempts to relieve some of the disappointment by the return of the popular Spec Ops mode introduced in MW2 which is executed competently but is not as satisfying as playing through the full story with a friend.
Graphics
As can be expected for any major title of this pedigree, both games possess an incredible amount of graphical fidelity. Modern Warfare has particulate and lighting effects as good as any other shooter on the market and looks gorgeous, which is important as the color palette tends toward the monotone. Battlefield takes the lead in this department as the Frostbite 2 engine shows its power. Battlefield 3 approaches a level of realism that is rarely seen with particulate and lighting effects that are absolutely cutting edge, even on the Xbox 360. If you have a state of the art PC and graphics card, this may be the best looking game you will play this year. The destructible environments add an extra layer of peril as you may quickly find the pillar you are using for cover disappearing in a flurry of concrete, exposing the rebar supports underneath. On the Xbox 360 both titles ran well, though MW3 has a slight edge as Battlefield experienced some dips in frame rate while MW3 never moved away from a blistering 60 frames per second.
Story
The plots of both games are competently executed but were obviously not the focus of a great deal of development. Battlefield follows a U.S. Marine named Blackburne as he is being interrogated about events surround nuclear terrorism and a fictional conflict with Iran. The plot is largely transparent and formulaic, but the voice acting is decent and the dialogue never strays so far as to become trite or campy. The barely five hour campaign is excellently paced but leaves little reason to replay it other than to experience some of the fantastic vehicle sequences again. Modern Warfare fares a little bit better but lacked the same “wow” factor and depth of the previous entries in the series. Here events are continued from MW2 as you follow several different individual in chasing down an ultranationalist Russian terrorist that was responsible for starting World War III between the United States and the Russian Federation. This is where MW3 pulls ahead of Battlefield 3 as the plot is much more involved and has some set piece moments that are sure to be recalled as some of the most intense in this generation of games. A particular mention should be made of a level involving a firefight on a crashing Jumbo Jet that will have you wide-eyed and white-knuckled. In either case the campaigns are over too soon and will leave one wanting, but are quite good for the genre though they fall far short of the storytelling in the Halo or Gears of War franchises and are leagues away from the Fallout or Mass Effect series.
Sound
Here both games are dead even as they both are made for surround sound. Explosions thunder and bullets crack and whiz by with a sense of intense peril. Weapons sound substantial and explosions boom and reverberate and make you feel like you are in the thick of a frenzied firefight. Both games also feature a Hollywood caliber score and excellent voice acting that serves to help you immerse yourself in the plot (such as it is).
Overall Impression
There are few surprises in store for fans of either series as both games deliver exactly what one would expect: a frenetic, set-piece-driven FPS action title that is as good as anything in the Genre with deep and addicting multiplayer that will ensure that these games will likely be played well into next year. Despite the shortcomings of either game they should both be required playing for fans of the genre. If you are not a particular fan of the Battlefield or Modern Warfare franchises then they might not be worth the $60 price tag, but they are definitely worth renting or adding to your Gamefly account as they should not be missed. As far as which game comes out on top when put head to head, that will be left for you to decide.
Comments