This fall, Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 come out within weeks of each other, trying to capture the free time of millions of gamers worldwide.
Graphics
But Battlefield 3 has been shown almost exclusively on a PC every time I've seen it. While the PC version of BF3 runs at a speedy 60 frames/second at 1080p, DICE's Johan Anderson tweeted that the console versions will run at 30 fps at 720p to keep things stable and detailed.
Modern Warfare 3 consistently runs at 60 fps on consoles and PCs, and it looks much, much better than a majority of other games. Still, there's a sameness that can't be denied in the graphical style.
The textures look improved but character movements still have that slightly exaggerated, jittery look to them. The lighting looks a little better, too, but MW3 didn't have the visual wow factor that EA's game does.
Feel
If Modern Warfare 3's being built on top of previously existing engine technology, then the one plus that the threequel will have is that it'll feel familiar to all those pre-existing COD players out there.
When all you want to do is jump into some deathmatches during your limited gaming time, you may not want to be bothered with learning new systems and strategies. As shiny as Frostbite 2 looks, there's a good chance it'll change things up a bit from previous iterations of Battlefield.
In the hyper-competitive communities that flock to these kinds of games, even minute changes can take time to integrate into an individual or clan playstyle. There's a certain amount of risk involved if players find a learning curve frustrating. Players who think they want something different may get turned off when they actually see what it is.
For those who say that MW3 just looks like more of the same, that may be exactly what a large chunk of its players want.
Advantage: Modern Warfare 3
A Battle Of System Requirements
Audio
Now MW3 is closer here than in other areas to the BF3 experience but where it really comes undone is transitional sound modification. In BF3 one of the first things you don’t notice is the change of every sound when you move from a large, open, outdoor space to the confines of a claustrophobic tunnel, that’s because it feels so completely natural. Go back and play MW3 and you now notice how artificial the sound scheme really is in most shooters. There is little if any attention paid to acoustics changing based on location and surrounds in other titles, whereas Battlefield 3 has it down to an absolute art form.
Engine
It’s worth noting at this point that whilst Frostbite 2 is a completely new engine, written from scratch, IW Engine 5.0 is a “revision” of version 4 (which is, in turn, based on the Quake 3 engine created pre year 2000!). This is, I’m afraid, a portent of what is to come from MW3’s point of view. With IWE5 lacking, amongst other things; destructible environments, real-time physics, a sophisticated lighting architecture or soft-shadowing, it is already way, way behind Frostbite 2, which has them all and much, much more. So in a very real sense, there is just no point comparing these two game’s engines, it would be like a single Second World War soldier taking on a 4-man, 21st century, SAS assault team. No contest, at all.
But, rather than bore you with an intensely geeky breakdown I’m just going to pull the main issues to the fore and lay them out for you.
User Base
This key category will be the one that makes or breaks the fortunes of either game. As part of the Call Of Duty franchise, Modern Warfare 3 will have the benefit of one of the most rabid fan communities out there.
Activision claims that up to seven million people play a COD game every day, so even if a portion of them buy MW3 on day one, then it's well on its way to a chart-busting debut.
The company's put out multiple shooters–Crysis 2 and Medal of Honor among them–that have drawn players' time and attention. But all of those players haven't been in the same place, in terms of a franchise.
With a beta seated in Black Ops right around the corner, Activision's Call of Duty Elite platform will further consolidate their loyalists and get them excited for Modern Warfare 3 in November.
Classes, Weapons & Equipment
Whilst there is not quite so much to separate these two titans in terms of classes, weapons and equipment, it is in the way in which they implement these that lies the real genius, or lack thereof. Modern Warfare again treads the fairly well established corridors of specific classes and, to be fair, so does Battlefield 3. My favourite feature in this area however is Battlefield’s take on “customising” your class. You can really get into the depths of the class system here and make choices which vastly affect both your role and capabilities in-game. No longer is it a “Choose a class and a weapon” type selection, but now you can really define specific roles you want to play via your load-out and put a different spin on what you do with the options available to you. Battlefield 3 leads the way here, just, but its small improvements like these that reflect the greater focus on playability over that of Modern Warfare 3.
 |
| Battlefield 3 includes jets. |
Wrap-Up
It's too soon to say which will actually be the better game, as parts of both Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 are still being built as we speak. The marketing hasn't begun in earnest and Activision in particular has much more of its game to be revealed. But given the quality and ambition already on display, it's safe to say this is a year when the FPS championship belt could be up for grabs. May the best shooter win, because it's going to be fans who ultimately reap the spoils of this conflict about conflict. So again, many of these things are personal taste.
