It’s the clash of the titans this year as two of the biggest game franchises go head on. Where it’s pretty obvious that the Call Of Duty series has a larger fan-base than Battlefield, it’s also not a widely kept secret that the Call Of Duty series has gone monotonous.
Let’s do a quick recap of the recent releases from both franchises and see what changes could be expected (for the good and bad).
Personally if you ask me then the Call Of Duty series died after the fourth installment. Call Of Duty 4 had the best of both worlds: an engaging single-player campaign and a fast action paced multiplayer mode. The next release, Modern Warfare 2 never got my vote. The gameplay experience was a very frustrating one. The weaponry had no balances, almost all the guns seemed the same and some of the gadgets were just outrageous. If detecting enemies through the heart beat sensor wasn’t enough, it seemed like even farting would get you a new kill streak and unleash mayhem on the map. The game was very noob friendly, anyone could instantly drop in and start putting down enemy players. This probably was the big reason behind the game’s massive success.
My opinion: Modern Warfare 2 had a great single-player campaign but lost it’s edge in the multiplayer department.
Battlefield 2 was not a title for the casual gamer. It was aimed at extreme warfare with horde of groups communicating amongst themselves in order to win a map. Yes, this was the closest you could get to actually participating in a real time war. Being a Call Of Duty fanatic I could never play this game, the gameplay just seemed too slow paced. With the arrival of Bad Company 2 things began to change. The game came out with arcadish elements catering to both the Call Of Duty and Battlefield fan-base. Least to say, I was hooked.
I’m pretty sure with each Modern Warfare 2 and 3, someone up there would have said: “Okay so how many more gadgets can we throw in this game?” Battlefield: Bad Company 2 took on the actual gameplay experience instead. Each weapon had it’s own feel and mechanic. You would have to design your kit (load-out) to meet specific roles. That actually made you feel like you’re doing something for your team. This team-play aspect was missing from Modern Warfare 2 where you could go as a Lone Wolf and still conquer. You try doing that in Bad Company 2, chances are that you’ll be taken down by an enemy sniper hiding in the hills, get rolled over by an oncoming tank, get blasted to a pulp by an invading group of troops or my favorite, fall victim to destruction 2.0.
Still Bad Company 2 had it’s share of problems that pissed off a lot of players. Their server browser was extremely buggy, half of the time I couldn’t add my friends, search for a server or even connect to one. Then there was the famous, “My ping increases in-game but is lesser in the browser” problem. I honestly have no clue about this or what purpose it held. My own assumption, which might be wrong, is that the game increased your latency to match the rest of the players. This way no one would have a lower ping advantage. Hence, the browser would show my latency as 150 but in-game it would be 250-300. However, you can’t thumbs down the game just because of that.
My opinion: Bad Company 2 had a terrific multiplayer mode but could have done more with the single-player campaign.
BF3 vs MW3
Lets talk sales. It would surprise me if Battlefield 3 achieved more sales than MW3. With a huge fan-base that are always hungry for a new Call Of Duty title, this is a no-brainer. Add the game supporting dedicated servers, MW3 just might reach a new milestone.
Let’s talk about the gameplay now. So far of what we have seen, Battlefield 3 is looking magnificent. It’s looking so super that I’ve started to have doubts of it actually running like that on my rig. The rumor of the game frying PC rigs at Gamescom 2011 doesn’t help me either. Modern Warfare 3 on the other hand looks good too but not great. Infinity Ward have stated that the game has been developed on a new and improved engine. However, the screenshots and previews show almost the same thing from Modern Warfare 2. My opinion coincides with what others are talking on the web that Modern Warfare 3 is the same as 2 with the same eye candy, old story line, weapons, etc.
So what am I going to buy? I’m going ahead to buy both of them.
Battlefield 3 is offering a fantastic unique experience of warfare which I would be a fool to miss out on. Nothing is going to stop me from doing an actual air-strike on my friends which in Call Of Duty you do by just clicking on the map. My only wish is that I find a good server to play on since not everyone in the world gets good latency on their official servers. Dice has also learned from their previous browser problem and this time have promised a much smoother experience. What’s strange is that the browser will on the Battlelog site. That means you Alt+Tab and join a server on your desktop then go in-game. This will be a first time since every game has a server browser built within the game.
Modern Warfare 3′s story line maybe growing old but I know for a fact that the single-player campaign is going to be just awesome. With support for dedicated servers, we can finally play on low pings and amongst our friends. A dedicated server for a local community does wonders and gives you more value for your money. With the complete details of Elite in our hands, I’ll say that the clan benefits (similar to the guild benefits in World of Warcraft) seems interesting. Battlelog has yet to reveal their complete features, so far we know that it’s free and offers close to what Elite has outlined.
Battlefield 3 releases for the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC on October 25, 2011.
Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 releases for the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC on November 8, 2011.
