VS
Without a doubt, the most anticipated game of 2011 is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. The second sequel to the wildly popular Modern Warfare series had a great showing at E3 this year. It kicked off the Microsoft Press Conference and a lengthy demo was shown off on the show floor. The game looks fantastic and will no doubt be a top seller when it hits in November. But, Modern Warfare 3 is not the only game about modern warfare that is making news right now. Dice’s Battlefield 3 has been noted as a formidable contender to try and take out the stranglehold that Modern Warfare has on the market right now.
So, which game is better and who is going to win when the year ends? I have decided to break down the coverage of both of the games to try and give a fair representation of both of these impressive looking games and hopefully come out with the superior title. I’m going to break this down into sections to involve gameplay, graphics, sound, story, and who had the best E3 showing.
Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3
Gameplay
Modern Warfare 3 definitely focuses on the infantry side of the battle more so than Battlefield does. This is evidenced by what the companies decided to show of their games; Modern Warfare 3 showed a Delta Force/SEAL team taking out a Russian sub and fighting in the streets of Manhattan. Battlefield 3 focused on a tank battle in the middle of the desert, two totally different kinds of combat. Modern Warfare 3’s demo was more cinematic with close quarters fighting and exciting chase scenes but Battlefield’s demo showed impressive scope on a wide open battlefield. It is hard to compare these two because they are totally different experiences, what we do know is that Battlefield will also focus, at least partly, on the infantry aspect whereas Modern Warfare 3 will not really focus on large vehicle combat. The variety would seem to help Battlefield 3 but we need to see what their on foot gameplay is like before a determination can be made.
In the end, Modern Warfare 3 has the kind of gameplay that is appealing to more people on the market. The tactics of a tank battle may elude some gamers who just want to look down the scope of a rifle and shoot bad guys. That is why Modern Warfare 3 will have more people jumping on board from the mas
s market. Battlefield 3 seems to be going for a more “realistic” portrayal of combat that, while interesting and impressive, won’t win over casual shooter fans.
Battlefield 3
Modern Warfare 3
Graphics
There is no doubt that Modern Warfare 3’s graphics looked better than Modern Warfare 2’s graphics but was that enough to outdo Battlefield 3? In short no, but there are other factors to consider here. Before even talking about the graphics it should be noted that we haven’t seen any Battlefield 3 on a console, all the demos were shown on a PC. Modern Warfare 3 was being shown off on an Xbox 360, meaning Battlefield 3 had an inherent edge that may not be applicable when we see the console versions of the game.
However, the Frostbite 2 engine was definitely the star of the show for Battlefield 3. The trailer for the engine showed the depth of animation, sound, destructibility, and rendering that is possible with the new version of the engine. The original Frostbite engine powered the Battlefield: Bad Company games and those were phenomenal and the new engine looks even better. Modern Warfare 3 is still using the same engine but with tweaks to it to make things look better, it is impressive but not as good as the Frostbite engine.
However, just because it wasn’t as good as the Frostbite engine was that doesn’t mean it wasn’t very impressive. Animations were fantastic and were seen much more in the Modern Warfare 3 demo than in the Battlefield 3 demo. Destructibility in the city was good and most of the fire and shrapnel effects were very life-like. Close-up renders of objects could be pixilated at times but overall they looked good.
That being said we still saw two very different environments from the two games and that plays a major role in the impressiveness of the graphics. The destructibility was only seen briefly in Battlefield 3’s Frostbite engine trailer whereas it was shown front and center in Modern Warfare 3’s demo that showcased NYC in ruins.
Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3
Sound
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has some of the best sound design I have ever heard in a game and it seems that Battlefield 3 will be following that great model. All of the tank sounds from the rolling of the tracks to the thumps of the shells from the main gun of the tank sounded great.
Modern Warfare 3 also had some great sound design with explosions, guns, and other sound effects that were impressive. But, given the track record of the Battlefield franchise I would have to say that the sound design from Battlefield 3 will probably still surpass Modern Warfare 3 but we will have to see when the full games are released.
Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3
Story
One of the only points where Modern Warfare 3 had a clear advantage was in the story department; following Modern Warfare 1 and 2 the story has us all invested heavily in the Russian invasion of the US and the story of Soap and Price. Battlefield 3 is the first direct entry in the Battlefield series in a while (Battlefield 2 coming out in 2005) and the story is not nearly as developed or intriguing to me right now as the story of Modern Warfare 3.
The fighting in the streets of Manhattan really made me feel like this was a realistic fight for my home turf and it made me want to play the game more so I could stop the invasion of my home soil. Battlefield 3 felt like a battle in a wide open environment far from home, it didn’t have that emotional edge that seeing NYC on fire had.
Battlefield 3
Modern Warfare 3
Showing at E3
Both games were heavily shown off at E3 but I believe that in the end Modern Warfare 3 had the better presentation. The graphics might not have been quite as impressive as Battlefield 3 however the right kind of action was shown. The Modern Warfare 3 demo felt like watching an action movie whereas the Battlefield 3 demo felt more like watching a tactical battle from the viewpoint of the tank driver.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the Battlefield 3 demo but I feel that for a show like E3 some footage of fighting in city streets on foot would have been the better choice. It has been stated that many of the battles will take place in urban centers so why not show us some of that? The fast paced, in-your-face, close quarters combat is more exciting to watch than tanks firing at each other from a distance. Sure the gameplay itself might be great but watching it isn’t nearly as exciting.
Battlefield 3
Modern Warfare 3
The Final Verdict
I believe that Modern Warfare 3 is still the game to watch for, even though both games are on my short list to buy at the end of this year. I am more excited for the continuation of the story and the infantry fighting than I am for the massive scale tank battles in Battlefield 3. I actually don’t like vehicle stages personally so it is still the on foot stuff that I am looking forward to most.
I liked Battlefield’s engine and thought that the game was a serious contender but Modern Warfare 3 still has that stranglehold on the shooter market right now. Fans of both series should be excited and I am personally looking forward to playing through both of these games.
From a purely technical standpoint, Battlefield 3 wins, but for the story and the gameplay that was shown at E3 and everything else we have seen so far Modern Warfare 3 is still my favorite. I also believe that with the straight shooter elements and the lack too much tactical realism, Modern Warfare 3 will appeal to more people and capture a larger segment of the general audience. This larger appeal will drive sales and that, coupled with the already firm grip on the market that Modern Warfare has, will lead to better sales for Call of Duty. If I had to pick one I would pick that. A lot of my reasoning is personal opinion though, what do you guys think?
No comments:
Post a Comment