Battlefield 3 vs. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3: A Multiplayer Comparison
Not everything about Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 is at odds, though. At their most basic level, the two games handle remarkably similarly (despite DICE doing things like reversing which Xbox 360 controller bumper throws a grenade — I suspect this is simply done to be douchey to CoD players). Both handle their gunplay in similar ways and dish out customization as rewards for playing and doing well (although MW3 seems like it will far outpace Battlefield 3 in terms of perks, weapons and attachments).
At their hearts, if you’ve played Battlefield, you’ll be able to play Call of Duty, and vice versa. You might not necessarily be very good at either incarnation of soldiers shooting soldiers, but you will have all the baseline skills necessary.
It’s also worth noting that despite all the discussion about 60 frames per second versus 30, graphical fidelity and other talk that basically amount to EA and Activision arguing over whose is bigger, both games look phenomenal. They also sound and feel atmospheric and intense, with gunfire arcing overhead and stuff exploding in the distance. BF3 is also built to fall apart around you as it explodes, but both games successfully convey a lot of intensity.
At the end of the day, it appears both multiplayer experiences are going to bring a whole lot to the table and picking up either title would satisfy the needs of any shooter fan. It comes down to a matter of preferences: Battlefield 3 has a longer learning curve but offers something of a deeper, more involved multiplayer experience with more options and a stronger team focus. Modern Warfare 3 will be easier to pick up and put down and require less investment from players, but it may also be more rewarding by dishing out more bonuses for lengthier play. The team discussion may also be rendered moot by Call of Duty: Elite. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Follow Hornshaw on Twitter: @philhornshaw