Friday Flame Wars: Call of Duty vs. Battlefield

We’ve all seen a small amount of content from Activision’s upcoming three developer maybe-opus, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. And a couple of us Game Fronters have even seen it in action and told you what we thought of it.

And we’ve all taken a look at what Electronic Arts is scaring up for Battlefield 3 — like its 12-hour campaign. Hard not to get excited about that.

So we’ve got two huge AAA titles that none of us have actually played, and in the best tradition of the Internet, it’s time to make an impassioned judgment. We’ve had a poll running on Facebook this week that, so far, has Battlefield as the front-runner.

Take to the comments, ye angry readers, and tell us what you think!

Which will be better — Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 — and why?

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

18 Comments on Friday Flame Wars: Call of Duty vs. Battlefield


On May 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm

Battlefield 3 – because they actually need to work to make a successful game. If they release a game “only” as good as Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 2, they will be ignored by the gaming community. Call of Duty, on the other hand, has established itself as AAA multiplayer with its titles CoD, CoD2, CoD4.. but now progress and innovation seem to have stopped, as MW2 featured the same core gameplay as CoD4 and half of the team responsible for making the game were fired. Activision is guaranteed hundreds of millions of dollars for whatever game they put the “MW3″ logo on, but in order to stay competitive, it will have to Dice’s Battlefield 3 emerging as the better game.


On May 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm

battlefield has a much better multiplayer but their single player was always lacking, however i play pc games for the multiplayer aspect so in the end battlefield has always been the overall victor in my opinion. I think this time though their single player will be on par with the multiplayer, and that makes one hell of a game.


On May 27, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Battlefield3 for it’s more vast engine for multiplayer.

I’ve played professionally for Battlefield 2, 2142, and Bad Company 2, as well as CoD4 and CoDWaW, and I’ve found that Battlefield takes far more skill for several reasons…

1. Bigger maps
It is necessary for each team to have a far more complex strategy to cover each and every route the opposing team may use to flank you.

2. Squad play
Squads is a very big feature in the battlefield universe. It allows teams to make more use of their winning strategy by using the squad leader as a mobile spawn point.

3. Vehicles
I think its far to say that vehicles are a substantial element in team play. Deciding where to position each tank, or land troops on an enemy position with a helicopter, or bomb an enemy base with a plane, makes for more intense play.

Now let me discuss why I dislike Call of Duty multiplayer. Simple. Because it is just that, simple. You get nothing but your guns and superman perks on a tiny map. The only strategies you can use are either rushing your opponent, or camping in a certain area. Battlefield will always be more appealing to the real gamer.

Uncle Bing

On May 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm

For me it’s like this: The game which has the best multiplayer wins.

What I probably like best about Bad Company 2 is how the game encourages team work, thanks to the opportunity to join various squads, even if you do not play with your friends.

The last couple of weeks I have again played Modern Warfare 2 a lot. I’m still a fan of how the multiplayer character moves and how the various weapons behave online. The multiplayer feels dynamic and balanced in a way. It feels good to play MW2 online. Simple as that.

So… The game which will be the best in mixing excellent online gameplay with great options for teamwork, is a winner in my book. (Did I hear someone say Battlefield 3?)


On May 27, 2011 at 2:13 pm

I was wondering why people looked for BF3.
Is it because they are tired of getting milked by Activision?

Is it because BF3 now looks like COD, so the ever-milking COD fan can be attended too while waiting for the next COD game?

This flame war will answer a lot questions. *Sits with popcorn*


On May 27, 2011 at 3:56 pm

LOL bf3 dosent look like cod… cod looked the same since they got cod4 out(world at war excluded) and ppl got tired of the same old same old crap, and since battlefield alwase made big progress, they went back to battlefield, where it all started… GG end ot the story, the next cod is gonna be cod Mw2 but Upgraded Abit, just like Cod MW2 was Cod4 but upgraded abit, same old same old gg…. battlefield won long time ago, when they went full destruction, not just crapy single player Scripted wall destructions.

Anthony S

On May 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm

I think most fans know by now that Activision’s milking the market, but the single-player is nearly always exhilarating (like living an action movie.) That may pull in a great number of buyers, but I have avoided the company’s products since MW2 because of their decision to drop dedicated servers and their general attitude toward their fan base (I feel like we’re sheep with money to them. Pigs literally start flying every time an Activision game is put on sale or reduced in price.)

When it comes down to it though, the Battlefield series wins me over in two places: Their realistic multiplayer gameplay, and their beautiful Frostbyte engine. As mentioned above, EA/DICE reigns supreme when it comes to strategy and skill that goes beyond point and click shooting.

Garyn Dakari

On May 27, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Never played a BF game, or a CoD game.

Anthony S

On May 27, 2011 at 8:42 pm

A little addition to my post above:

Nearly any retailer:
COD Black Ops – $60
Modern Warfare 2 – $40

Just saw a sale at GamersGate for
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 – $7.98

$8 vs $50ish


On May 28, 2011 at 5:16 am

Both. But Bobby Kotick takes too much money.

Brandon James Clark

On May 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Anyone who says MW3 is a tool. BF3, before even it’s own release date, has proven itself the innovator.

CoD games suck.

Phil Hornshaw

On May 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm

@Anthony – Yeah, but, isn’t that price more an expression of demand than quality? I mean, CoD is $60 because it literally has millions of people playing it.

And not to bring the wrath of the troll Internet down on myself, but this is an overwhelmingly pro-Battlefield thread, filled with people touting how badly CoD sucks. For the sake of keeping the discussion going: there’s gotta be something going right with Call of Duty, right? MW2 and Black Ops have great, deep multiplayer modes, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a more insanely explodey, Michael Bay action-movie type experience than you can get out of CoD games. I can vouch first-hand that there are some really exciting moments in MW3.

So if Battlefield is so great, how come more people don’t play it? Or are you all just going to claim that they’re dumb and you’re smart and that’s the end of the discussion?


On May 30, 2011 at 1:52 pm

@Phil because COD players want a quick 10 to 15 minute match. BF players are looking for an all out war that takes sometimes an hour to play out. It’s just a difference in player. Ones an adult and the other… well… are just kids :)

Sorry, couldn’t help myself. BF 4Life!


On May 30, 2011 at 2:49 pm

Battlefield 3 will be the superior game but MW3 will outsell it greatly just because of how well known it is.

On the brightside at least BF3 wont be infested with angsty 5 – 17 year olds.

Also I’m pretty sure most PC FPS gamers will be on BF3.


On May 31, 2011 at 4:15 am

Mine is Modern Warfare series cause BF3 sucks BF3 fails MW2 rocks and also MW3!by the way you also suck like BF3!


On May 31, 2011 at 4:17 am

MW3 is awesome because of its franchices there just the same MW3 is cooler because its ancestors are all cool COD series has so many games that are awesome!

raise the flame shield

On May 31, 2011 at 1:57 pm

Typical Battlefield fanboys eating into the hype. You forget that the whole FPS genre is infested with 5-17 year old kids. Please, find me one shooter that is adults only. The only reason you don’t hear the kids in BC2 is because voice chat is limited to your squad.

Many BF fanboys are PC elitists that are still mad because MW2 didn’t give them dedicated servers. The rest don’t give a crap about BF, but swear allegiance to any game that could take COD down. And to those who worship the ‘original’ PC only Battlefield games, how is having the same game set in the past, present and future innovative?

Remember when it used to be “go COD, Halo sucks”? Whatever is popular will always be flamed; if BF topples COD, how long before it starts delivering $20 maps and seemingly endless expansions you call sequels? Wake up – EA and Activision really aren’t that different.

In a space of 11 years, 12 games have been made which carry the Battlefield franchise. How is this genre not milked? You call it innovative, yet Onslaught mode is a blatant rip off of Spec Ops. What about paying for maps when others get them for free, just because you bought the game second hand?


On June 6, 2011 at 5:19 pm

BF fanboys are absolutely retarded. Since when did pistol kills at a half mile become realistic? When BFBC 2 got spotting mechanics. What really matters is the type of gameplay the game is going for, after all not everyone can fly the helicopters or halve the split-second reflexes of CQC. The damn flamewars should stop and each side back to plopping greenbacks on the TENTH game in their series. P.s. both cod and bf are awesome!!!