Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3 and Everything Wrong With The FPS

Finally, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has hit the streets, and predictably, the latest iteration of the juggernaut first-person shooter series is seeing record sales. I’ve written quite a bit up to now comparing Modern Warfare 3 to another huge military shooter series’ latest, Battlefield 3, and now that both games are out, we can finally make the best qualitative analysis about them.

So here it is — the final verdict in comparing BF3 and MW3: They’re both great.

And they both suck.

Whether you’re a fanboy for Battlefield or Call of Duty, it’s impossible to deny that both games have multiplayer offerings that are basically solid-gold fun. No matter what you think about CoD, you can’t log into a game and start capping guys and claim it’s not good — there’s a reason this is the biggest-selling franchise in the industry. Modern Warfare 3 delivers high-octane action from the second you enter a game to the second it ends, and even if you hate the community and the rampant 14-year-old demographic that seems to dominate its lobbies, the game itself is highly polished. It might be an incremental update from the last entry in the series and last year’s Call of Duty: Black Ops and Modern Warfare 2, but that doesn’t mean the framework isn’t incredibly solid. And Modern Warfare 3 packs enough that’s new to take Call of Duty forward in a way that makes it worth diving in yet again, even if we’re all still craving more significant steps into the future.

Likewise, Battlefield 3′s multiplayer is just as good, and for many, even better than what Modern Warfare 3 offers. After the significant amount of time I’ve spent with both games trying to find lines of comparison, I can confidently assert that claims that one game is “better” than the other fall to players’ personal preferences about the kinds of shooters they want to be in. Battlefield 3 could be consider a deeper, more deliberate take on the military shooter genre. It offers huge maps and vehicles, and in general it takes more work to be good at. Its class system and map size make it more strategic (but often slower and more reliant on camping), and its game types demand that it’s more team-oriented.

DICE also knows what it’s doing in terms of mechanics and levels of polish, and despite something of a horrendous launch both on PCs and consoles, the game has some incredibly solid multiplayer on offer. Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 online are just plain fun. These are two games that are basically on even terms, and simply offer different takes on the same experience.

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.

4 Comments on Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3 and Everything Wrong With The FPS

Steve

On November 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Really, at the end of the day, so what if its the same old stuff. Both games are FUN and continue to be fun. Isn’t having fun all that really matters? I’m tired of people always complaining about the same old things. What are people expecting from these games? Sometimes I think people are expecting something out of a game that they themselves don’t even know what their expecting.

Darkraidor

On November 9, 2011 at 8:10 pm

look at back at medal of honor: allied assault, frontline, or pracific assault please, EA. Those were campaigns were playing and replaying. And they have soundtracks that have gone into history as being (imo) the best soundtracks in video game history.

either innovate in multiplayer, or make a single player worth remembering. Or do both, but dont tack either on :D

Greg

On November 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm

This article is accurate, both games are fun but choosing which one is “better” depends on your personal preferences. They’re also both more of the same, personally even though I didn’t want to like it I am enjoying MW3 bc they seem to have finally done a good job with almost every map, wheras in mw2 there were as many maps as good ones. For the first time ever it seems there are also fewer campers in a call of duty game than BF3, which to me is the biggest difference. I think they’ve nearly perfected the cod multiplayer formula w/ MW3, by nerfing the noob tubes and kill streaks.

Both games have terrible campaigns, but the truth is people buy the games for the multiplayer bc it makes them nearly endlessly replayable.

Brexton

On January 26, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Man you guys are boring. Where is the fanboy anger in your debates? I came to be entertained by idiot fanboys!