COD: Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3

[lazserus]

As the release dates of both games draw near, fans of both franchises are speaking out and divulging reasons why they will purchase one or the other. Currently a big draw for the new Call of Duty is the fact the game will run at 60 frames per second (FPS) as opposed to Battlefield's 30 FPS. Aside from the frame rate stance, it seems most gamers are choosing sides based on simple love for one franchise over another.

I will admit the new 60 FPS for COD is impressive. Doubling the frame rate will result in smoother animations as long as the system can handle the rate increase. A common complaint about games that are rated low is loss of frame rate, which results in choppy animations. The code itself may call for X frames per second, but if the system cannot handled it then a loss will incur. Rushed programming (as in lower budget games) can also lead to strange memory leaks that can result in loss of frames per second under certain straining instances during gameplay.

People around my age or older, particularly those of the NES generation, can remember when loss of frames reared its ugly head around the corner of gaming. Just think about the times playing Simon's Quest when the animation seemed to screech to a halt as if the Witkowski Brothers were experimenting with Matrix-style Bullet Time, Medusa heads slowing to a crawl as they entered the screen from the right side of the platform as you slammed your thumb into the A button in hopes Simon would catch up. In today's console games this experience is rare, but it still occurs with budget titles.

A lot goes into developing a game, even the budget games. A game that costs two million to make is likely to end up trash, but larger titles, those that give Hollywood films a run for their money (think $60 million+ for a good game) take their time and spend money, leading to a great title. Frame rate and how the game is coded to use such can make or break a game. Modern Warfare 3 wants to push the envelope and offer 60 FPS, which is all well and good as long as the developers can make it happen. We will just have to see. But will a doubled frame rate actually create a better game?

Thus far it seems Infinity Ward and its collaborators (Sledgehammer Games & Raven Software) are putting most of their eggs into this 60 FPS basket. COD: MW 3 for all intents and purposes appears to be a rehash of the other two in the modern series. I can't speak for multiplayer, however, which is probably the biggest draw for players. Battlefield 3, on the other hand, looks to be revitalizing modern warfare in gaming by introducing more techno-lovely treats for weapons and gadgets, plus not to mention the destructible environments.

If we look at the history of the two franchises we can see how COD originally mocked ideas from Battlefield. Battlefield 1942 was released in 2002, a mission-oriented WWII epic shooter. It offered a new take on the military shooter by giving players the option of choosing from one of four military classes. But was this a new idea? Absolutely not!

The godfather of all shooters (and PC shooters in general) was Wolfenstein 3D, released in 1992 for Windows. After Wolfenstein came Doom, then Quake, all of which were released by the same development company: id Software. Since Wolfenstein 3D, especially throughout the 1990s, id Software changed the scope of shooters and continued to reinvent multiplayer action, starting with Quake's famous Deathmatch. By the mid 90s other developers took lessons from id Software and introduced games like Unreal and Tribes, the latter of which only playable online. In late 1999 id Software knew they needed a new challenge for gamers, a new game that could compete with the widely popular Unreal: Tournament franchise at the time. Instead of starting from scratch, id Software returned to the game that changed the world: Wolfenstein.

In 2001 they released Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I remember they only allowed open beta for multiplayer, not once letting anyone know about the single-player story. I played RtCW online beta, which included less than 5 maps, for more than a year before the game was released. I bought the game and started playing the story, which was completely different from the multiplayer side. After two days I returned to multiplayer and played the game for another 2 years only online. I ran into the first Battlefield game then.

Battlefield 1942 was released in 2002 and created quite the fuzz. In that game you could pilot tanks, jeeps, APCs, both fighter and bomber planes, and even man naval vehicles, and that's all including the normal infantry shooter stuff. It broke new grounds and expanded gameplay both in single- and multi-player formats. A year later, in 2003, the first Call of Duty was released. It seemed almost an immediate response to Battlefield, but for some reason I enjoyed multiplayer in COD much more than Battlefield 1942. I think the big draw was that COD maps didn't need vehicles, whereas nearly every BF 1942 map required them. It was nice to use vehicles for a while, but I still wanted the classic battlemaps, an option unavailable from BF 1942. For me it all blurred and became moot because I stopped running and gunning online. But a few years ago I was reintroduced to online military play with Battlefield 2.

I'm caught up in the Modern Warfare series as far as single-player is concerned: simple terrorism stories without calling out Arabs. Completely lacking imagination. Modern Warfare 3 is supposed to do the same thing, rehash the same templates with 60 FPS, and maybe tweak a little multiplayer bt adding other match options. The new developers of the Battlefield franchise, DICE, have something simple yet effective to say about a 60 frames per second game. There's no way COD can pull off 60 FPS and still maximize all the warfare options, such as vehicles. DICE stands by their 30 FPS by saying they'll create a new and improved experience while still implementing the use of vehicles. Battlefield 3 is supposed to offer some extraordinary non-scripted phenomena, primarily focusing on fully destructible environments. But that destruction will probably only play out in single-player.

What seems to boil things down is the multiplayer experience. As of now, as far as both developers are saying, we shouldn't expect too much if any innovation in that department. What will really set these games apart is the single-play experience. Other than that, people are going to stick to their love, whether it be COD or Battlefield.

[Max]

Ill be getting both games, but if I had to choose, id go for COD.

One thing I hate, is the COD haters, who hate on it simply because its popular. They are the same kind of people who detest any singer who gets popular and refuse to acknowledge them as real artists. They like to feel counterculture and be in a tiny niché.

Id choose COD, simply because its a game ive spent so much time on and loved. Ive got so many memories of online, and so what if every cod game is almost the same as the last, except with different perks and killstreaks? Its absolutely AMAZING to get new killstreaks, and new weapons, new levels, new perks. The background engine might be almost identical, but the feel of each COD game is utterly different and unique.

[TNAfan121]

Seeing as i have bought every COD since COD2 at release, I'm getting MW3.

[Max]

For XBOX360 TNA?

[TNAfan121]

For XBOX360 TNA?

Yes, You have one too?

[GamerGal]

I'm sorry TNAFAN. Maybe one day you'll get a real game system and not a RROD. Oh I'm sorry, they fixed it and now it only fails 35% of the time.

[lazserus]

Bad news for people considering Battlefield 3 for PC. EA's new Origin service, meant to rival the successful Steam service, has inserted a clause in its User Agreement that will legally allow the company to gather personal information about your computer and how it's used. Instead of the minor bits, like submitting information about system specs (processor, RAM, HDD space, etc.), EA is looking at gathering information from your web browser, compiling lists of installed applications from your machine, etc. This is just a few inches away from being a Trojan. Worst of all, if you choose not to agree with this you cannot install Origin.

2. Consent to Collection and Use of Data.

You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION. This and all other data provided to EA and/or collected by EA in connection with your installation and use of this Application is collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA’s Privacy Policy located at www.ea.com. To the extent that anything in this section conflicts with the terms of EA’s Privacy Policy, the terms of the Privacy Policy shall control.

You can read the full article on Game Rant.

[hobobone]

In my case i will be buying M.W.3. Here is why..


OFFLINE MULTIPLAYER!...Battlefield 3 does not have offline multiplayer, and with some of the rampant cheating that goes on on xbox live, its much more fun and fair to offline splitscreen with friends and relatives.

Ill wait till Battlefield 3 goes to the used pile and get it on the cheap. Crysus 2 was also a great game, but lacked offline multiplayer. Now you can buy it fairly cheap....when are game companies going to get it, that offline multiplayer is a BIG perk..

Im looking forward to the 3rd and final installment of G.O.W...It has a great offline multiplayer. Erewards paid for G.O.W.3, which makes it all the more sweeter..

Rage is looking really good, but as im a smart gamer, ill wait till others play it.

[Max]

Yes, You have one too?

Yeah add me on it, MaxiemaxE is my gamertag

[TNAfan121]

I'm sorry TNAFAN. Maybe one day you'll get a real game system and not a RROD. Oh I'm sorry, they fixed it and now it only fails 35% of the time.

When did this turn into a 360/PS3 argument?

[blackbird357]

Mw3 N Gears of War 3 tag oitdog69 xbox live

[GamerGal]

Battlefield 3. Sorry, guy at work got it, and says COD is childish compared to it. It would be like "With T Rex is better, Barney or the one from Jurassic Park?"

[Red Shift]

I'll be getting MW3 loved the shit out of MW2 so it seems like a logical choice!

[DontBeAfraid]

BattleField 3! and I already have origin installed and its really not that bad... I am pretty certain that for the most part, all their "info gathering" has only resulted in them sending me deals that I ACTUALLY BUY! It sees that I have "this" game and "that" DLC and is like, "here is so and so for 60% off"

[pico]

Yep, my Xbox got the death ring... not worth repairing. Get a PS3 and be done with it. Your discs won't become fucked up from a crappy drive, and you can have much better access with wireless everything and also Blu-Ray viewing options.

That said, I am thinking that Battlefield is the game to beat. It looks like the graphics are a big up on the competition.

[Red Shift]

My PS3 got the YLOD, they certainly aren't infallible!

[DontBeAfraid]

You two should become PC gamers...

[Red Shift]

You two should become PC gamers...

HAHA good point, I finally have a PC that's actually up to date but i have absolutely no desire to be playing games on it.... lol weird...

[DontBeAfraid]

That can only be because you HAVENT seen the difference between PC gaming and console gaming...

[GamerGal]

My PS3 got the YLOD, they certainly aren't infallible!

How old was it at the time? Mine was a launch model and it died like 3 months ago. No launch model 360 made it past 3 years. There are still launch model PS3's, guy at work has one and it still works like a charm. Three guys at work have 360s, all on second or third. One had a launch model, dead at 6 months. Us two PS3ers keep pointing out the fail rates and how much worse it is for the 360 and they just balk because "We have Halo!" So does the PC...

BTW, I LOVE Half Life 2 Series on PC over PS3/360 cause I can use the console -sv.cheats-1 dealio, but that's about it for why I prefer PC over a console version of same game. Since my PC is hooked to my TV it is on the same screen. But I couldn't imagine playing Fallout 3 or Dragon Age on my PC.

[DontBeAfraid]

But I couldn't imagine playing Fallout 3 or Dragon Age on my PC.

Why? On the PC they have better graphics AND a better control scheme... not to mention user made DLC.

[pico]

Well, I picked up Battlefield 3 to entertain a bit over the upcoming winter months. Looking at it, the graphics are fantastic. Otherwise, it is nothing really new from most other shooters, from my limited experience with it.

[DontBeAfraid]

You jump online yet? Get your headset out and join a squad that is working together... then you will see the difference... The maps are big enough that you gain a HUGE advantage by working as an actual team...

[pico]

I played a few online games after I posted and can really see the difference with Rush games. It is far better than anything else out there, and the graphics are amazing.

[GamerGal]