Why Battlefield 3 > Modern Warfare 3

Posted on Posted in Gaming, Information, Rants

This is me speaking as someone who played the Battlefield 3 alpha and beta trials, in addition to owning all of the previous Call of Duty games on the PC. This may read as a bit of a rant but I’ll try to stick to laying down the facts. I could go on for paragraphs, but let’s keep this brief.

  • Price. I was able to get BF3 for $42 USD on Amazon (you can still get it for ~$50 USD), compared to $60 USD for MW3.
  • Content. Battlefield will ship with more maps than MW3. Not tiny maps, mind you… MASSIVE, SPRAWLING landscapes.
  • Destruction. Dynamic cover is something you come to appreciate, and the Call of Duty series is ignorant of this.
  • Redundancy. Modern Warfare 3 is essentially the same game its predecessors have been. Watching gameplay shows a blatant disregard for innovation.
  • Armour. Helicopters, jets, tanks, quads, humvees, light armour, and other vehicles add so much more fun to gameplay in Battlefield 3!
  • Scale. Battlefield 3 runs up to 64 players while the “other” game is only balanced for 18.
  • DLC. I was really irked that Activision continued to charge $15 for map DLC. If you decided to buy Black Ops plus all of its DLC, you would have spent $120. Not a great investment.
  • Prestiging. I’ve never prestiged in Call of Duty and never considered it to be worthwhile action. Not only do the costs vastly outweigh the gains, but it’s an obvious attempt at player retention. They try to push you to keep playing (one more prestige, one more prestige, etc.).
  • Community. From what I’ve experienced in both games, Battlefield has a much more… “mature” community. Guys that can actually make rational decisions regarding objectives… not to mention intelligent conversation. I’ve never met an unpleasant person in Bad Company 2 – can’t say the same for Modern Warfare 2. That game is saturated with mic-spamming tweens.
  • Evolution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but MW3 is still using an older version of the IW engine that dates back a few years? Yeah, Frostbite 2 is leaps ahead.
  • Team-play. Even though you can play as a lone wolf in BF3, you’re drastically stifled in your success. However, if you play in a squad and move as a team… you’ll get those “Battlefield moments”, where you become lucid to the fact that you and your friends are moving as one in synchrony. It’s hard to explain, but it definitely kills any monotony and gives you a bit of  a rush. Sounds silly but trust me.

To close, here are just two Battlefield 3 videos you should watch if you’re on the fence. This game is far superior to Modern Warfare 3. If you do happen to get BF3, let me know and we’ll drop in as a squad!

Beta Welcome Video

Does a good job explaining the multiplayer on Metro.

[YouTube Video id=”8QzxLKSX8os”]

Launch Trailer

Mostly singleplayer stuff.

[YouTube Video id=”Q7GVSx7yMaA”]

On the flipside, here’s the Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer trailer. To me, it just looks like they added new maps and a few of new perks/guns.

[YouTube Video id=”kuOCCeXlszw”]

2 thoughts on “Why Battlefield 3 > Modern Warfare 3

  1. I played BF3, and honestly it blew my socks away. I was amazed by the graphics mainly, and the story wasn't half bad.

    And, this is coming from a person who never played BF until BF3… and have always been a fan of MW. And despite a few days back, I have had said MW was the bomb — mainly because of the storyline… BF3 just offered an experience I never had before.

    Still, agreeing with all your points, I don't really think its a fair shake to MW3 especially since it hadn't been out yet. But… we'll see 😉

    great blog btw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *