Battlefield 3 vs. Modern Warfare 3 (Part 1/2)

So, without further rabble, I will dive straight into the comparisons.

Platform Versatility/Mobility

Battlefield 3: has been released for the PS3, Xbox 360, PC (and iOS, although it is not a major platform)

Modern Warfare 3: has seen use over PS3, Xbox 360 and PC, Nintendo Wii and even a separate version for the Nintendo DS.

Verdict: Modern Warfare 3 is arguably more mobile than Battlefield 3. However, this issue is small potatoes in comparison to bigger fish like graphics and gameplay, so it merely gains half a point.

Graphics

Without a doubt, this is one of the most important thing you can ask for in a game these days.

Battlefield 3: boasts truly realistic and immersing graphics, with fantastic lighting, shading, smoke and particle effects. The graphical quality portrays huge amounts of realism. Don’t just take my word for it; take a look:

Modern Warfare 3: While the graphical quality is not sub-par, it does not match the same standards as that of Battlefield 3. This does make the game faster and easier to play (granting slower computers more breathing room), the comparison here is being made solely for graphical quality.

Verdict: Battlefield 3 grabs a major point by beating Modern Warfare in Graphical Quality.

Gameplay

And here we are at the core of the issue. The one thing that separates these games is their relatively different gameplay.

To an extent, comparing these two games is almost like comparing two different genres. Battlefield is a Tactical shooter, often requiring teamwork and strategy as opposed to the Call of Duty “One Man Army” alternatives. Both games remain First-Person shooters, but more inclined to the strategic and action gameplay styles.

This prompts a closer look:

Battlefield 3: The one great thing that sets this apart from Modern Warfare from Battlefield 3 is that the latter has vehicles. And not just cars that we can blow up. These are straight up tanks, jets and what-not that you can, literally, crush your enemies with. A slight downside might be that it’s not always an option to go on a one-man rampage on the battlefield (Soldiers don’t do that well when being crushed by tanks). Battlefield 3 always strives for realism. Snipers have to fight the wind and drag to mark their targets, soldiers on the front lines must deal with suppression which drastically reduces their combat abilities. Which I don’t mean that realism decides whether one game is better than the other, it does say a lot about how Battlefield 3 is truly a soldier’s true experience.

Modern Warfare 3: The game lands you in firefights which require purely your own skill and judgement to conquer. Teamwork in this game is less pronounced as a skilled player can often change the tide of entire battles. In general, the right selection of perks, weapons, and ninja reflexes propel a player from straight noob-dom ( Yes, I invented that word ) to Commander glory. Obviously, a rather depressing part of the game is the lack of vehicles (Probably why the maps are relatively small). In the end, however, if you love running around, knifing people and hailing bullets when you feel like it, this game is for you. (Though I must say, I don’t like how the game counts a knife in the toe as a lethal hit).

Verdict: Oooh boy. This is a tough one. The winner here could potentially dictate the rest of the battle, and further comparison might even become unnecessary. As I said earlier, these games, although both FPS, would fit nicer into sub-genres of Tactical or Action FPS. It is for that reason that I’m forced to consider a tie for both games. That’s a major point to each Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3.

So far: MW3 = 1.5 points. Battlefield 3 = 2 points.

Part 2: http://averic.quazen.com/games/battlefield-three-vs-modern-warfare-three-part-22/