Battlefield 3 versus Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

Battlefield 3 came out in October 2011, Modern Warfare 3 in November 2011. So am I late to the party? Hell No I say. I've played both games extensively, and I've built opinions on both of them. I know the experts created their reviews weeks ago, but to a true gamer, like myself, a week after the release of the game is entirely too soon to judge an entire game. So let's begin shall we?

With the new millennium came this fantastic new thing called online gaming. Suddenly consoles could reach the same online capabilities as your desktop computer. The genre that dominates online gaming is the First Person Shooter. If you own an xbox 360 or playstation 3 with online gaming enabled, I know that you own a call of duty, a battlefield, or a a Halo game. Don't deny it, you know I'm right. Sure, GTA IV has online gameplay as does Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Revelations. But if you're an online gamer, chances are you're an FPS fan. So which game reins supreme king of the FPS?

BF3 and MW3 both boast enticing Campaign and co-op modes. MW3 is a bit more familiar, being a sequel and an epic conclusion to the previous two modern warfare games. This HUB is spoiler free, rest assured. But you enter MW3 with familiar characters as well as some noobies. Captain Price and Soap from the first two games return to conclude the grandiose storyline.

Now, Modern Warfare receives massive criticism for being like a hardcore action movie on steroids. I can't dissuade this argument, because it's largely true. There are explosions at every turn. Slow motion Breach segments, followed by 70 enemies charging directly at you. The game is out of control in terms of reality. That being said, it is addicting and gripping as hell. Your mind turns off, and you begin to immerse yourself in a storyline no matter how unbelievable the plot may be. The campaign mode flies by in epic fashion and gives a fitting end to the Captain Price/Soap saga.

BF3's campaign is a great improvement over past Battlefield games. The campaign takes a page out of Call of Duty plots, and deals with a more real threat of nuclear warfare. However, the campaign in BF3 is nowhere near as gripping as Call of Duty. The gameplay mechanics are all intact, but the story just doesn't grab you like Modern Warfare 3. Call of Duty has the advantage, being a familiar sequel, the developers already had fantastic characters to work with. BF3 is a decent campaign, but not epically close to MW3. So for those of you keeping score, Point 1 goes to Call of Duty.

MW3 returns with the popular spec ops mode. In this mode, you and a friend can battle through various short missions, some pertaining to the campaign, others using advanced equipment. As in MW2, spec ops is a great hit. The missions are well thought out, and it becomes madly addicting to try to reach the perfect 3 star rating in every mission.

BF3 also comes with a new bonus of co-op missions to be completed with a friend via online gameplay. The developers also insert an added perk of unlocking weapons for multiplayer gameplay that can only be earned by playing the co-op missions. Sure, we all want that nice 93 Raffica sidearm, but oh no, you have to play the co-op to get it. The BF3 missions offer a nice balance of stealth, infantry, and vehicle based missions.

The co-op missions of both MW3 and BF3 are both utterly trumped by MW3's Survival mode. In this addicting mode, you and a friend can battle through endless waves of increasingly harder enemies. You can upgrade your weapons, equipment, and perks. In this gamer's opinion, it is the most addicting aspect of MW3. These games can last over half an hour, and nothing will stop you from repeating them over and over again. Survival Mode also offers a unique rank system completely apart from the online multiplayer experience, so players have a chance to rank up along side their friends. Survival Mode gives MW3 a slight advantage over BF3 in terms of Co-op gameplay, so let's award MW3 another point shall we?

Alright be honest, you barely skimmed the first couple paragraphs. You don't care about the campaign and co-op nearly as much as online play. In BF3, you've already attained service star 5 in all your classes. In MW3, you've prestiged 8 times and are debating whether or not to go for number 9 yet.

Gamers will buy games like BF3 and MW3 without touching the campaign modes and just dive right into the multiplayer madness that keeps us coming back for more. I'm going to dissect each game separately, and then I promise I'll give you my final verdict on the epic battle of the FPS champions.

Battlefield 3 enters this matchup as an underdog. The online gameplay is nowhere near as well known as call of duty. Bad Company 2 swayed some Call of Duty users, but ultimately Modern Warfare 2 won that battle. Battlefield 3 picks up where its predecessor left off and gives online players motivation to work as a team.

You get points for reviving teammates, repairing vehicles, resupplying bullets, spotting enemies. There are dozens of ways to gain experience by just helping your teammate. I've had games where I would lead my team despite having only 8 kills. Battlefield takes the focus away from your Kill/Death Ratio, and makes the game about winning and working together.

Unlike Call of Duty, you can't go as a lone wolf and have the same success as you might have in Modern Warfare 3. Battlefield rewards you for working as a team. Consequently, this also makes Battlefield easier to pick up for a new player. You may have next to no kills starting off, but you will get the hang of it through playing with your squad.

Vehicles return to BF3 making a huge impact on objective games. There are helicopters, tanks, light armor, jets, and boats. And as in all weapons in BF3, you unlock perks and equipment with every kill you get with a vehicle. You may enter a tank in your first game and get blown to kingdom come, but 20 levels later, you'll have improved optics, improved maintenance and more making you damn near unstoppable.

BF3 makes a huge splash into the online gaming community. The game is much more difficult to pick up than Call of Duty, but it rewards players for working together. And the objective based games between two great teams are exciting and breathtaking. Very rarely in BF3 do I feel that I don't have a chance to win. You always can gain experience and help your teammate out, and no matter the levels of the other team, you can always get the victory.

Modern Warfare being a sequel also affects its online gameplay as well as its campaign mode. The problem is that MW2 was such a flawed game, that MW3 had a lot of improvements to make. I'm sure there are still thousands playing Modern Warfare, but I can guarantee anyone reading this can think of 5 reasons why they put that game down in utter frustration.

Noob Tubes killing you from across the map. Killstreaks that stacked, making the 25 kill nuke very easily attainable. Snipers that can inexplicably no scope you from point blank without trying. MW2 was very flawed, and unfortunately MW3 does not improve upon this.

The game is still filled with similar flaws. Sure the tubes are nerfed, but largely the amount of frustrating deaths you will have are still many. The quick scopers return, the shotguns can one shot you from 50 yards. Kill Streaks are still stackable making it easy to attain a massive AC130 or Osprey Gunner.

MW3 made very little improvements to the original mechanics of the game, and subsequently, the game is very difficult to play effectively. You cannot fool around with any old weapon you want if your K/D is important to you. When I play, I feel I have to run assassin to stay off the grid. I can't mess around with sniping because I'm terrible at it. I have to run an automatic weapon or a shotgun to even have a chance of competing.

The major flaw with MW3 is it becomes a twitch shooter, and moves away from a military shooter. Your skill, your accuracy isn't what wins you games. If you have the faster trigger finger, you will win the battle. MW3 makes the game more about the perks and killstreaks than the actual mechanics, and that is why BF3 takes the cake in online gameplay.

Every Versus matchup must have a winner and a loser. And my winner is BF3. By all means if you don't have online gaming, buy MW3. The campaign and co-op are plenty and the bonus survival mode will occupy you for hours at a time. But if you're going for the full package, Battlefield is the game to get.

It's more balanced in terms of playability and the sheer amount of unlocks will give you hundreds of hours of play. I tried to do the math considering how long it would take to max out your level and the levels of every weapon, class, and vehicle. I got past 1000 hours, and gave up. It is massive.

We're at a crossroads as FPS fans. I don't want this to come off as another battlefield fan bashing call of duty, because that's not what it is. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare may be my favorite FPS of all time. When the first Modern Warfare came out, it's biggest contender was Halo 3. More fans flocked to Call of Duty for its fresh perspective on current warfare with modern weapons.

But unfortunately, in this gamer's eyes, call of duty moved away from it's military based roots, and became a reflex game. Whoever has the biggest gun, or gets there first, or has their unstoppable kill streaks set up will be invincible. BF3 reinvents teamwork in online gameplay, making a military shooter feel, well, like a military shooter again.

So if MW3 is becoming a little too frustrating for you, it's not too late! Get Battlefield, and then look me up, we'll conquer the gamersphere. Please feel free to comment, and stick around for more hubs.