It’s been a long time since we’ve had any real competition in the FPS arena. Sure, Halo and Killzone have done well, but nothing has come close to matching the Call of Duty series’ performance in recent years.
That’s changing though, and for the first time in years, the annual Call of Duty release is not necessarily the only FPS everyone is watching.
The long awaited Battlefield 3 is looking to take the fight to Modern Warfare 3 later this year, and both Activision and EA did their best to feed the hype machine their particular diet of military shooter at E3 this week.
Who won? Gamers won, that’s who, because both games are looking very slick. The truth is that Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are taking the modern military FPS in different directions, which is just what we need.
While EA is hoping to take market share from Activision, Bobby Kotick is not worried. He seems to think Battlefield 3 is a PC exclusive, saying “So far I’ve only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, so I haven’t seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is. If it’s just a PC title as it looks like today, that’s a very small audience to participate, but we always are interested to see what our competitors are doing.”
EA’s John Riccitiello had this to say about Kotick’s remark:
“If that’s all he’s got to say, it’s obviously going to evaporate as we launch all three. If you went to our press conference, you saw the PS3 footage and the Xbox footage. If Bobby think’s that PC footage, he’s in real trouble.”
Oh, IT’S ON.
Battlefield 3 Thunder Run trailer
EA opened up its Battlefield 3 presentation by blowing onlookers away in the first 2 minutes of this 8 minute long gameplay trailer from the single player campaign. Put bluntly, Battlefield 3 is a stunning game, thanks to the Frostbite 2 engine’s prowess. Opting to take the route of pseudo-realism with Battlefield 3, in contrast with Modern Warfare 3’s heavily action orientated approach, the primary criticism of their lead E3 trailer came from impatient gamers claiming that it dragged on a bit.
This criticism sort of highlights the difference between CoD and BF, and if you found the trailer a bit boring, then your tastes may well be better served by Modern Warfare 3.
There is no doubt, however, that Battlefield 3 is, technically speaking, superior to Modern Warfare 3. In fact, it’s probably the most technically impressive game we’ve ever seen. Textures are rendered with mind boggling detail, environments are recreated gloriously, animations are superb, and the game displays the best explosions and fire effects we’ve ever see.
Modern Warfare 3 E3 2011 presentation
Activision gets points for making Infinity Ward community manager Robert Bowling play the game live in front of thousands of people. While it’s easy to get caught up in how amazing Battlefield 3 looked, Modern Warfare 3 is also looking rather good.
The gameplay on display illustrates the design philosophy behind Call of Duty. Infinity Ward makes no apologies about its over-the-top action approach, after all, this is sort of what has come to define Call of Duty in recent years.
CoD caters to those who like their shooters intense and unrelenting. Sure the opening minutes are quite calm, but when things get started its a nonstop rollercoaster of events that you’d expect to see unfold in a Hollywood blockbuster.
In comparison, Battlefield 3 seems like something you might watch on the Discovery channel.
If anything, this is the distinction that both trailers highlighted at E3 2011.
Discuss Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3 in the forums
Loading ...
