måndag 16 maj 2011

Why Modern Warfare 3 will not beat Battlefield 3

Aight, shut up and settle down. I know this may stir the hornets nest, but simply put - there is no way that Modern Warfare 3 can beat Battlefield 3. While I still maintain they are two different kinds of games, many observe that Bad Company 2 was trying to be more like Call of Duty.

I do not agree.

Bad Company 2 was a transfer, from a large, battlefield map into a more close quarters tactical format. There are many who never got past the Rush or Squad DM modes in Bad Company, and even as a devoted Battlefield Fan, I am among them. Until I played Conquest for a few hours, I had felt Bad Company 2 to be the black sheep of the series. There are of course really big maps for Bad Company 2 as well, but due to the player limit, they are not used to their full potential.

It still is not what Call of Duty is. Call of Duty is a Squad Deathmatch game, in the same formula as Counterstrike. Tough you can just as well remove "Squad". When I have played Call of Duty Online, your teammates are more people you choose not to shoot rather then someone who help you defeat the enemy. Winning and loosing matches seem not to matter to most players, as they go for personal scores. CoD has gone a long way from the slogan "In the War that changed the world, nobody fights alone."

Battlefield is different. Here, teamplay is emphasized and a critical part of gameplay. Vechicles are not unlocked by kill streaks, but is a natural part of gameplay. Anybody can pick one up.

In Short, it is what the name suggests. A Battlefield.

To this day, we know next to nothing about Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. We seen some action from a heavily scripted campaign from Battlefield 3 and while I applaud their dedication to the Single Player experiance, there is no need for it. Honestly. If you say Battlefield, I say "Multiplayer". And so does all the other fans.

CoD on the other hand has been a clear Single Player title. And it was good at it. Its only lately when Multiplayer has become more important that its multiplayer part moved away from the basic "Shoot the enemy" formula. Now its "shoot the enemy, while random stuff happens on the screen". I cared little for the Bad Company team. They where fun, they are entertaining to play with, but I would not bat an eyelash if anybody of them died.

Anybody remember a slightly different sensation at the end of CoD 4: Modern Warfare?

It is the Counterstrike generation that drives CoD forward and I do not think its a good think. CoD has gone stagnant. They refuse to adapt and develop. Black Ops tried to be Modern Warfare instead of take risks and the result was plain silly. In feel and touch, it was almost the same as the first Modern Warfare game.

Battlefield has always tried to move forward. While it is a mistake of them to look to CoD for their Single Player, their return to the grand formula of big, grand battles where every player plays their part in a team will again win over the small, close quarters battles where your teammates are simply in the way.

Not my two cents. But rather my two very big, G3 Assault Rifles.

1 kommentar:

David Bergström sa...

"Battlefield is different. Here, teamplay is emphasized and a critical part of gameplay. Vechicles are not unlocked by kill streaks, but is a natural part of gameplay. Anybody can pick one up."

So... BF is the commie of games? While CoD is the capitalist of games!

Yay go BF!