Battlefield 3 (a rant informal review from an ex-COD fan)
Ok, so every shoot-em-up fan and their dog has been waiting all year for the release of Battlefield 3 and/or Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. And while I know this is kinda late in relation to the release of BF3, but having now played a bit of MW3 and reading its reviews I thought I would share my thoughts on the two games/series and their differences (plus a few people have asked what I thought of them). Obviously this is my own personal opinion and your experience with both games may be vastly different to mine.
This story begins around the time of release of Modern Warfare 2. That glitch filled SOB game managed to take everything bad from MW1 (which I actually really enjoyed) and make them worse, rather than improve. I needed something different and ended up taking a chance on a new game called Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Being a console gamer I never really got into the original Battlefield series on PC (I played a bit of BF: Vietnam on a mate’s PC for an hour or two before giving up) but after watching a few trailers online I decided to take a chance and trade in. And man was this game good!
No more being the only person playing the objective (BF is team orientated with different roles for different types of players). No more players camping in corners (you can destroy cover and knock down entire buildings). No more tiny maps (the Bad Company 2 maps were enormous). No more annoying deaths by AI controlled helicopters (you needed to actually control the vehicle yourself, bringing another layer to the gameplay). No impossibly quick quick-scoping (snipers need to carefully line up their shots, keeping in mind distance and bullet drop). No more dropping out of games (BF had dedicated servers rather than relying on hosts). I quickly realised that COD was an arcade shooter aimed at young kids and teens (just listen to all that player chatter) while BF was a more mature tactical shooter and was a much more realistic portrayal of actual warfare. The sound effects in BF made those in COD sound like cheap toys while the weapons all felt vastly different from each other, the SMG’s were quick and swift while the LMG’s took a bit more time to lug around.
Fast forward two years and we have Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. BF3 was built using a new engine, improving the graphics, animations, the size of maps and also introducing new gameplay elements such as flash lights, bipods and even a little bomb disposal robot. The jump from Bad Company 2 to Battlefield 3 is not huge, but there is a noticeable improvement across the board, especially considering the COD series has been the same for the last 4-5 years! I find it insulting that Activision release essentially the same, full priced game every year when it could quite easily be packaged as a couple of cheap DLC’s for the previous game (like how Grand Theft Auto did the extra downloadable episodes) and am surprised many reviews have not slammed the game for this reason. I tried to give MW3 (and Black Ops the year before) a chance but I just couldn’t get into it. They may have ironed out a few bugs here and there but many of the bigger issues are still present, most notably being no dedicated servers. They haven’t even attempted to introduce any new features or gameplay mechanics that differentiates from the previous titles and makes it a ‘must buy’ in my opinion, unless you count the “Elite” feature which they make you pay extra for complete access anyways (yet another way for them to take our money).
Battlefield 3 is definitely the more impressive and rewarding online shooter of two, but all things considered that’s really not that hard a feat. With Activision having already run Tony Hawk Pro Skater and Guitar Hero into the ground, unless something drastic happens it’s only a matter of time before Call Of Duty follows suit. ★★★☆
