Battlefield 3: Why Beating Modern Warfare 3 Isn't Important

The Battlefield 3 versus Modern Warfare 3 smackdown is incoming, and from all the hype that is being heaped upon both games, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this particular battle is to determine the fate of the earth, or something. 

It isn’t, it’s just two similarly themed games launching within a week of one another and if you boil both titles down to base level, neither of them do anything that revolutionary or different. 

OK, mybe not revolutionary, but it really looks nice doesn't it?

Put your cocked assault rifle down gamers, I’m not saying that either game is crap, and yes Battlefield 3 looks visually stunning, but visuals alone don’t make for a solid experience. It’s what’s beneath the gloss that counts, and speaking objectively, both titles owe a lot to their predecessors.

Anyway, this is a discussion best left for another blog, as we’re actually here to look at the prospect of Battlefield 3 toppling Modern Warfare 3 from its perch.

It’s a funny topic because whenever someone says to me on Twitter, “Hey, Battlefield is going to destroy Modern Warfare 3 this year”, I have literally no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

Do they mean in terms of sales? Because I can tell you right now that Modern Warfare 3 is going to slaughter Battlefield 3 in the money stakes.

This is just hard logic at the end of the day, because Call of Duty is still a powerhouse franchise, globally recognised by every gamer, their granny and their pet dog. 

You can’t buy visibility like that with money alone. It takes time, several yearly instalments, and the rise of cultural facets like memes, slang and more to reach that particular level of notoriety. We’re talking about coined terms like ‘noob tube’ here. What terms or instantly recognisable cultural icons has Battlefield 3 spawned? 

Could this move go viral? 'Noob Vaulting'?

Nothing really springs to mind does it? But again, please bear with me when I say that I’m not favouring one game over the other, as I’m going to buy them both, and put many hours and late nights into each of them.

I just think it’s a tad bullish to suggest that Battlefield 3 will out perform a series that currently holds the “Fastest selling entertainment launch ever” record.

But perhaps they mean Battlefield 3 will out do Modern Warfare 3 in critical terms? This is something that will come right down to the wire, although I feel too many critics will be blinded by the snazzy visuals and gloss over any cracks they come across. 

Both games are assured to perform well at review, but I reckon Battlefield 3 will still pip Modern Warfare 3 at the post thanks to the multiplayer component.

Call of Duty’s online arena has always been a breeding ground for lone wolf tactics, and thanks to the rise of Battlefield’s popularity over the last ten years, that attitude simply won’t wash with some gamers.

When you finish a game of Battlefield and you come out the other end victorious, you always know that it was because your team functioned well as a unit; healing each other, restocking ammo, spotting enemies and more. There is a genuine sense of dissatisfaction to losing a hard-fought game of Battlefield that doesn’t ring true in Call of Duty titles.

The respawn production line in full tilt.

With Modern Warfare games the production line mentality is king. You die, you respawn, you die, you respawn, you die and you respawn again.

Then you lose the match, and you restart, lose the next match, and restart, and so on. There’s no real gut-punch to losing a round, well, certainly not to the extent of Battlefield anyway.

When you run around solo, fighting your personal lone wolf war in Call of Duty, it’s your own fault if you end the round with a crap kill death ratio, nobody else’s. It isn’t the same as putting a combined effort into a game of Battlefield and despite all your best coordination, failing to win.

But when you work together effectively and utterly stomp your opponents in Battlefield, it feels brilliant. Not, “I spammed killstreaks on Nuketown to get 60 kills in Call of Duty” brilliant, but genuinely rewarding, and that will be what sets the two games apart in the longer term. 

That said, Modern Warfare 3 goes a long way to create a teamwork ethic, and if you play as a functioning team online, you will become virtually unstoppable.

It actually works well, but too few people actually take the time to work together. For those who have long since converted to the Battlefield series, this shift in focus could be a case of too little too late.

This is what money actually looks like.

Facing facts, Modern Warfare 3 is going to sell significantly more than Battlefield this year, even with all of DICE and EA’s stunning trailers and increased marketing campaigns.

But then again, every revolution starts with a single step, and this could just be the year that Activision’s reign at the top begins to wobble in a big way.

Hype aside, competition on this scale is always good for the industry, and with the developers of both franchises striving to make the best games that they can, it’s ultimately the gamers who win.

So will DICE defeat Modern Warfare this year? In an altogether, financial sense no, but rest assured, Battlefield 3 will be the start of something very beautiful indeed.

More Battlefield 3 on NowGamer:

• Battlefield 3 Beta vs MW3
• Battlefield 3: Why Beating Modern Warfare 3 Isn't Important
• Battlefield 3 Beta Xbox 360 HD Screenshot Gallery
• Battlefield 3 Xbox 360 Beta Has Low-Res Textures
• Battlefield 3 Recommended PC System Specs Revealed
• BF3 Pre-Orders Reach 1.5 Million, Sales Will Slow With MW3 Release