Modern Warfare 3 V Battlefield 3 Screen Comparison
Modern Warfare 3’s first gameplay trailer is now available, so we stack it up against Battlefield 3 to see how the two compare. Will EA’s impressive engine outperform the next Call Of Duty, or is Activision going to retain its crown as the King of FPS?
Both shots display a panoramic view of the opening area, but Battlefield 3’s looks more CGI than the in-game view of wartorn New York from Modern Warfare 3. There’s definitely more action happening in Modern Warfare 3, but since they’re establishing shots it’s difficult to pass judgement.
Battlefield 3 is already known for its impressive destruction, but Modern Warfare 3 shows it can match that at least. It’s definitely more dramatic, as the tower is literally leaning over on top of us. It’s clear that Battlefield 3 is in-game and hard to tell if Modern Warfare 3 is a cut-scene or will happen right in front of us, but the detail in Modern Warfare 3 is very impressive.
The lighting of Battlefield 3 is so much more impressive than Modern Warfare 3’s here. This is perhaps the best example of Call Of Duty’s aging engine, since the patchy lighting – and a few ugly textures, too – prove that DICE have done well in forging such a gorgeous engine with Frostbite.
Again this screenshot shows a handful of quite low-res textures for Modern Warfare 3. There’s more detail in many of the floors and walls in Battlefield 3, but the character models are considerably better in Modern Warfare 3. The wrists, in particular, prove this: Battlefield 3’s look fake while Modern Warfare 3’s is more believable.
Battlefield 3 is the clear winner here, with much better lighting and modelling. Most noticable is how the light pours onto the right-hand wall in the Battlefield 3 image, while Modern Warfare 3 is bathed in much less believable lighting. Similarly, Battlefield 3’s attention to detail is better: the crates are stacked in an realistically hurried manner, while the only additional clutter in Modern Warfare 3 is a couple of dumpsters.
Once again, the lighting in Battlefield 3 is a bright glare, as you’d expect a high Arabian sun to be, which really helps make a realistic scene. The character models are better in the Modern Warfare 3 image, but the rest of its textures, lighting and models are just far to simplistic.
The models of the two heavy weapons here are both great quality, but Modern Warfare 3 just pushes it with its attention to detail. However, Battlefield 3 still impresses with its use of smoke and fire particle effects, which are much smoother and more believable than Modern Warfare 3, which appears to use very bland textures for these effects.
Okay, so one is third-person and the other is first, but even still it shows which has a closer attention to detail. Look at the wall or floor in Modern Warfare 3: a really bland, low-resolution texture that appears to have zero bump-mapping. Any of Battlefield 3’s terrain textures, however, show variety and realism at every point, from the roads and earth to the pipe in the foreground.
Both shots have a high level of detail, from the window panels in Modern Warfare 3 to the air conditioning of Battlefield 3. Similarly, there’s is a lot of clutter decorating the area, giving both scenes a believability. As seems to be commonplace, though, Battlefield 3’s impressive lighting adds much more to its world.
And, again, the lighting as a realism to Battlefield 3 that Modern Warfare 3’s creaky shadows and textures just can’t seem to match. Of course, Modern Warfare 3’s shot is taken from an on-rails section – so the scene would be better in motion – but regardless, the believability is the key here.