Now I know what you guys are thinking, "OMG! Not another fan-boy trying to tell people why their favourite game will sell more or be a better game." Luckily for you I won't be doing that. I will be talking from a non-players point of view. When I say I am a non player I mean I haven't played a Battlefield game before but I have played a bit of CoD before. I'm not a CoD fan-boy, I don't even like the game that much. So get into a good reading position and be prepared for an opinion.
Firstly I'm going to get some stuff off my chest so it doesn't affect my opinion. Yes I have played CoD (you should have read that part by now) but I'm not obsessed, I haven't been 'hooked' by the 'phenomenon''. I've never played the campaign, only multi-player. The multi-player is surprisingly addictive though. The matches are quick and most of the time you have no idea how you died until the kill cam reveals you ran over a perfectly hidden claymore and didn't get out of the blast zone fast enough.The main problem I have with it is how serious the players are. When they join team based play-lists they all whinge and complain when they get an assist. All you here is "You took my kill." When I join a team based play-list I don't care who gets the kill, I just care whether we win or lose. All I care about is if I help the team win or lose, hence the word 'Team' Deathmatch. Another problem I have with the CoD is that it dominates my friends list. In my friends list I scroll down the list and more then eighty percent will be playing CoD. It does make me feel sorry for other developers who have great games that aren't CoD. And in most people's case Call of Duty is the only game they play. They don't have the patience to sit through an RPG, all they want to do is shoot stuff. Anyway, I think I've got that off my chest, now I can start with my actual opinion. Please note that the things in brackets are optional reads, although you should know that by now. They are just kind of side notes, but I would read them anyway.
I'm going to get straight to the point. No matter how much you try to argue, everyone knows Modern Warfare 3 will sell more copies. Everyone knows the Call of Duty series. Either you have the game or you know about five people who have the game, maybe even 10 but I bet you can't name 10 people you know who have a Battlefield game. Well you probably can because there have been quite a few but you get where I'm coming from. What I'm simply saying is, Call of Duty is a more popular franchise. This is because of mainly one reason, advertisement. In Australia the games industry isn't that big or popular, we rarely see ads for games on TV and if we do see them they are during the morning when children's shows are on. What games would these be I wonder? If you guessed children's games then you are correct. Now going on the fact that there are little to no ads for video games in Australia, I tell you this. In Australia we have a state versus state Rugby League match called the State of Origin. This is a series of three games played each year between New South Wales and Queensland (Queensland has now won six years in a row but that's for another time). During game two, everytime there was an ad break, I saw an ad for Modern Warfare 3. I saw it so many times I had memorised what the man in the ad said by the time the match was over (The man said something like, "It doesn't take the world's most powerful nations to start a war, all it takes is the will of a single man." Yes I know, it's from the MW3 trailer). Did I see a single ad for Battlefield 3? If you guessed no then you are correct (I bet some of you are happy you are 2 from 2 for correct answers so far).
So let's think about something for a second. Let's say I am a parent and I see an ad on TV for Modern Warfare 3. If my son or daughter mentions Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3, which one will I know? I would know Modern Warfare 3 (anyone 3 from 3?). So then I would think, "hmm, that Modern Warfare 3 seems like a popular game and my son/ daughter has been talking about it. I suppose I'll go and buy it for him/her." So I go out to the shop and buy the game for him and give it to him/her for their birthday or Christmas etc. So which game is going to sell better thanks to advertising? Of course Modern Warfare 3 will.
On to the second topic in this debate, which game is better. I can't answer that and I don't think it is fair to compare them either. Both are completely different, sort of. Yes both are first person shooters and yes both have an online. But aren't there a lot of games in that category? For the debate as to which game is better we will have to look at it in the eyes of a critic or someone who is voting for game of the year. If you get game of the year then you would assume you had a great campaign and other modes. The game would also have to play good and look good. Where do you start your run for game of the year? With the campaign! Most FPSs are known for their short campaign but good multi-player (some are know for a short campaign and pathetic multi-player, but we won't talk about Homefront in this article). I'm pretty sure the people choosing game of the year couldn't care less if you had the best multi-player around. If you have a campaign that isn't even worth the time and money spent on the game and its engine etc. then don't even bother releasing the game.
What's in a good campaign? I'm glad you asked. I believe a good campaign has characters people can relate to, a gripping story of at least 10 to 15 hours on the default difficulty and is enjoyable. Now I know FPSs are known for their some what short campaigns but I think you can still make a good campaign that is only 10 hours long. Introduce characters and let us get closer to them quickly. Make us care for those characters and feel for them. You know you have made a good connection between audience and character if the audience is stunned and shocked if they die. In too many campaigns I don't get close enough to a character and if they get killed off I feel nothing. It's more like "Oh, they're dead. Oh well, let's keep moving." Halo: Reach is a good example of a relatively short campaign that still manages to make you feel for the characters. For the first few missions you get to know Noble team, then they start getting killed off as the battle for Reach hits its climax. I remember sitting, on my beanbag, shocked during one cutscene as Kat got shot randomly through her head by a Jackel with a needle rifle.
So to conclude on the campaign of Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3, I think whoever can produce a campaign that is gripping, fun to play and full of characters you get close to will probably be called the better game in critic's eyes. As for which game will be better, you shouldn't compare. Each game has their pros and cons, you will never find the perfect game.
To conclude the debate I will talk about fan-boys. If you go and look at any article about either game you will always find fan-boys from both games battling it out in the comments trying to tell others why their game is the best. I don't get why they do this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but usually that is a biased opinion. Unless you can give me a legitimate reason as to why one is 100% better then the other I won't care what you have to say. As stated above, each game will have good sections and bad sections, it is up to the developers to produce the best game they can. If they do this then there shouldn't be anything for the opposing fan-boys to say that makes their game 100% better. So a message to all fanboys, enough with trolling articles about why one game is better. If you really want to settle the debate, get someone to review both games and put up their scores, then you will have some real evidence to go off.
I hope you enjoyed reading. I bet your eyes are pretty sore by now. Feel free to leave your comments below to tell me what you think about the article and which game you will be buying and why. Also feel free to comment about anything else you saw in the article as well.
