Konnichiwa (Ko-nee-chee-wa. Also mean hello when translated to English from Japanese) gamer's from around the globe.
Yes we finally have our reviews and verdict on the two games that are going head to head with each other they are Call of Duty; Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3, so sit back and get comfy for the reviews of the two most anticipated games of the year.
First off we start with Battlefield 3 as this was release first.
The Story Mode
Battlefield story mode is really smooth, with the new FrostBite 2.0 game engine to build the game, the game play is amazing with clear views to see around for miles making the realism of the game impressive, not only that the physics are out of this world. The weather that our world (the real) has is now in the virtual world now. Of course physics in game is nothing new, but they have limits and can only go to a certain extent, which from the game engine I have seen only the FrostBite 2.0 engine can go over the boundaries.
Even the guns are realistic, they look great and you have to aim a couple of centimeters off to be accurate with some of the guns, which is the same in real life.
While the lighting and sound in Battlefield 3 was uniformly excellent, the campaign experience was frequently marred by visual kinks and bugs.
In the time we spent with the game, we witnessed anomalies such as floating corpses, troops that sprinted at snail's pace and one instance in which our entire platoon entered a combat area by walking through a closed fire-escape door.
EA has told us that it is aware of these glitches and that patches and updates are forthcoming. But for now, we have to note that, due to the fact that Battlefield 3's overall experience puts such a premium on realism, it's alarming how often the game we were to review pulls the player out of the proceedings with glitches that break the fourth wall.
It's a short, bland affair shot through with an uninteresting story – which seems bizarre when you consider it's about missing nukes and marines searching for terrorists in the Middle East. There are a couple of note-worthy levels – a gun battle on the streets of Tehran, which escalates to Michael Bay-worthy proportions, and a dogfight in an F-18 are two high points. But for the most part, players will find themselves hurtling down corridors, moving from one uninspired gun-battle to the next.
Perhaps the worst aspect of the campaign, though, is how rigid, scripted and restrictive it feels when compared to the game's multiplayer. There are precious few instances where the open, multi-purpose style of play from the online mode is applicable – or even allowed – in the campaign.
There are also a couple of instances where the game's realistic elements eat into the player's enjoyment of the proceedings. After a while, they may become fed up with being unable to see opponents who are a few metres away due to the amount of dust their firefight has thrown up. This, by the way, doesn't impair the vision of the AI, which at times strikes at the player with laser-guided accuracy, and at others, seems to be unaware of them when they're emptying a clip into their compatriots from close range.
The Multiplier Part
Battlefield 3 makes the player feel like they're engaged in an ongoing ground war, Better Than any other war game I have ever played, MAG being the closest, and Cod fans may think different but really... quick scoping are you kidding, yep I can see English troop/American troops running around in Afghanistan with their sniper rifle, or throw a grenade, tomahawk etc across a field something daft, I also hardly think a solider will jump off a building doing a 360 spin tring to knife their enemy, so please COD fan boy/girls do one, it is a realistic as Wigan athletic winning the English Premier League.
So anyways back to our online part of the review, in Battlefield you can arrive in the conflict zone via a spawn point or parachute, players are immediately aware of the size and scope of the battle zones they'll be traversing. They could drop in right in the middle of a gun-battle, or land near a couple of vehicles and have to cross some distance to pick a fight.
The action, when it comes, is strange and frighteningly realistic; players are advised to take in the contents of their surroundings when the echoing pops of gunfire sound off, as tactics, cover and high ground can all be crucial factors in establishing supremacy in any gun battle.
This isn't CoD, where a fast-paced, close-quarters run-and-gun fragfest is the order of the day. This is the Battlefield experience gone widescreen; it's an open, realistic affair where teamwork is encouraged, vehicles are available and maps are meticulously constructed to allow different styles of play to coexist.
The thing I like about the Mutiplayer is that it has less to do with soldier classes, match types and unlockables, and more to do with creating your own moments of brilliance – either solo or with your teammates – in the combat zone. The sense of freedom and potential for improvisation is the best thing about Battlefield 3.
The biggest franchise in the gaming history hit our selves on the 8th November (yes pretty late for a review but due to working commitments and other things their has been a delay.
The Mid-Night Launch
We went to the mid-night launch and was amazed on how many people was their, (Game store in wigan) their seems to be more people turning up every year, we recon the was about 350 people at the mid-night launch that was excluding the Queue we could see wait for the copy at Gamestation, and we was 31st in the Queue at Game. At 11:30 the store manager at game let us punters in to get us sorted if we want to trade any games in etc, and all was brill and organized, the Queue was moved into postion and the staff played their part to as they dressed up-ish, some was in army uniforms, some had a dash off camouflage on their face, look perfect. All was looking good as the clocks ticked by and went really quick, and as 12:01 hit the game was on sale, awesome.
The game has been seen on our TV's for sometime now maybe 1/2 months before release, but to be honest the advertisement was less interesting, just infomation that you was after Makarov, and that was it really nothing that would make you go wow like the advertisement from EA Games for Battlefield 3, not just that Call Of duty; modern Warfare 3 is still using a older game engine, nothing new compare to the mighty frostbite 3 engine, but will people really care. I think Modern warfare 3 will be interesting to see what the Infinity Ward / Sledgehammer Games have done with the game, due to the lawsuit and everything bad that has gone on revolving round Modern Warfare 2 we can only expect that this game will be rushed and thing to be glitchy as hell, so we can expect that not alot of time has been spent creating the game... but your wrong read on to find out what.
The Story Mode
Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games have refined and polished the Modern Warfare experience to produce the best of the series with the third installment. The game comes to us used by a older engine, but still looks great, not got the bugs and school boy error stuff, like you saw on on Battlefield 3. At any given time the screen appears ready to burst with effects and visual madness. Entire battles are waged before you; buildings burn and crumble while a steady flow of explosions batter your senses. This is Call of Duty, and Modern Warfare 3 collects these moments of boom in abundance, presenting them in all their 60 frames-per-second glory.
Modern Warfare hits high and low points just like its previous titles like Modern Warfare 1 and 2. The game has amazing set pieces and backdrops for the huge firefights that you get in the game. The Game also test you awareness at times which I had to strongly adapt to as I like to running like a idiot and shooting the hell of the place, the thing I liked about the game was that the game play always got mixed up in different situations which kept it interesting, unlike Battlefield 3. The game causes a formidable challenge for those that like to play it on veteran or hardened difficulty setting, which for the first time ever I attempted to do and won.
Yes this game is shaping up to be a huge success and sounds two good to be true for a Call Of Duty game, and it is to good to be true. Modern Warfare 3 campaign still suffers from the run of the mill story, a common shooter ailment that occurs when infinitely spawning enemies pour from around corners, doors and stairs without end. At loads of points in the game the enemies appear to have a complete disregard of their own safety and will run strait past your allies and just try to shoot you in the face, because of this, it kinda makes you feel that your squad mates are as useful as a wet paper bag. The game is hard to follow, you don't know what is going on. one minute you are after Makarov, then you are after the President Of The United States, to his daughter, like come on what unit is after what! This is normal for a Call Of Duty game tho, it isn't ultimately all that interesting or satisfying. Moments of emotional weight fell flat as I found it difficult to muster up feelings of sadness about the death of one named soldier after witnessing the countless deaths of hundreds of other Americans.
Okey the Campaign sounds bad and the ending is cheesy and the whole game is messed up and muddled up, but one thing about it which is important to me, is that I enjoyed and I completed it on veteran (most people would say the game is easy)
The multiplayer has been reworked, with new challenges to complete, new maps, new game modes, new special ops survival mode mode, new perks etc, they have done loads, which is where Battlefield 3 went so wrong in their multiplayer. Some of the rewards you're constantly unlocking perks and guns etc, which is why call of duty still makes it interesting and keeps you glued to it, which don't help if you have other commitments such as a girlfriend or boyfriend for example. No matter whether you play for five minutes or five hours, multiplayer in Modern Warfare 3 always makes you feel like I've accomplished something.
Killstreaks have also been reworked into Strike Packages to bring a better sense of balance and reward to all types of players. You still unlock abilities in Strike Packages by getting kills, but now you can specialize your killstreak rewards so they suit your playstyle. If you're not the type who goes on huge streaks and you're not always watching your kill/death ratio, you can take a Support Strike Package. This package doesn't have rewards that are as offensively-focused as the Assault package, but all kills carry over between spawns. This gives less-skilled players a way to contribute to the fight, and will hopefully give clans and groups ways to better specialize their players into a cohesive team unit. It's a great new feature, and showcases how Call of Duty offers one of the most varied multiplayer shooter experiences around.
The controls feels great and adds to the wow factor which Call Of Duty's have always done, I have only one thing to say for the mutiplayer. IT ROCKS.
yes the Call Of Duty campaign may let it down, but their are not many player that will get the game for the story, it is mainly for the one play where they can annoy other people by shooting the hell out of them and having a great time with friends, the thing I like about Call Of Duty is the social side off it, I'm in a group that started on Call Of Duty, made one friend on the game then it turned to many, I enjoy Call Of Duty cause it is a world I can escape to and enjoy it having a laugh etc, where as on Battlefield 3, I don't think I ever heard anyone say a word.
I think by reading the reviews you really know who is about to win the battle.... Yes its Call Of Duty.
Call Of Duty is just good, that is not just what we say, it is fact and we have fact s to prove it.
- Within 24 hours of going on sale, Call Of Duty sold 6.5 million copies in the US and UK alone and grossed $400 million, making it the biggest entertainment launch of all time.
- Battlefield sold 5 million copies in its week
So do I think that Battlefield has what it takes to beat Call Of Duty... well no.
In the story mode I found (from a rookie games designer such as myself) many building have been messed up with their Static meshes. (objects to people that have never used a game engines to make games or 3D designs) If you get chance to look at the buildings you will find like a lighter glow, something that looks like it is not supposed to be there. This is due to putting two or more static meshes together, that are not the right scale (size) or collide when the mesh has breached the outer line of the mesh which creates a glow in a way, this to me is a rookie mistake and with the how big these mistakes are they was hard to is and the testers should have really mention this. A big rookie mistake.
Battlefield 3 was supposed to bring down CoD, and without a campaign – which seems to be DICE's approximation of a CoD experience – this wouldn't have been possible. This is unfortunate, because the instances in which DICE seem to have tried to beat their rivals at their own game have resulted in Battlefield 3's weakest content.
Where they've ignored their competitor completely and stuck to what they do best, they've created one of the finest experiences in the medium. There's a lesson in that somewhere…
Would I recommend this game? No
Will it beat Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3? Not in a million years
Well done Call Of Duty; Modern Warfare 3