Devil's Advocate: BF3 vs MW3 - The Truth Hurts

[zeroy]

Devil's Advocate: BF3 vs MW3 - The Truth Hurts

http://gon.cdn.on.net/screenshots/a/0/8054/2011-06-21/da_bf3vmw3.jpg

Anyone with at least one functioning eyeball will have noticed that there’s a bit of a war going on, and ironically it’s between the two most war-themed games of the year: Modern Warfare 3 (http://games.on.net/app/8221/) and Battlefield 3 (http://games.on.net/app/5812/). I’ve peered into my crystal ball, and the winner of this epic conflict has been revealed to me, that I may pass it on to you. I warn you though, you’re not going to like it. Yes - it’s Modern Warfare 3.

The thing is: battlefields are scary, complex places, and online games named after them are too. As much fun as it may be for you and a bunch of teamies to sling around in a tank, shredding all comers while your pilots scream by overhead, the reality is that when it comes to playing online the masses want to keep things simple. Classes and vehicles may add a beautiful depth and complexity to the game for those with the patience to learn them, but how many times have you screamed in rage as some random noob ignored your team completely and kamikazed their chopper into the ground two metres shy of the control point you’d worked so hard to take? How many times has some scrub medic on your team ignored your calls for help and charged headlong at a tank, hoping to pistol it to death? A lot? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

That, right there, is why Modern Warfare will always be top dog: simplicity.


READ more HERE (http://games.on.net/article/12932/Devils_Advocate_BF3_vs_MW3_-_The_Truth_Hurts)

[zeroy]

Its a very good article, to the point and i accept his verdicts and most of what is said in it. The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that BF3 is out to take COD of the throne; This is untrue and even Riticello himself said this was not the aim. He said that they want BF3 to take down COD a notch or three, which is realistic.

The truth doesnt hurt in my case as I always knew what the author is speaking of with "simplicity" in the COD games. What do i care anyway, do i want to see the mass of COD pre-teens/teens invading the BF3 servers with their potty mouths? no I dont http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Pendragon]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about I'll get both games and play both. This simply isn't a one or the other thing.

If winning is the object I think MW3 will make more money. As for game play we have very little real idea. We can look at MW I & II as well as Blops as a guide so I guess that the game play will be very solid. It is more difficult with BF3 because BF2 is now ancient history and BC2 wasn't quite the same game... The new engine looks very very nice but until we get our hands on we truly don't know.

The big money is made with the consoles, CoD will always win there.


This said I don't much care how much money they make I'm only interested in if me and my clan mates can have a good time on a Sunday evening getting drunk swearing at each other!

[Misnomer]

It amazes me how sour console gamers are at the fact that:

1. BF3 will have other features on PC (64 players).
2. It will look worse on console.

Quite honestly, this has been the case for many COD games up to this point as well. COD4 and 5 there were servers running over 40 people (not a good idea, but was done). There were mods and that meant that people were playing custom Zombie maps or Star Wars mods.... features consolers couldn't have. I haven't bought a COD since W@W though so I can't really speak to what features those might have had that were impossible on console. But none of these were advertised so I guess most console guys didn't know they were missing out.

COD games have been run at higher graphics on PCs too. PC can run them at full 1080p with higher FOV and higher framerate. Probably just the level of antialiasing goes beyond what is possible on consoles. So guess what....you've been playing inferior games this entire time...though they were designed with your limited systems in mind first. Really it seems they just want someone to tell them they are still special more than anything.

The other thing this article leaves out is that this will be the first Battlefield with TDM. That is no small thing as this type of play was never really there in the BF franchise until BC2's SQDM. The people who are frustrated with vehicles and teamwork the way he described, will be playing TDM. I imagine that will be the case especially on console. I still think he underestimates the number of people who want to play gametypes like Rush and Conquest. A lot of DICE's work in the past 3 interations of the series was making those game modes more and more accessible. Why does everyone on console forget that they bought Battlefield 1943 in droves and made it very successful?

The whole article reeks of the bitterness around the internet from console players finally realizing their 5 year old boxes just can't keep finding ways to make games prettier. No matter what Carmack says, there is a limit and BF3 has finally shown it to them rather than giving them half truths like Crysis 2.

[zeroy]

I agree Pen, a lot of people think the same when it comes to how much money these titles will make. I do however think that the success (or failure?) of BF3 will somewhat pave the way for what's next in our FPS Shooter genra or at least have some influence on it. On PC at least, we could well see the downfall of a giant (COD) ....

[Neil]

It amazes me how sour console gamers are at the fact that:

1. BF3 will have other features on PC (64 players).
2. It will look worse on console.



I don't think it is a case of the game looking worse but that it doesn't look good as the PC game. The game still looks good on console.


The other thing this article leaves out is that this will be the first Battlefield with TDM. That is no small thing as this type of play was never really there in the BF franchise until BC2's SQDM. The people who are frustrated with vehicles and teamwork the way he described, will be playing TDM. I imagine that will be the case especially on console. I still think he underestimates the number of people who want to play gametypes like Rush and Conquest. A lot of DICE's work in the past 3 interations of the series was making those game modes more and more accessible. Why does everyone on console forget that they bought Battlefield 1943 in droves and made it very successful?

I also mentioned TDM to zeroy on twitter which will allow those who aren't into team work to play some mindless fraging and leave the more competitive, team oriented players to play rush and conquest.


The whole article reeks of the bitterness around the internet from console players finally realizing their 5 year old boxes just can't keep finding ways to make games prettier. No matter what Carmack says, there is a limit and BF3 has finally shown it to them rather than giving them half truths like Crysis 2.

Agreed. I suppose going by what the writer says that people should give up and surrender to COD because it simple. What a load of rubbish. From the last instalment of COD it actually got more complicated if you take into account the deep customisation of guns etc.

[zeroy]

2. It will look worse on console.

Are you implying that the game looks bad on PC? :p

You are correct on the consoler being mad at BF3 on their platform, the 720p / 30FPS didnt go down too well either when its the case for 95% of titles on PS3/XBOX360...

A good read on that BTW HERE (http://t.co/4BVz1hB).

[Misnomer]

Thanks for the link Zeroy that was a good read. It reminded me that I had read somewhere that COD runs at 600p...or as your link pointed out "less than 720p." The hardware then scales up the image to 720p. Though it is not official, this link (http://www.vgreleases.com/News-82729.aspx)reports ""COD4 X360 = 1024x600p 2xAA again...
COD4 PS3 = 1024x600p 2xAA too..."

Other searches I ran found the same thing, though nothing official. Seems that the fault in DICE marketing, like the audio thing in BC2 was giving people numbers when they have no real context for them. They seem to know COD runs at 60 FPS, but without any real knowledge of what makes that possible.

Anyway, I have a strange feeling that DICE showed on PS3 because it is more powerful than the XBOX 360. When the first Xbox 360 vids hit, I have a feeling all the hate directed at DICE for being PC centric will find a new and more Sony oriented direction. XBOX 360 may just get even more reputation for being home of the COD.

[Neil]

Thanks for the link Zeroy that was a good read. It reminded me that I had read somewhere that COD runs at 600p...or as your link pointed out "less than 720p." The hardware then scales up the image to 720p. Though it is not official, this link (http://www.vgreleases.com/News-82729.aspx)reports ""COD4 X360 = 1024x600p 2xAA again...
COD4 PS3 = 1024x600p 2xAA too..."

Other searches I ran found the same thing, though nothing official. Seems that the fault in DICE marketing, like the audio thing in BC2 was giving people numbers when they have no real context for them. They seem to know COD runs at 60 FPS, but without any real knowledge of what makes that possible.

Anyway, I have a strange feeling that DICE showed on PS3 because it is more powerful than the XBOX 360. When the first Xbox 360 vids hit, I have a feeling all the hate directed at DICE for being PC centric will find a new and more Sony oriented direction. XBOX 360 may just get even more reputation for being home of the COD.

To be honest I think when it comes to consoles DICE prefer to showcase games on the PS3 than the 360. They did the same for BC2 where most console footage was the PS3.

[zeroy]

To be honest I think when it comes to consoles DICE prefer to showcase games on the PS3 than the 360. They did the same for BC2 where most console footage was the PS3.

I cant find a link but i remember DICE saying that the 360 version just wasnt quite ready for E3...

[Tobi54]

They chose the PS3 because they get more juice out of it due to it's SPU's, something XBOX360 doesn't have.

http://se.linkedin.com/in/christinacoffin

http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/spubased-deferred-shading-in-battlefield-3-for-playstation-3

Notice that even though PC is lead for BF3, DICE is still maximizing each platform individually, I seriously doubt the same can be said about COD.

As for the article, IMO it's getting way too much unearned attention, we have all known that MW3 will outsell BF3 no matter what, simplicity or not.

It is this vein that keeps Call of Duty alive, this seam of precious cashmoney just waiting to be mined with the right, carefully-crafted multi-million dollar video-game pickaxe. It’s worse than ever this year, with EA and DICE going out of their way to talk up how much of a PC game Battlefield 3 is going to be, and how faithful it is to the legacy that came before it. Really, guys? Admirable intentions, but if they’re hoping to actually dislodge Activision from the throne then they’ve basically shot themselves in the foot: taking what is already innately less accessible gameplay and polishing it until it shines.... on the least accessible platform.


Most, if not all the PC talk has been coming from DICE, and guess what? As a dev, I'm sure they're worried about making a better game than the competition, not one that sells more, let EA worry about that. As a gamer, and in this case a PC gamer, I worry about how good the game is, not how much it sells. I love how "winning" means selling more at least according to this article, if that's the case, I'll be playing the loser this holiday season, on "the least accesible platform" which so happens to be moving the FPS genre into the next generation, no mention of that in the article right? I mean why would gamers care about things like that, when there's more important things to worry about, like sale numbers.

[zeroy]

Notice that even though PC is lead for BF3, DICE is still maximizing each platform individually, I seriously doubt the same can be said about COD.

If you take BlackOps they have optimized the PC version, just not on time! We are at patch number 9 or 10 now for PC and a number of them introduced some optimization. Would have preferred those to be in retail version though... :rolleyes:

[zeroy]

I love how "winning" means selling more at least according to this article, if that's the case, I'll be playing the loser this holiday season, on "the least accesible platform" which so happens to be moving the FPS genre into the next generation, no mention of that in the article right? I mean why would gamers care about things like that, when there's more important things to worry about, like sale numbers.

You are ommiting the most important part... whoever "wins" the most sales will also be the one deemed the "most popular" and therefor remain the benchmark for the game industry on FPS Shooters.... The article, while stating the obvious touches on something important and this is to describe today's main audience and their request for simplicity in games. Im not from that group so no i dont care whether MW3 wins or not, i'll be playing BF3 for its gameplay if its up to scratch and the main reason for me is teamplay and scale of the game.

[Tobi54]

If you take BlackOps they have optimized the PC version, just not on time! We are at patch number 9 or 10 now for PC and a number of them introduced some optimization. Would have preferred those to be in retail version though... :rolleyes:

I can agree on optimization, but what I meant was that it was not built for the PC from the ground up, it was built for XBOX and then ported, it is still a DX9 game if I'm not mistaken. This is just from a PC perspective, but I would bet money they also bypassed SPU optimization for the PS3, I read long time ago COD seems to perform better on XBOX360 than PS3, but I could be wrong.

[Tobi54]

You are ommiting the most important part... whoever "wins" the most sales will also be the one deemed the "most popular" and therefor remain the benchmark for the game industry on FPS Shooters.... The article, while stating the obvious touches on something important and this is to describe today's main audience and their request for simplicity in games. Im not from that group so no i dont care whether MW3 wins or not, i'll be playing BF3 for its gameplay if its up to scratch and the main reason for me is teamplay and scale of the game.

The same could have been said about Guitar Hero vs Rockband, we all know how that turned out. At this point IMO it's more about brand name than anything else, DICE could copy paste MW3 and call it something else and it wouldn't still sell as much because it doesn't have COD in the title. I understand about popularity and unit sales, but in order to achieve that, the game needs to appeal to a greater demographic and you do that by dumbing down the game, bring in as many casuals as possible. What bothers me about the article is that they are making it out to be a bad thing that DICE has gone the way they chose to. As a gamer I'm glad someone is moving the genre forward instead of making the same game year after year, there's only so many times you can get away with it, and if anything the gaming media started picking up on it, let's see how long it takes for the masses to wake up. IMO DICE has a winner with BF3, it might win the popularity contest everyone seems to be so worried about this year, but I think it could be a shifting point for the industry in the next 2 or 3.

[GaSplat]

BFx (and other class based games where team play is critical and classes have unique and critical roles) will always suffer the bane of smaktards. Those on a clan server can usually get a better game but the masses usually reflect a very high idiot factor which can be frustrating. That is CoD's edge in terms of mass appeal and general public servers that don't have a strong clan precense.

[woowoo]

Like others have said I can't find much to disagree with in the article - it rings of the truth. He also makes a good point - if you're reading this article then you're the type of person who would enjoy BF3. That irony has to drive the competitors of Call of Duty bonkers. You might have the better game, have better options, but CoD has such mind share that its difficult to get past.

But with persistence, it possible.