Thursday, September 22, 2011

Call Of Duty MW3 VS Battlefield

Being a first person shooter fan, I am about to open a can of worms. The feud between Call of Duty and competitors is huge. Last year the competition depended on Medal of Honor (another EA title) to compete with Call of Duty Black Ops, and it squarly failed. Black Ops was a far better game, and even though Medal of Honor had a 2 month jump on Black Ops it still couldnt keep its players. The main reason was Medal of Honor while fun, didnt feel refined. The entire game was just sort of flat. Now fast forward a year, Call of Duty haters are abound. It seems to have actually become popular to hate a good game. EA is claiming that Battlefield 3 is a Call Of Duty killer. claiming that EA will cut Activisions fan base in half in the first year. These are big words...... but lets look at EA.

EA - Elecrtonic Arts. My former employer, and considered by many to be the evil empire of video games. Lets look at their past in the First person shooter Genre. 2 series in particular stand out for me on EA's resume. First Medal of Honor. This game helped create the first person shooter genre, and as far as I can remember was one of the first, if not the first to venture onto a console. They had a dynasty with this game, and with its Battlefield series (PC only). But they made a big mistake, they became complacant. They where the big dog and they knew it. When it came to first person Warfare video games EA was the king. This gave Activision the chance they needed, they took a shot directly for the Jugular and hit the mark.

Call of Duty while a PC release title came out to major acclaim and many people started playing this instead of Battlefront. Then Acclaim sealed the deal. Many companies still didnt take consoles serious. Major first person shooters ignored the consoles like the plague. Activision made Call of Duty 2 a first day release with the Xbox 360. This created a ton of hype, I remember sitting with a friend who bought a launch day 360 and playing Call Of Duty 2 for hours even after we beat it. This move Plus Activision using both Infinity Ward, and Treyarch both to make Call Of Duty games a huge advantage. Now 2 studios where making the game in a round Robin fashion, giving more time for both to develop and creat the game, and allowing Activision the ability to release a Call Of Duty every year.

Now I'm sure you want me to either defend, or put down either MW3 or Battlefield. Not going to happen here. I am buying both games, and playing both games. Then I will decide which one I will keep playing. I think this competition is great. It needs to exist, even as what some would call a Call Of Duty fan boy, I hope Battlefield does very well next month. The first person shooter genre needs the competition. When EA was on top they became complacant. Now that Activision is on top they are becoming complacant. The genre is starting to stagnate. Call of Duty clones abound, and everyone is trying to copy them instead of being innovative. So in short competition is needed, with the competition will come innovation. Hopefully breathing new life into a industry that has seemed very flat for a few years now.


  1. I have played MW2, then again more recently, Black Ops and I have not met a hacker all the time. Only one or two configurations FPS players use to remove some of the levels with a brush work.

  2. Mw2 was a great game but mw3 is such a good upgrade and offers so many cool new features.