Shooter showdown: 'Call of Duty' vs. 'Battlefield'
November 17, 2011
Two of this season’s most anticipated games are Electronic Arts’ “Battlefield 3” and Activision’s “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.” Fans of each have been very vocal about who was best equipped to win the shooter showdown. But in the end, you’ll need to decide what you’re aiming for before choosing which is best for you.
Here’s a quick rundown of how the games match up in several categories:
• Campaign: The “Battlefield” story line is more interesting and believable. “Call of Duty” delivers a story line that’s exciting, but a bit over the top.
• Mission structure: Both games offer plenty of missions that are well-conceived and downright thrilling. “Call of Duty” might get the blood pumping a little more briskly, though.
• Graphics: “Call of Duty” offers stunningly realistic characters, settings and effects at a much higher frame rate.
• Co-op: Both games offer special online co-op missions. However, “Call of Duty” gets major bonus points for allowing split-screen play — and for not forcing you to deal with difficult-to-fly helicopters. It also offers a terrific survival mode.
• Vehicles in multiplayer: Only “Battlefield” has them, and it offers everything from tanks to jets.
• Cheesy kills in multiplayer: In “Call of Duty,” an idiot with quick reflexes can still sprint through your hail of bullets and kill you with one quick stab. In addition, it appears that efforts to discourage camping and other frustrating habits have been a failure.
• Multiplayer: This is the deciding factor for most gamers — especially the legions who never bother to launch the campaign mode. Although both games offer a number of different game types, fans seem to be sticking to their old favorites: Team Death Match for “Call of Duty” and the objective-oriented Rush for “Battlefield.” Because of this, lone wolves are likely to prefer “Call of Duty” while team players will likely go with “Battlefield.”