I am excited for both BF3 and MW3 this holiday. I plan to purchase both games for the PC. Unfortunately, message boards everywhere are overrun with people declaring BF3 to be the better game of the two, even though both games aren't out yet. Their argument typically revolves around the same few points:
1. Call of Duty is not innovative.
By that argument, one can say that Counter-Strike and its successors, Condition Zero and Source, are not particularly innovative in terms of gameplay either. Yet you see few people bashing the archaic gameplay found in both sequels. Why? Because the gameplay works. It's fast, fun, and furious. Why should anyone bother changing what isn't broken?
Call of Duty is famous for its run-and-gun gameplay, killstreaks, perks, and weapons that have little recoil. The number of copies it sells each year is an indication that the core gameplay is fine and needs little tweaking or adjustment. There is really no need to change the formula. It works, and it is fun enough that people are willing to keep buying sequels.
2. Activision is evil and greedy.
The hate against Call of Duty began when PC gamers starting raging about the lack of dedicated servers for MW2. Mind you, this wasn't Activision's fault to begin with - Infinity Ward itself decided that dedicated servers weren't going to be included. What makes Activision "evil" in any rational or moral sense? Have they stolen your dog? Peed on your carpet? Sold you a product that nearly killed you? No. To you, they are evil because they are selling a product that is too popular and not "innovative enough" for your narrow prejudices to appreciate.
I can find no incidence in Activision's behavior which can be categorized as "evil". If anything, people are putting them in that category just so that they can elevate the whole "BF3 vs. MW3" rivalry as if this commercial struggle between two video game publishers can be equated with the battle between good and evil to further sensationalize the topic. It's a video game, damn it, not a presidential election.
What about EA? Are they really the guardian angels of gaming? Did they listen to their community just for the sake of advancing gaming to some higher level of nirvana? No! They did it to generate positive buzz and drive sales for their product.
Furthermore, I have no doubt that EA will start selling map-packs on the scale that Activision does once BF3 is released. Which publisher will be more greedy then?
Both publishers are in this business to make money - there is little else to it. No company is more "evil" than the other. They are just groups of people among dozens of other groups harking their wares in the background of commerce.
3. Conclusion - This rivalry, and discussion of it, is a silly thing.
In the end, people want to play a good, fun game which will keep them and their friends entertained for hours on end. No game, be it BF3 or MW3 is better than each other in that regard. Some people may deviate more towards one game or another based on personal preferences. But ultimately, both products are just games - bits and pieces of fantasies put together for personal enjoyment.
Whether a game is truly "better" than another is up to the gamers for themselves to decide, not a group of fanboys.
I look forward to playing both BF3 and MW3 this holiday, so see you gentlemen on the battlefield (no pun intended).
Log in to comment