Deathmatch: ‘Battlefield 3’ vs. ‘Modern Warfare 3’

  • Share
  • Read Later

Graphics

Battlefield 3 looks amazing. Development studio DICE argues that its brand-spanking new “Frostbite 2” engine leads the way forward to the next generation of gameplay experiences and it’s hard not to agree after seeing the game in person. Everything in BF3‘s visuals–character animations, crumbling destruction, lighting filters and effects–make the experience look hyper-real and hypnotizing.

But Battlefield 3 has been shown almost exclusively on a PC every time I’ve seen it. While the PC version of BF3 runs at a speedy 60 frames/second at 1080p, DICE’s Johan Anderson tweeted that the console versions will run at 30 fps at 720p to keep things stable and detailed.

Modern Warfare 3 consistently runs at 60 fps on consoles and PCs, and it looks much, much better than a majority of other games. Still, there’s a sameness that can’t be denied in the graphical style.

The textures look improved but character movements still have that slightly exaggerated, jittery look to them. The lighting looks a little better, too, but MW3 didn’t have the visual wow factor that EA’s game does.

Advantage: Battlefield 3

Gameplay

For sheer adrenaline-fueled craziness, Modern Warfare 3 appears to be pulling out all the stops. The single player levels I’ve seen so far–the “Hunter-Killer” level shown at Microsoft’s E3 press conference and “Mind the Gap,” shown behind closed doors– channel the high-octane, summer blockbuster-style action.

Hunter-Killer’s underwater detonation opening created tension that mounted into a cat-and-mouse submarine gunfight. The action eventually climaxed in a gunboat chase threaded through battleships in New York City’s Hudson River. At the end of the level, the camera lingers on the skyline of downtown Manhattan being bombarded by enemy fighter jets. It’s a fearsome scene.

alt alt
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5