User blog:Heatedpete/The fight begins...

NOTE: My personal, biased opinion on this subject is that BF3 will destroy MW3, but I'm trying to be unbiased for the sake of this blog.

It's the fight of the year. No, not David "Haymaker" Haye versus Wladimir Klitschko

So, we've been treated to the first taster of Modern Warfare 3, and Kotaku have published leaked information on MW3's singleplayer and multiplayer maps and storyline. But what does this do for our hopes for Battlefield 3 wrenching the crown of Best FPS from the hype-fest that is Call of Duty. So, let's go over some of the new details that have emerged over the past period:

Battlefield 3
The release of the 12 minute Fault Line trailer for Battlefield 3 was met with very good reception by the fans. On the Battlefield channel video, there have been 4 million views with 42,000 likes and a paltry 719 dislikes (we all know that CoD fanboys did those, don't we!). EA have continued their claims that the CoD crown will be taken by BF3 this year, and the pressure has been building on Activision as DICE plays their first hand.

We already know how AMAZING the Frostbite Engine is in the graphics and physics fields - no other main engine in the genre, save the CryEngine 3 (another EA engine), can combine almost photorealistic graphics, seamless animations and destruction mechanics in such a way. The sounds in the trailers shown run a shiver down my spine as I hear the M134 Miniguns on the AH-6 unload thousands of rounds down the main road, a tingling sensation as we hear the M136 rocket explode into the side of the hotel, and the shattering of the glass in the collapsing building seems too real for it to be a game. Who can tell what other tricks and suprises the guys at DICE have up their sleeves?

Modern Warfare 3
Now, we all know Activision's policy on games: Keep the punters guessing until release day, by which time they've bought the game. And it seems to go with the same trend this time around. All we get in the trailer are the same old green images on a black background that reveal none of the game's true nature. It was the same with the BF3 trailer, although here the images are a lot less clear to the eye. The logo, compared to Battlefield 3's crisp, clean logo, looks quite, to say, tacky. But that's my opinion. Others may see it different, others may agree with me. So be that.

Now, there have been rumours going around that IW (and the other developers working on the game) are planning on including some of the things that Battlefield have led the way in: Destruction, vehicles and large-scale maps. But these are yet to be confirmed, although Kotaku seems to think otherwise.

Also revealed by Kotaku were supposed details of the singleplayer campaign, as well as some screenshots of weapons and character models. Over 15 missions, with 5+ characters. Sounds to me like they could be falling into what I call the Medal of Honor trap - No exploration of the characters, and as a result creating a game with little connection and fluidity. Now, what other game jumped between timeframes, characters and locations at a very quick pace??? (Blops for those who can't guess)

So, it seems that the MW3 team is trying to rescue their stagnating series, but do they have the knowledge and skills to pull off a miracle and beat the guys who have been doing this for 9 years?

My views
OK, time to summarise what I'm getting from this pre-match buildup.

Battlefield 3 looks to have the upper hand here. We know that the game is solidly built, and with betas on the way, we can be certain that the game will be able to deliver the majority of it's gameplay bug-free. The game's engine already looks better than the MW3 engine, which still looks like CoD4, and the sound is going to be very difficult for MW3 to beat, considering we haven't even heard jets in any real way yet.

The rumours about MW3 having destruction seems to me to be very bad for the series. Considering the prevelance of noob-tubers, possible stand-alone Grenade Launchers (if the Kotaku screenshots are to be believed) and explosive killstreaks, this could be very bad for anyone taking cover behind what they thought was a perfectly solid wall.

Vehicles also seem to be very, very bad for anyone wanting a decent game. Without dedicated anti-tank units, such as BC2's Engineer kit, and little useage of launchers in most matches, vehicles seem to be a definate kill source for players, and with experience from WaW, if one side gets control of both tanks on a map, then it's game over if no-one has any AT launchers. IW's possible introductions seem to promote the non-team nature of CoD, and who knows what glitchers could do with a 120mm smoothbore cannon and an elevator glitch...

So, what are your views on the two games? Please comment nicely below, and any flame wars, trolling or blog spamming will be dealt with harshly. My patience is stretched thin at the moment.

One a more serious note, Monday 16th is my first GCSE exam (English Language Paper 1), so a bit of luck wishing would be nice for that!