dibula Wrote:
You know, I disagree, but I can definitely see what you mean. I don't think the actual graphics of Halo come close to Battlefield 3 (the character's faces in Halo look like Small Soldiers action figures), but the lighting system Bungie uses is top notch. A good lighting system can go a long way in terms of presentability. It highlights detail and gives the illusion of improved meshes. The only game I can currently think of which has a better light generator is Oblivion. Yes, 6 year old Oblivion. Sunsets in that game have a magic I have yet to see another game cast, and it can only be improved with Skyrim.
Halo 4 graphics however? Could be promising.
Look, I really don't care about the rest of the argument as it's all subjective. People play what they like. However, fan or not, I think BF3 graphic engine should be recognized as fresh and updated, and superior to that recycled mess Call of Duty has been using since COD4.
Exactly my thoughts pretty much, (I did consider CoD4 to be the best game made in that series, perhaps interchangeable with world at war.) Oblivion has an amazing lighting engine, just bought it in fact and I have to agree there.
and while fun and gameplay is indeed subjective there are a few objective points about it that can be said between CoD4 and BF3. whether or not those things change the "fun" for you is subjective.
First: Which medium is the game designed for? and why does it matter?
MW3: Consoles
BF3: PC
With PC development, Battlefield developers don't have to account for controller problems with first person shooters, so the gameplay will have more development time assigned to it. Port sections of the company will be responsible for console ports. The opposite is true for CoD which is centered on consoles and being ported to PC.
As a result, if you play battlefiled on a console you will get far less out of it than if you buy it on PC. and vice versa with CoD4. PC gamers will be stuck with a lackluster casual gamer experience and Console players may have a hard time playing Battlefield.
Development time:
MW3: approximately 8-9 months from start to Gold, No public Beta. Remaining time for printing/shipping etc (4 Different Developers!)
BF3: 17 months from start to Public beta, one month from beta to Gold (assuming beta goes well) Shipping/Printing time etc. (one unified developer)
Mortal Kombat fans as we are, should know this above most other gamers, you CANNOT develop a proper AAA title in less than a year. It simply cannot be done. the best you can do will be sub-par to anything with a better time frame.
Core Gameplay differences:
MW3 Singleplayer: Different setting, same gameplay: EG: Shoot these guys > Duck behind car > shoot more guys > creep up to concrete barrier before more guys spawn > Shoot them. > be forced to move forward a bit on account of grenades coming at you > shoot again/cover again. Repeat until you get to wallstreet building, dont forget mandatory door charge sequences at least twice per level. I was doing this with Call of Duty since 360 launch day. Time to change it up.
BF3 Singleplayer:
Less duck/cover > pop up shoot scenarios. (your cover will more than likely be blown apart and you along with it) ie: cover is not in Battlefield vocabulary, in multiplayer it is called "temporary concealment" In single player you know the AI knows where you are anyway so it's even less useful. Vehicle and infantry battles occur in larger more sprawling environments. Linear still yes but, less so. Destruction of environments is also improved in BF3 so more thinking will be involved when dealing with the AI enemy.
Story: Subjective in both cases wont know until both come out anyway, moving on.
Core Multiplayer Experience and why:
MW3: Casual Gamers
BF3: Hardcore Gamers
Why? and how can I possible say this is objective? Well first we must identify what a hardcore gamer is:
Despite popular assumption, hardcore gamers are not simply people who play a lot of video games and keep their fingers on the pulse of gaming news. Hardcore Gamer as a term came about When Quake was released. Hardcore gamers rely on skill and skill alone for their achievements, they receive no help from the game in any way. It's all up to them. So lets break it down by category:
Game Based Aid:
MW3:
Perks and other related free damage/advantage giving stats remain not just a part but are essential to the core gameplay mechanic. Does dropping a grenade when you die make you more skilled than that guy who popped you and got his legs blown off? nope. So did you actually earn the kill? no you did not.
Killstreak help. Killing a certain number of people gives you perks that make it easier for you and your team to kill the enemy. RADAR, Dogs, helicopters, emp grenades, airdrop traps, etc. oh but at least the freaking nuke is gone.
Auto aim (moderately understandable on consoles), "Rail knife" Unreasonably large grenade launcher blast radius etc.
BF3:
Bad Company 2 "Rail knife" reported no longer present in the game, and thats about all the free help you got from BC2. So unless they added something, you gotta get those killing sprees on your own buddy. Sniper gleam for camping deterrent, no radar no perks, no kill streak freebies. Just you, your weapon, and your skill to back it up. You might even say that it this point BF3 makes it even harder for casuals to even play. (and as a subjective note here, thank god for that.)
Basic multiplayer Considerations
Dedicated servers:
MW3: Not-always-reliable match making system
BF3: Yes
CoD Elite: pay for service (pay gives you more perks and killstreak freebies too)
BF3 battlelog: free, no gameplay help regardless of performance.
Basic multiplayer gameplay info:
Player count:
BF3: 64 players PC, 24 Console, PC may see 128 player servers in the future.
MW3: 16, players all platforms forever. 32 players "possible but not likely"
Basic gameplay types:
BF3: sandbox infantry, vheicle warfare, Gun-on-Gun style CoD sized maps will also be available in this version for competition purposes.
MW3: Gun-on-Gun only.
Gameplay Improvements over previous version:
MW3, More Perks and more killstreak freebie options than the previous game/Nuke Removed. Zombie multiplayer player count increased, zombie mode renamed Survival and Zombies are changed to humans.
BF3: Revamped, more difficult to exploit Squad system, Revamped weapons customization system, largely improved environmental destruction system, redesigned and tighter classes. Suppressive fire effect added to light machine guns for support class. (enemy vision is blurred and accuracy is reduced.) prone re added. Scope reflection and scope sway added, the former preventing camping, the latter better than just bullet drop.
Larger maps, Jets are back. Full flightstick support added. DirectX 11 only (consoles get software crutch for this issue.)
So objectively, what can be stated here? Well, with BF3 you will get an improved experience over BC2 and plenty of innovation to boot. With Modern Warfare 3? well you'll get the same game you bought last year for single player, and you'll get modern warfare one with more perks (and even more perks if you pay Activision money once a month) and killstreak options for multiplayer.
Now on to the subjective:
Which one will you like more? well that depends, Do you like MW2 single player and modern warfare 1 multiplayer? Do you like them more than battlefield? Do you like free radar, perks and help? If so then you will probably like MW3. Do you like Battlefield 2 and would you like to see it combined with BC2 and then given every speed and stimulant related drug on earth? Do you like working for your kill and teamplay status without any free help? then you will like Battlefield 3.
Aw yeah, new MK!
