It was going to happen wasnt it. The biggest game of the year, up against a highly rated contender. Its Modern warfare 3 Vs Battlefield 3. One is the undisputed king of first person shooters, and has been for the last few years. The other is determined to end the dominance of the other. So which one came out on top? In this post we will be talking about the campaign modes of both.
Lets start with the challenger. Battlefield started off as a PC only game and strictly multiplayer only. It only started to introduce a campaign mode on its debut on the consoles, Bad Company. Now the campaign in this was enjoyable, but not up to the standard of the Call of Duty series. It tried again with Bad Company 2, but again it just wasnt up to scratch. There was a lot more hope for Battlefield 3 though. EA and DICE had taken a lot of time to get this sorted, the trailers showing off the frostbite engine were looking awesome and expectation was high. After installing the first disc to my Xbox (in order to get the HD graphics) I popped in the second disc to get going with the campaign. First impressions were good. Looked very good, played well and the story to it was enough to make me want to know the end. Despite it being the standard West vs East world war situation. My main concern was the length of the campaign. I managed to finish the campaign on regular difficulty in no more than four and a half hours. Graphically good, story wise good, length of the game… Not so good. Overall I would give it 9/16 bits.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3
Moving on to the best-selling FPS in recent years. It was always going to be one of the best-selling games of the year, purely based on its reputation. Now most people buy this game and just jump straight on to the multiplayer. There will be some people who have never touched a campaign mode in a CoD game, but I’m one of those people who would much rather sit down and play through the campaign before gettingÂ involvedÂ with online play. So off I went with the campaign. To know the story behind it all, ideally you do need to have played the two previous modern warfare games, but if you’re not bothered by the story then its easy enough to enjoy still. I think the game runs smoother than Battlefield, and I was much more drawn in to CoD than I was Battlefield. The levels look good, and are full of action. One draw back is that sometimes you do feel like you have already played the level. Some levels feeling very similar to previous Modern Warfare games. But don’t let that put you off if you have played the other games. It wraps up the story very well. The game itself is still pretty short. Took me about 6 – 7 hours to finish, but that’s still a couple of hours more than Battlefield. Marked down for its short game time, MW3 walks away with 12/16 bits.
So if you’re not hooked up online, or you want to pick a game for its campaign rather than its online play, there’s only really one choice. It has to be CoD. It’s longer, it looks better, it plays better and the story is better. No brainer in my opinion.