Why you SHOULDN'T compare Modern Warfare 3 with Battlefield 3 in 5 different points

Seems like everyone is trying to take a jab at either COD: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3, so here is why you shouldn't read everything you see on every news blog or related to this subject.

Why, oh why do people like to compare stuff that isn't comparable? In a long fight between EA and Activision, the ever "I want to monopolize the market" companies are locked in a constant struggle to hold their or conquer others ground, and this never-ending cycle passes through article buyouts, expensive marketing and luxurious events to show how they mean business. 

So why shouldn't you compare or even listen to people trying to do the same, either by personal opinion, or by a in-dept review comparing each of the games, or just silly gut feelings that tell you what you should or not buy? why should you be content with both games or either the one that appeases you the most? The answer to these questions is simple, comparing these games won't bring any close to chose any game because it will be biased and these games can't be compared (see lower), it will bring unnecessary attrition between both communities, most websites might be or not bought to hype a game, even the person who is writes an article might uneven the scale.

We survived an era where the Internet where a bunch of text with links in which those links would show us more text and there was almost non-exist community opinion. Now its a bit  different as websites need more of those clicks you do to finance their project, even I do that, so they write articles in a way that you will feel almost as forced by desire to write your own thing, making them profit with that, ok deviating a bit from the point of the article I'm trying to write, on with the show.

Why you shouldn't compare those two games:
  1. Despite being in the same genre, they are very distinct types of playing, one is fast paced, relies on your reflexes and quick thinking, your current weapon, perks and you only depend on yourself. The other game on, relies on strategy, group teamwork into accomplishing objectives, and depends on various assets your team is currently holding (a.k.a. vehicles, loadouts, so on.). As you see, both are extremely different and they go to different areas of play.
  2. Both games try to their best add some realism into the gameplay, one game uses an engine they are very familiar with and try to get some new tricks out of it, the other tries constantly to innovate (much like its predecessors) into a new engine almost every two games, making it a bit hard to take the kinks out of something comparing to the engine that people are used to. So in turn, each one uses the graphics and its benefits differently, one relies on the same system to get the same result with a different cover, the other tries to innovate but fails to get some bugs and glitches out that sometimes hamper the gameplay.
  3. Time is our teacher and who learned that one product who is almost yearly, and another isn't they shouldn't be compared in sales, this due to the fact that the one that is replaced yearly will always fail to the one who tries to stand more than 2-3 years. I'm going to be specific here, MW releases a game every 1-2 years, and taking the Battlefield spin-off (Bad Company) it took them a very long time to get over Battlefield 2, who in turn matured so wonderfully that you have some of the best tournaments around based on it (World at War, Forgotten Honor) and they have the most awarded mod developers around. Now this was back in 2005, 2-3 years before Modern Warfare (launched 2007) even surfaced for the first time, and most people already ditched or play way less than some of the players who actually played Battlefield 2. In sum, you can't compare sales to something that targets different longevity cycles.
  4. Both game modes need to thrive in multiplayer despite having a mediocre at best single-player, but even if their goals are the same, they have different ways to reach it. In one game, you just get a quick load-out, spawn and kill the opposite team, very easy, very simple and no tricks, on the other hand, the other game lets you do the same but when you spawn, you better know what your are doing or you are just going to get bombarded out of sand, wing-clipped from a plane, sniped from 1 km away,  ran over, get lost, being tank chowder and so on, so the curvature of learning in each games are different depending on what you want to play.
  5. You can buy both games, yes seriously, nobody will go to your house and poke you to death with your own copy of the game if you "betray" your game.

These five little points I gave here are just a reminder that its worthless to compare such different games and that despite personal opinions, which you should have, that A is better than B should remain within point and not fall into fanboism much like the consoles, its unhealthy and extremely hazardous to how companies deal with the games, the more aggressive the community the more space they have to make mistakes, so keep that and "analysts shouldn't predict a damn thing" in mind next time you write a critical post about A or B game.

Have a nice afternoon everyone!

Related articles (websites who compare if your interested)
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment