You’ve probably seen this comparison thousands of times. And its normal to see these two games being compared over and over again as new versions come out. There are fanboys from both sides bashing each other similar to PS3 vs Xbox 360 fanboys. I originally bought Battlefield 3 because I wanted a change (been playing the MW series for more than 3 years). And just yesterday I could resist but bought Modern Warfare 3 as well after trading in another game at EB Games.
Modern Warfare 3 is nothing special on the single player side, same graphics but new story (picked up from where last game left off), weapons and its still action packed. I was able to get back in the “game” almost right away after getting re-used to the controls. I have yet to play the multiplayer but I can imagine its the same fast pace, arcade-ish feel like previous titles.
So now comes the comparison, in my opinion, there’s none. Battlefield 3 is a slower paced and more realistic first person shooter with more players, bigger maps and you can drive vehicles. On the other hand Modern Warfare 3 is faster paced and less realistic, noticeably much less recoil from firing guns. But Modern Warfare does come with zombie mode (World at War and Black Ops) and this time there’s a survival mode where you fight off waves of enemies, buy/upgrade your weapons similar to zombie mode but without the zombies. This is the one feature I’m looking forward to after I finish the single player.
I think that both games actually compliment each other because they provide two distinct styles of game play for us gamers. When you want to get totally serious, play Battlefield 3. When you just want a few quickie games then play Modern Warfare 3.
Now can we just shut up and play the games? Both are great games with their pros and cons. So in the end, you cannot argue which is ultimately better. And guess what? They are both best sellers in the first person shooting genre.