This generation of consoles has brought about the rise of multiplayer gaming in a way never seen before. Sure, the original XBox and the PS2 had some online functionality, and PC gamers have been at it for years, but the PS3 and 360 has brought online gaming to the masses. Both kids and adults, males and females get involved. It’s a chance to try your skills against real players instead of AI driven opponents, and a way to prove just how great you are at your chosen game.
There’s no denying that the Call of Duty series has been a driving force in online gaming. The first Modern Warfare title exploded onto the scene and set the bar very high for what was to be expected from future online FPS experiences, so why are many gamers now starting to look at Modern Warfare 3 with disdain and instead turn their attentions to the incredible looking Battlefield 3?
The answer, I think, sits not with the Call of Duty franchise itself but with the mechanics of the multiplayer itself. Most of COD’s multiplayer action is competitive, by which I mean the main focus is fighting against others. Sure you’ve got the usual Capture the Flag modes, or games where capturing certain points is the order of the day, in which those working as a team tend to fare better than your average team of individuals. But it’s the co-operative nature of the Battlefield games that seems to be capturing more and more gamers’ imaginations, and with the squad-based games seen in EA’s title set to continue in mind-blowing fashion it appears to us from chatting with several gamers on a range of gaming forums that Modern Warfare is losing its shine.
This could be put down to “Yo Momma Syndrome”. That’s not an official technical term, I just this second made it up. It’ll catch on though, trust me. This feeling that some 8 year old kids who spend every waking moment either at school or on their console are not only kicking the crap out of you, but also making suggestions about what your mother got up to last night; that feeling has put a huge number of older gamers off the franchise and the more mature co-op based sessions are bringing more and more gamers towards Battlefield. But I think it’s more likely to be the fact that people are starting to feel lonely running round in a team of 7 or 8 other faceless people, having a whole team shouting stuff over the comms. Working in a small team, in amongst a larger one, gives a much more satisfying sense of making a difference. Sure, you might finish in the bottom few on the scoreboard but you saved your squadmate from an ambush at a crucial point in the match. It worked beautifully with Bad Company 2, it worked brilliantly in MAG, and it’s a huge draw to gamers who want to make a difference. Not everyone wants to appear at the top of the scoreboard after all.
So could it be that Modern Warfare 3 could retrieve it’s falling fanbase just by adding some more squad-based games, or is it time to just let the Momma Squad (again, that’ll catch on, surely) stick to their parental suggestions and let the rest of us enjoy Battlefield 3? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Damn, I not enjoyed reading this but experienced it as well. Additionally, I believe the lost of core Infinity developers has left MW3 uninspiring. The dependency of build off Infinity Ward in between games has turned me off. I believe the excitement that was intertwined with (2009)Infinity Ward migrated with Respawn Entertainment. I can’t wait, and hope, to see Respawn at E3 2012 but nevertheless, this piece of writing is as enjoyable as it is comprehensible.
I meant to write, “I enjoyed reading this but I also experienced it as well”.
I think what we’re going to find is that many gamers will try out BF3 and realize it is a little too different from CoD for their taste, and they won’t give themselves enough time to get use to the different play style. As much as some people like to deride the twitchy-ness and over the top-ness of CoD, it’s undeniably addicting and even fun. While I don’t want BF to morph into a CoD clone, the masses have spoken, and something in CoD keeps people coming back. I would not blame DICE from incorporating some ideas from CoD. Instead, it looks like we’re getting more of the same, which isn’t bad either. Some things that are popular: not being tied to specific classes, and therefore weapons, equipment, etc. I like creating MY OWN virtual soldier even if it isn’t necessarily what a military squad make-up should be. It’s a game, bend a little there. I would never push for perks or kill-streaks, however, a little over the top killing power is a nice reward for doing well. Maybe modify it, so its literally tied to points, not just kills, so capturing, defending, reviving, and many other non-shooting your enemy with bullets ways to help your team, or yourself in FFA. As for perks, don’t call them perks. Like I said before, I like creating my own character, so, after you level up, you unlock slots to add things like, extra body armor or whatever to your character.
Battlefield 2 was and is one of my favorite games, however, that was a long time ago, and there is no denying that CoD has a formula that draws people in. It has turned millions of people into zombies willing to shell out, in some cases, well over $100 per game, per year. (retail + DLC). I do credit DICE for not taking the bait and trying to create the same experience you get in CoD on BF, however, bare-bones shoot kill die repeat isn’t what the majority of gamers want anymore, no matter how pretty the game is. I have already pre-ordered my copy of BF3 and I am very excited to play it, hopefully, my thoughts are unfounded and the game they have crafted will grab my attention in the way CoD4 and its annual updates did.
Yes people tend to feel better in a team-focused game like Battlefield. Nevertheless, some off us still love a good ol’ free-for-all split screen deathmatch. Great games started this (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark…) and it is awesome get together with some friends or brothers, some beers and nachos and play split screen in a more party-like way instead of going online like always and see who’s there and play in a lone basement every single day (wasting precious lifetime). That get-together-gaming-party can be memorable. I love battlefield but COD excels at free for all and split screen gaming and Battlefield doesn
I was going to say people are leaving CoD because of the lack of objective change, and lackluster DLC. Many people aren’t thinking or comparing. Most likely, people will pick up the next CoD, play it for a little, and lose interest unless it delivers on what Black Ops could not–sustenance of MW.
IF Battlefield implements split screen. Shame on developers for abandoning that awesome feature. They could downgrade graphics a bit for split screen and voila: problem solved. If needed make it offline with bots and no one would complain. Those who don’t like it don’t use it. People gathering to play Battlefield 3 (which has 4 player squads) in 4 player split screen (big screen) would attract a lot of players. No split screen = no purchase.
I am quite a gamer myself, and so are my friends.
I can’t remember the last time I played slit-screen for entire party-like night.
Most of my friends would opt to going home, rather than share a screen.
I’m not discrediting the value of split-screen. Although there is no wonder as why it has become a less-than-cruecial component.
Most avid fans aren’t concerned with split-screen support.
Because COD is shit and even a 5 year old kid can own on it. All real gamers know this. Real gamers dont need radar and killstreaks to get their kills… Let the kids and noobs stay on COD, the big boys will be on Battlefield and other shooters that REQUIRE skill, unlike COD.
As an avid CoD player I’m not going to defend the series. I get what I pay for. But it really doesn’t pay off to compare the Call of Duty franchise with Battlefield. I’ve played both, cursed at my screen, and downright ragequit when I was having a bad night. And the only comparison between the two is that they are both DIFFERENT GAMES. Battlefield emphasizes co-operation between strangers and rewards them fully for watching one anothers back, as shown in your higher rate of survival. You win in Battlefield by being cautious(from my experiences and I am not promoting camping). CoD on the other hand has ALWAYS promoted being the lonewolf, the more kills you acquire the better your team will perform = a higher Kill/death ratio. You can sprint around like a chicken with a stick of dynamite stuck up its nethers and still come out on top. And that the pull of CoD, fast pace in comparison to Battlefields more tactic oriented gameplay. That how I see these games play out and I’m getting them both, no matter the review, if only to stave off some boredom.
the fact that every COD game has sold more than the one before (and based on preorders MW3 will continue this) makes you article moot
The Dreamcast had more online stuff than the xbox or ps2, you racist it had DLC’s and shit, downloadable games, browser, comunnication system, and not to mention online play
I don’t get why people even care about MW3.
For me Halo 2 and the original Ghost Recon games on the original XBOX were the first online games that got me totally addicted.
Nothing has replicated this for me. Maybe i was younger and had more time on my hands, but the only two games that have come close is MW2 and Bad Company 2.
Both different games and equally as good. Black Ops just hasn’t grabbed me like MW2 and i can’t get a handle on why. Yes, i still play it and have prestiged but it just doesn’t hook me for hours on end..
How can people compare MW3 and BF3. They are completely different experiences. MW3 is more quick it has more action and BF3 is more strategic and based on teamwork. How can you say COD is only for kids and noobs that is a lie. Both games are equally hard. I have two questions. What if Battlefield becomes the norm for fps and they started releasing game after game every year would BF become hated. Second, This is for the people who are switching from COD to BF this year. Have you ever played a Battlefield game and Bad Company doesn’t count. One last thing I am tired of people bagging on other people because they like a certain game. If I like COD and you don’t please keep your mouth shut and don’t say a word. Do not go around saying oh look at this little kid playing COD, come and play with the big boys. In the end both games will be great and play which ever one you feel the need to play.
Battlefield does release a game about once a year. The difference is that it’s not the same exact game with a different paint job each year. And I don’t know why you would say BC doesn’t count as a “Battlefield” game, when BF3 will have probably many elements from BC2.
I’m 35 and I have been hooked on COD for years on PS3 – I bought all the COD games and all the map packs and have got months of accumulative playtime. Why is COD so addictive and sells in the $billions: 1) Kills are quicker than most games – instant gratification, MW2 was too quick, Black Ops got it just right 2) COD allows you to ‘ghost camp’ sometimes – it is a way players can back into the game if they are having a bad match, rather than rage quit 3) the huge number of customisations, weapons, perks, kill streaks, map types, game types, etc… provide an almost infinite variety of ways to play, players want to experience them all 4) You can play as team player or as a lone wolf – the choice is yours, COD allows you to play both styles, and killstreaks mean if you are a good player you can turn a match by yourself 5) The COD games sell so well there are always ppl to play against online, no waiting in the lobby like in other games, always c.500,000 ppl on Black Ops online on PS3 6) KD ratio and other stats – I always strive to improve mine, in MW2 it was 1.7, in Black Ops it has gone up to 1.95 – huge s(t)atisfaction!. BF3 will need to have all of these qualities, on top of the outstanding graphics, to compete with MW3. Personally I will probably buy both, but with Uncharted 3 and Skyrim out as well, that’s a lot of gaming over xmas!
Also being a Brit, there is nothing better than beating a bunch of Americans (or Germans) on COD! Yanks think they are the best at COD, so it is good to give them a good thrashing 🙂
I’ve put down my fair share of hoity-toity Brits in CoD, friends and randoms.
being “good” at COD takes no skill… any idiot can follow the radar. As someone else here said, the big boys will be on Battlefield, all you little boys and noobs can stick to modern warfare for that “feeling of being good” without actually being good..
The original Xbox had a very good online multiplayer side of it launched a year after its release. So to say that “the original XBox and the PS2 had some online functionality” is incorrect. Maybe the PS2’s online side had some online functionality, but the Xbox and Xbox Live had pretty much the core of what is still in use today.
Features such as, Live Chat, Leaderboards, Online Multiplayer, Co-op, Friends lists, Patching etc were all there from Day 1. They even had website integration via a short lived XSN Sports site that allowed you to create tournaments, leagues online via a web browser. You then play on the xbox against your friends and the results automatically updated on the website. A very cool feature and one that other companies could learn a lesson or two from today.
The whole problem about the Yoof of today I believe comes from the original Xbox Live advertising programme in the USA. The adverts went along the lines of, “Talk trash with your buddies whilst playing them online”. The teenager of the US literally takes that as what they are supposed to do, hence you get all the Yo Momma and crap that goes on these days.
Where Activision went wrong in my opinion is when they disable private party chat in some of the online modes. Yeah, people used it to cheat, but surely if its because teams were ultra competitive in leagues, they should have it set as an option when the host chooses the format of the games etc. Not limit it for us who enjoy a game and don’t want a 12 year old kid from Arkansas telling us we’re all fags and that he bashed yo mommas back doors in last night whilst your were out etc.
CoD games are good fun, but for me, only when playing a bunch of people you know. How about they follow the Killzone and other games ways of ranking up and let people rank up in private games as well as ranked games. Then the little kids can get their public ranks up and we can get on playing online with our mates and no one loses out!