Well, nobody can accuse Electronic Arts of shying away from a fight. With Battlefield 3 on the minds of many fans of military shooters, it was a foregone conclusion that the newest title from DICE would be giving the Call of Duty franchise a run for its money, but EA’s CEO is apparently tired of speaking in vague comparisons. Today the showdown took on a personal tone, with EA’s John Riccitiello explaining that in their minds, Battlefield 3 is already better than Call of Duty in every way that matters.
The sentiment is one that’s already shared by thousands of FPS fans who felt disappointed with Treyarch’s Black Ops, and the Battlefield franchise certainly isn’t lacking where die-hard fans are concerned.
So while some publishers or studio heads may talk up the potential of their upcoming games, or state that their competition is getting lazy, EA is clearly confident in their product.
Riccitiello has already made it clear that Battlefield 3 is designed to take down CoD, and it already seems like the developers are making all the right moves to do it. A new game engine, bigger maps than ever before, and a fair amount of bravado isn’t going to hurt their odds at putting a dent in CoD’s armor.
Riccitiello showed just how unafraid of the showdown later this year the publisher is when speaking to investors, stating that while EA knows the power of their opponent, there’s really no way that the next Call of Duty title could possibly be better than BF3:
“We know we have a big competitor… But head-to-head with Call of Duty in Q3, we have the superior game engine, a superior development studio, and a flat out superior game. Our goal is to significantly gain share in the huge FPS category and to put the other team on defense.”
The points made are fair enough, with Infinity Ward sticking to their old game engine, and still working to be seen as equal in quality to the now-depleted Infinity Ward. The momentum and innovation is slanted in DICE‘s favor, and the multiplayer experts no longer need to prove what polished games they are capable of delivering.
Of course, we’ve heard all of this before from Riccitiello. In the lead up to Medal of Honor‘s reboot, to say that EA was optimistic about the fight with CoD would be an understatement. That game fell well short of their expectations, so one has to remember that being optimistic about upcoming games is in Riccitiello’s job description.
Perhaps he just desperately wants to give Activision a run for their money, and who could blame him? No entertainment property should reach a level of success where innovation and creativity take a back seat to the franchise’s name. DICE stands a much better chance of turning this fall into a fight, and no matter who comes out on top, gamers will likely have two great shooters as a result.
Do you think Battlefield 3 will truly be a superior title to the next Call of Duty? Even if it is, is it safe to say that the next CoD will still earn greater sales? Leave us your thoughts in the comments.
Battlefield 3 is set to be released on the PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 late this year.
-
Source: Eurogamer
Around the web:
‘Black Ops 2′ Doesn’t Need New Engine, Says Treyarch 
MW2 Map Terminal Shows Up In ‘Modern Warfare 3′ Patch Files 
‘Halo 4′ Box Art Revealed 
Sony Shares Plummet To 32-Year Low 
Loading ...
lol comment under moderation should of said poop sorry XD
You guys are ****ing idiots. Black Ops was 100 times better than mw2 was. BO was the only good cod since mw1 and was the only cod game that is actually balanced. How can you possibly say that mw2 was better in anyway? That game revolved around quickscopes and ump45 with all of the same perks on every class on every game type. Sleight of Hand, Marathon, Stopping Power, Ninja. If you used anything other than those than you probably didn’t know what you were doing. The killstreaks were retarded as well, once you get a Harrier Strike it’s pretty much a free chopper gunner/AC130. Remember noobtubes wityh danger close? I can go on and on about that game it’s ridiculous. Atleast in BO you have to earn your killstreaks. Stop being IF nuthuggers. mw2 was so incredibly broken in so many ways. BF3 is starting to look sick though
Mate you the ****ing idiot. MW2 was a hell of alot more polished and balanced than Blops. The Ump was powerful sure but hard iron sites and recoil. If your any good you know to check your corners aimed in so that running quickscoper can’t get a shot off unless you run around corners blindly. Second Chance in Blops is utter C**p! It allows you to shoot the guy on your way down but also shoot the guy who happens to be behind him as soon as you hit the deck. AK-74 is very similar to the UMP in terms of OP, just with better sights (which makes it more overpowered). The Famas is C**p, dogs are stupid, atleast you can kill WaW dogs with a knife consistently. Hit boxes are inconsistant, a replay of a knife kill usually shows the player knifing BEHIND the running player he just killed,
camping is off the charts, guns way to similar, as host I get lag (MW2 host is perfectly fine). I can keep going but my main gripe is they delivered only a small fraction of what they promised before launch. Barely any attatchments really, especially for guns like shotguns and a point system that just means you still level exactly the same to unlock stuff, just have the added pain to buy it aswell, audio was mediocre (the sprinting sound que comes to mind).
The only thing Blops did right was stop killstreaks adding to killstreaks.
I apologise to all BF fans for talking Cod here, as BF3 looks epically awesome, just had to try talk some sence into the idiot.
regards
Are you serious buddy? I swear you’re making half of this stuff up. UMP45 IS similar to the ak74 in terms of effectiveness, except the ump45 automatically gets a free silencer on it that somehow doesn’t affect the damage or range of it whatsoever. Second chance? what is the difference between mw2 and black ops? they let you do the same thing, except in black ops at least you don’t get your kill stolen almost every time he kills you. Famas is OP? check out the laser beam gun (aka ACR) and the Tar21 which kills them in two bullets with a ridiculous fire rate and same recoil as the Famas. How are dogs stupid? they’re good especially because it doesn’t take your character off of the map like ac130 and chopper gunner, plus they’re quite hard to get. Hit boxes are inconsistent? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LI108zQUag check that out, I found that in 10 seconds on youtube. Don’t even start with black ops vs mw2 knifing with its commando lunges. Camping is off the charts? oh yeah cause I totally forgot campers didn’t exist in mw2 or any other cod. Barely any attachments eh? Recheck that, I’m pretty sure it has as many as mw2 does. Guns too similar? Every gun has different recoil patterns or firing rate from each other to match a person’s preference. Yeah you really talked some “sence” into me pal.
Hey, I’m not debating whether or not the game was balanced or not, just wanted to clear up a common misconception. The common misconception is that “silencers,” or sound suppressors as they are actually called, actually DO NOT decrease damage and effectiveness. Actually, quite the opposite. Muzzle velocity actually INCREASES with the addition of a sound suppressor. The reason for this is you’re basically adding more barrel length, which gives the propellant more time to fully burn, which ends up pushing the bullet even faster. That’s the reason why long barrel weapons are more accurate than short barrel weapons, because the longer the barrel, the more time the propellant burns which increases muzzle velocity.
So yes, just about 99.9% of movies and games actually get that aspect wrong. Adding a sound suppressor INCREASES muzzle velocity, not decreases it. But one thing it does do, is it will throw off your point of impact by a little bit. That’s why if you’re concerned about pinpoint accuracy, you zero your weapon with or without a suppressor and you use your weapon in that same condition all the way through, you don’t switch back and forth. Meaning if you think you’re going to need a suppressor during a mission, you zero your weapon with the suppressor on, and you never take it off. Or if you decide you don’t need a suppressor, you zero your weapon with it off and you never put it on during the mission, unless a situation comes up and you need it without prior planning, just be aware that your point of impact will be different than before. Not less accurate, the group tightness would either stay the same or even get better, but it won’t be in the same place your sights are zero’d for…
Ok, enough firearm technical mumbo-jumbo…
CoD is trash. GTFO internet. L2 real games.
I personally think EA should just shut up. you haven’t showed us much of anything. a few concept art pictures and a 12 min of gameplay. and honestly the faultline trailer wasn’t bad. but it wasn’t amazing. If your going to tell me its great, you better show me why it is.
ur so right. like i said im just going to buy it just because it thinks it has a chance against CoDMw3 even though theres no strong reason why us CoD gamers should switch to Battlefield
Take the facts, battlefield 3 has full building destruction, and runs on an engine that can handle high superior graphics.It allows you as the player to witness realistic combat as you are able to fly jets and helicopters. And allows you to drive vehicles. what other game can let you do that. Multiplayer: goes from day to night on an advanced lighting system. SO you COD fanboys who think MW3 will kill battlefield 3, do you think your game can be able to out match what BF3 has to offer. The only reason you cant handle the truth is because your use to all unrealistic
games, and not the ones that are worth getting.
Dude, BF3 and CoD are completely different games. In CoD, vehicles would spoil the fun. I’ll admit CoD’s graphics are a tad dated, but graphics aren’t everything, and it also means CoD can render more without the game lagging. Lots of other games allow you to drive vehicles. And for god’s sake Battlefield is not a realistic series of games. None of the Battlefield games are any more realistic than the CoD games, other than the fact you can blow chuncks out of houses. Other than that, BF games are very unrealistic.
Spoil what fun?? I don’t know about you, but running around, shooting, dying, respawning, running around, shooting, dying, respawning, gets very old very fast for me… At least with the battlefield games you get the full warzone feel, not just a bunch of guys running around that continue to shoot at you after you’ve killed them…