The Call of Duty franchise has dominated the online first person shooter market for the past few years – with good reason, too. Its multiplayer is easy to get into, fun, and offers quick-to-play matches. On the other hand, the Battlefield series on PC, as well as the Bad Company series on consoles, offers engaging and committed gameplay in which the player can be rewarded for playing a role, rather than being focused on maintaining a high kill/death ratio.
As a player of both CoD and Battlefield online multiplayer, it’s safe to say that while we love Battlefield’s emphasis on playing a role in the game, it’s hard not to agree with Michael Pachter’s assessment that Battlefield 3 will not be outselling the next Call of Duty, even though EA and DICE have designed it to do so.
Here’s why…
Battlefield 2 matches force players to commit for long periods of time. The same can be said of a Bad Company multiplayer as well. Matches can last up to half an hour and might not be full of action all the time, depending on what role you play.
It’s hard to imagine players who would want to commit to long matches in Battlefield 3, where the action won’t be as constant as in a Call of Duty game. However, the fun factor in BF3 or BC2 emerges when a player can actually serve his team as a functioning member, fulfilling a relatively specific job rather than zooming off at the outset of a match and getting killed. Taking out enemy armor or air support is just as helpful and satisfying as going on a standard killstreak, although many gamers have started to associate getting consecutive kills in a game with success — sometimes even more than scoring an actual victory in a match.
BF3 and its incredible marketing budget will do what the Bad Company games failed to do: start appealing to players who want to try out something that offers a different type of reward, a change of pace, and a more realistic experience than Call of Duty. The arcade values of the CoD games are certainly what leads to their huge success among hardcore gamers — their gameplay is immediately rewarding and fast paced. Battlefield, though, is much more rewarding to players who want to be part of a team rather than just a gung-ho gamer. It’s fun trying to keep my teammates alive with a defibrillator, throwing out med packs, and being useful. Battlefield isn’t a franchise that is conducive to the kind of player who wants to be the one man who can win a match by player kills alone.
It is saddening to believe that BF3, as awesome as it does look (and will hopefully play), will not be outselling Call of Duty, even if Modern Warfare 3 ends up failing to offer many new features, as with the past few CoD games. That “coasting” mentality of giving gamers what has worked in the past can only last for so long, especially with so much competition in the FPS market. As time goes on, though, and more information about BF3 emerges, maybe there will be enough to pull gamers away from the safety of Call of Duty.
Homefront, a title whose multiplayer is an amalgamation of elements of both BF and CoD, does move in a direction that should appeal to fans of both franchises. As our Homefront review makes clear, the game is not perfect, but the Battle Point system it offers is ingenious, and takes pressure off of players who aren’t as quick on the trigger as the rest of their team. Everyone has the ability to be the chopper gunner, even if it might take longer for some players than others. Homefront was willing to try something different and did a decent job of it.
Continue to page 2 of The State of the Shooter: A Plea for Battlefield 3…
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 ...
Excellent piece, Trung.
I agree completely. BF2 was my bread and butter for many years. Although both games will occupy the same shelf space and, most likely, will meet buyers with an either/or purchasing decision, COD stalwarts who are willing to give large-scale warfare a chance will realize that playing in a Battlefield-branded multiplayer game is a more rewarding experience overall.
My friends and I still play BF1 with the Desert Combat mod. The maps are big and we all get to be part of a good team instead of lousy lone rangers.
Good article, sums up the Battlefield series pretty nicely and outlines why I will always love the series more than CoD. Nothing beats having your teammates pop up and look around after you zap him back to life. That satisfying “thanks man!” right after he realizes his teammate did what a teammate should actually do, play as a team. I’m always a medic class for that reason. M60 and my paddles, but don’t get me wrong, I love my killstreaks as much as anyone ( 16 is my highest in CoD: BO ), but something is more satisfying seeing two or three of your squad members killed, zapping them back into the fray so thay can get instant gratification killing the guys that just killed them. Battlefield 3 already paid for and I’m anxiously waiting!
I was a huge CoD fan and a classic CoD gamer…only CoD and nothing else..I did say BF games were good but I always said that no matter what they do CoD will always be better…O boy was I wrong. Don’t get me wrong I like being a mass-murderer and making huge KS but there is something in BC2 that makes me more happy
… From CoD1 to MW1 I was like OMFG THIS IS AWESOME!..then MW2 came out…All I said was FAIL, but I played it…then Black Ops came out and I said EPIC FAIL…they have the same thing for 5 years..new to show except for GLASS EFFECT, I mean COME ON I cant even destroy a hut-house…Then I god BC2 and BC2: Vietnam…What can I say but sorry Call of Duty, I’m a BF fan now…BC2 just kicks-ass and I know BF3 will be even better. I don’t think MW3 or what ever will the new CoD be called will make me go back…and to show how much I like BF more then CoD now…BC2 and BC2:V are the only original games ( or game what ever you want to call it) that I have ever bought in my life and I plan to spend my money for Pre-order BF3..
Basically people now have ODD and would take instant gratification over a quality game you take time in playing…
Most MW player like the Battlefield series but claim it’s hard….
There is more of a learning curve but the game is much more satisfying than the MW run in circles model.
The Only thing MW has over Battlefield is the weapon accuracy.
For people who actually learn to play Battlefield it is highly addictive and challenging.I have played every Xbox release without much of a break since BF:MC2(2005).I bet many other Battlefield palyers can say the same.That alone makes this series an epic success!
I cannot tell you how bad the MW cod games are and how limited ( limiting ) they are and in the way the game ( online ) makes you play , every one for themselves and see who can murder the most opposition in the alloted time no matter what type of game ( domination h.q. etc ) you are playing. The gimmicks ( re killstreaks ) are there just to cover what little there is on offer , I’ll give BO some credit with customisation as that was a nice touch but other than that it was no different to the previous MW’s and I played them all – that is until BF2:BC came out , months of my life lost …. as previous comments have said the team play is so much more rewarding that stand alone heroics win or lose you make friends not enemies in the culture of BF , even when you get your butt handed to you by a player(s) it’s because they have played as a team and are not exploiting some ridiculous perk for camping in a spot and mowing down the opposing team only to be rewarded with even more ways of doing just exactly that !! Ridiculous game mechanic made me so mad I broke my £39.99 buttons – twice
, Bf2 has never done this – case closed.
Competitive FPS is not my cup of tea to be honest, but how can you say no to a FPS shooter where YOU can jump into a chopper and bring a sh*t storm to the ennemies? How many COD games where there can be just as mutch vehicular combat than gun fights? NONE, beside W@W with it’s crappy tank… PLUS Battlefield has Frostbite engine allowing us not only to blow up other players online, but to also destroy anything that stands in your way. How many COD’s can do that? None again… Im not saying that that the COD franchise sucks hairy spheres lol, im just saying that BF games feel more life like with it’s destructible enviroments and the vehicular combat that also plays a HUGE role in the field! Can’t wait for Battlefield 3 and i yet have to buy BFBC 2 lol, my wallet is screaming at me right now hahaha! =D
I didnt know ppl were so into games these days. i’m going outside.
Where outside = back under my rock for some more good ol’ hibernation.
“BF3 and its incredible marketing BF3 and its incredible marketing budget will do what the Bad Company games failed to do: start appealing to players who want to try out something that offers a different type of reward, a change of pace, and a more realistic experience than Call of Duty.”
Are you kidding me? Obviously you have never played Bad Company 2, or seen any of the trailers. It promotes teamwork and a unique warfare experience, otherwise I wouldnt have bought it.
Bad company 2 is killin all Cod’s and Mw games. That’s all I used to play until I played BC2. There is way more to do. All I do is play shooters starting with Ghost Recon. I know my shooters im sweet at shooters and Battlefield is where it’s at. Take that to da bank!!