For the record, I gaveBattlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 the same score. Very similar games, but I give the campaign edge to BF3 and the multiplayer edge to MW3, so any differences canceled each other out.
That's the simplified comparison, of course; read the full reviews for extra elaboration. But the point is this: I know nobody is supposed to care about the campaigns in such games, as multiplayer is obviously the biggest draw. However, believe it or not, there are people out there who love fun, intense single-player adventures in a first-person shooter. And so, we're telling you flat-out: if you're a campaign fan who doesn't dig online multiplayer, but you still want a great shooter experience, go withBattlefield 3. It's close but only one can win.
Battlefield 3Not only does it look better, but it's also a little more varied and a little more involving. It's also more realistic, which makes it much more challenging and keeps you on the edge of your seat. While MW3 features a similar roller-coaster ride with plenty of great thrills, it doesn't feel as "next-gen" as BF3; it's more of the "been there, done that" sensation, despite its definite appeal. Too many of the missions in the MW3 campaign felt like straight-up run and gun, while BF3 seems to offer more diversity.
And I have to say that in terms of sheer, "holy sh**" moments, BF3 has a slight edge, although MW3 really tries to keep shoving bad-ass scenes in your face. Oh, and let's not forget that BF3's campaign is at least a few hours longer. So, single-player fans, you know what to choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment