Tag Archives: battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 vs. Modern Warfare 3? Let’s Drop the “Versus”

Posted on by
346

As a guy who sincerely enjoys his FPS games, I am incredibly disheartened by the raging fanboy attitude of gamers towards these two upcoming titles. Why does every opinion have to include the word “versus”? These two titles are both going to be huge sellers... and honestly, if you are so jaded in your opinion that you are taking sides with one or the other, the only thing being sold short is yourself.

So, in lieu of this “versus” attitude, let’s get honest for a moment, lay the cards out on the table, step back and approach the topic with a sense of reality.

First, why all the fan-rivalry? Don’t get me wrong here, rivalry is a great thing: it makes the developers work harder to create a better product. But why only pick one game or the other? Honestly, if two blockbuster movies were to release simultaneously, you might see one before the other, but would you never watch the other film? Of course not; so why retain this attitude about your gaming experience?

I have always found this side of the video game industry to be both confusing and amusing. Here we have two games with incredible potential. They contain similar, yet individualized gameplay features, campaigns based around modern military conflict, and incredibly socialized online environments... yet extremist gaming fanboys from both sides seemingly take a vow of exclusion never to “lower themselves” to play the other.

Here’s a “Call of Duty" to playing games on a “Battlefield” – drop the attitude folks. Both games are going to be great. Both games are going to be fun. Both games will innovate and update the genre in their own fashion. This cult-like attitude of picking a camp and never traversing to the other is a plague to our community of gaming. Rivalry is fine, but this narrow-minded brand devotion and gamer-trashing seems to be a bit over the top when you consider what you are arguing about.

The way I see it, in reality, the only real rivalry for these two games is in their competitive marketing campaigns. Battlefield and Call of Duty occupy the same general niche’ in the gaming market. Thus, these two titles are explicitly competing for your money to purchase their respectful product. Nevertheless, do you honestly believe that either Activision or Electronic Arts (EA) would be offended if all of us went out and bought both of these games? I think it’d be safe to argue no here. However, what this does translate into is a competition for “staying power.” Since both EA and Activision know we are looking to buy their games, a competition to see who can make their game resonate with players in continued usage. Therefore, I reiterate that this competition is a wonderful thing- at the end of the day we should all be appreciative that these companies are competing to create games which hold our attention through their social nature and replay value.

Maintaining an affable sense of rivalry and competition is healthy- always has been and always will be. As these companies and developers compete they push each other to create better products.

Yes, Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 will obviously contain differences which are individual to their series. However, the competition between the two titles should remain within the companies themselves. Let these two powerhouse publishers push each other. Let their rivalry spawn creativity and gameplay innovations. But let the rivalry end within the companies themselves. We should be growing our community stronger by enjoying these games, not chastising those who choose to play something different than what we choose ourselves. So, if you’re a gamer who likes his or her FPS titles, you have a choice to make in late October and early November. But remember two things: buying both is actually a choice (in case you hadn’t realized that yet), and others gamers aren’t your enemy.

As always, thanks or reading. Remember, we're a community and you're an essential part of that! Join in on the RioT by commenting on the articles, leaving your opinion in the forums, listening to the podcast, and following us on Twitter!

Cheers!

JohnnyWayne_

What Kind of Boyfriend is Your Gamer?

Posted on by
384

 I went out with a colleague the other day and jokingly I told her that her boyfriend was cheating on her. She laughed it off but asked me why I thought that. I told her because he uses walkthroughs to beat single player campaigns. She called the simple notion that I could tell what kind of boyfriend she had by what his style of gameplay and the games he played was ridiculous. Well today I’m laughing in her face as she cries into her ice cream, listening to the Taylor Swift album on repeat. One thing that I have learned over the years is that we are what we play. I played Mario all of my life, therefore I’m a fat Italian, it’s just science. But in all seriousness it all comes down to the games he plays and his style of game play.

images 1
It's just so true

Let’s have a look at the genre of games. The 1st person shooter is probably the most popular genre of gaming. So across all platforms the war rages between Call Of Duty and Battlefield. They offer different styles of gameplay and yield two different types of boyfriends. If your boyfriend plays COD then pack your bags ladies because that shit wont work.. Take a look at COD, it offers gamers an arcadey style of gameplay. The matches themselves are quick in and out matches. This reeks of promiscuity. I mean a lot of COD players run around just blasting other people in the face. Which leads me to believe, they are running around blasting other girls in the face. Sorry for the mental image. Now Battlefield on the other hand offers a more tactical approach to FPS. To really make an impact, you have to work within a team. Also to maximize your XP it is important to understand your role. By playing your part you can achieve victory. So ladies if your BF is rocking BF then he is dedicated to you. Willing to play his part to make your partnership work.

Now the sports genre is a different kind of game for a different kind of gamer. They are the only games that mimic their real life counterpart. So if your boyfriend is a beast at Madden then he thinks he is a jock. A couch jock, you can call him a cock. Think of it as dating the star quarterback of your high school football team, but instead of an athlete he sits around all day playing Madden. And any good athlete knows you have to be confident in what you do. If you are good in NB2K/Madden you know you are good at it, much like an athlete. Most of the time you aren’t afraid to talk some trash. So sports games yield cocky boyfriends if they are good at the game. If they are good at NHL you are dating a Canadian. If they are good at Fifa they are a foreigner that doesn’t know what real football is. Sorry I’m a pigheaded American.

fat kid sleeping couch2
Madden takes a lot out of you!

Platformers are the next ones on our list. Mario, Kirby, Ratchet & Clank, Little Big Planet, and whatever other cartoony character platformers are out there are great showcases. They showcase that your gamer is a child at heart. He would be a great father. Someone your mother would love. But sometimes he can be immature. His heart is in the right place but he may not know how to act at adult functions. When a talk breaks out about the ins and outs of Falkner, he mentions RL Stine.

Now games like Gears of War, Uncharted, Arkham Asylum, and Rockstar games give the gamer a 3rd person POV. Meaning your boyfriend can sometimes be standoffish. He carries a rough exterior. However, he sees the whole situation or the “big picture”. Which means they can sometimes be manipulative in the relationship. But these types of gamers/boyfriends can deliver the most worthwhile relationships. Bringing you on a rollercoaster ride of emotions. OMFG I sound like Dr. Phil.

Now what about World of Warcraft gamers? What kind of boyfriends are they? Well let’s be honest those guys are never getting laid. But if given the chance these gamers would be the most dedicated to you. Maybe a little too much, smothering you every chance they get. Not because of their actual girth but because they would want to make you feel like a princess. They would valiantly protect you at every cost. Getting jealous of every knight that wanted to “joust” you. As they are only an ogre with no life. It would end sadly.

nintendo nerd king
I'll be your knight

Most of the time your boyfriend will play more then one style of game. They may rock COD all night while playing Mario Sunshine during the day. Madden and Gears of War may be the winning combination. So they may have a multitude of these traits. It all comes down to the percentage of games and its simply math equation from there. Ladies remember this is a perfect science. Make sure you check the games he is playing before you become the game.

P.S. Dr. Phil suck on that.


Follow me on twitter: @SweetMattTreats
Play with me on PSN: TeamHellion

Sweet Matty Treats is gamersriot.com’s resident douche bag. The things he types in no way reflect the views nor thoughts of the entire riot crew. In fact most of the rioters don’t like him but feel sorry for him because he was raised by a pack of wild boars.

DLC: Damn (gamers) Love (to give publishers) Cash

Posted on by
423

Obviously, the title of this article is not what the acronym DLC truly defines. These three letters create an abbreviation for the phrase “Downloadable Content,” which is most commonly used when referring to DLC for PC games or current gen consoles (the 360, Wii, and PS3). But, is this title very far from the truth of what a DLC is?

As gamers, what is it about downloadable content that makes our mouths water and eyes widen? DLC packages provide gamers with a proverbial teat from which we can milk out every ounce of entertainment within a game we have come to know and love. By downloading new content into seasoned games we make our games new again...effectively creating a novel experience within a comfortable environment. However, does that want of content and unbridled love of gaming give developers the right to milk our wallets for every ounce of greenery as well?

From a marketing perspective DLC’s are genius. Instead of asking gamers to pay $100+ for an “all inclusive” game on release day, developers have created a mantra of smaller transactions (typically $10-$15) for smaller “packs” of downloadable content spread out along the lifespan of a game. This, according to proponents of the strategy, keeps material fresh and creates a “new” experience for gamers throughout a longer time frame than the core game would be able to accomplish alone.

However, from an opposing point of view, that of a hardcore gamer who is going to pay for this type of content on a continual and loyal basis, the DLC mantra feels eerily akin to nickel and dime tactics employed by big business. When engaging in the pros and cons of this debate, many gamers point to the fact that this “new” content is routinely complete and ready to play when the core game is released. For example, and you knew this was coming, the Call of Duty series reportedly has many, if not all, of their multiplayer maps created before the core games are released.

Hmm, does this mean that we are paying for “new” content, which by definition isn’t new at all? That is absolutely what it means. However, is this wrong, or just good marketing?

I argue both. You see, at the end of the day video games are a business, and a VERY large one at that. In fact, the video game industry typically generates an income of $2.6 billion annually (Baylor University), enough to fund the annually salary for the President of the United States about 6,500 times (based on a reported $400,000 per year for the President; feel free to check my math if need be). So, as a business, the gaming industry and those who run companies within it have an interest in making money, you won’t find me having any problem with that.

What you will find me having a problem with are the misperceived principals of honesty that front as a Wizard of Oz curtain covering DLC releases. Major developers allure gamers into thinking that this content is always new; a freshly developed packaging of content for which the developers used feedback from the audience in creating new and improved content for us to utilize. However, as mentioned before, there is nothing new or improved about the content. Generally speaking, DLC is simply old content that hasn’t been taken out of the packaging yet.

What becomes even more infuriating yet, is the direction in which major gamesakes are taking their DLC mantra. Take, for example, two of the most well know upcoming titles on the market: Modern Warfare 3 from Activision/Infinity Ward and Battlefield 3 from EA and the Dice development studio. If you have somehow missed that these two titles have laid the framework for some very direct and heated competition, you might want to create yourself a YouTube account and start watching a few videos.  

Activision and IW struck first with their highly controversial release of information about Modern Warfare 3's use of the COD Elite program: a subscription based service which will entitle members to perks such as improved map and weapon analytics, weapon stat tracking, player career tracking, and dedicated website access (just to name a few). Correspondingly, Dice struck back with a few extras of its own, namely pre-order bonuses and day one DLC that could add aspects to the gaming experience within BF3 without having a subscription based price scale. Obviously, these two are at each other's throats to win over the market. In fact, this competition has become so inflamed that the CEO from Ea released a statement saying that he wants “Call of Duty to rot from the core…” I don’t know about anyone reading this, but where I’m from, them’s fightin’ words...

httpv://youtu.be/ppz3JZ0xA6k

However, the competitive nature of gaming is not problematic for me. What is problematic is the way EA and Dice are handling the DLC for Battlefield 3.

(*Note: please refrain from "you're just a MW3 fanboy" comments here. Remember, this is an artilce on DLC, not subscription based content and, therefore, I will be discussing BF3's controversial DLC decision, not MW3's Elite program. Subscription based services are a totally different issue deserving its own write-up and conversation)

Now, I’m not going to go into all the meticulous details of the controversy here, it would take too much time to cover everything and if you’re reading this you have probably already familiarized yourself with the issue anyway. Nonetheless, the controversy in a nutshell is this: Battlefield 3 will be released with a “preorder claus” of sorts, one which offers extra weapons for the game and a DLC which is purchasable on day one of release.

This is a prime example of how DLC can become just another way to gain money, rather than a way to provide content for gamers who love the art of gaming.

Why? One, there should NEVER be an in-game advantage purchasable for players on day one which allows people to buy themselves a better kill-to-death ratio. Skill should always be the one variable which sets players apart, not bank accounts. Two, if these things are available at the beginning of a games release, why not add them to the original game for us to enjoy? Are we, as customers, not paying for a game and the development that has gone into that game as it is when it hits the shelves on release day?

My rule for DLC is this, if it has been created and can be made available when the games goes live, then it should be free. Why? Because as gamers we are paying for the development of a game up until the release date, the actual point of sale. However, if something is made that adds a new enjoyable element of the game, which developers had to come up with and create after a game’s release, then sure, by all means offer it to us at a reasonable cost so we can then expand that game’s experience.

Think about how many good relationships this would generate between video game corporations and gamers. If Ea/Dice were to simply release BF3 with the content readily available up to the date of release at no "extra" charge to gamers, would that not win over MANY people who already feel that Activision is a company only interested in their customers wallets? Could that show of good will and good faith not help to tip the proverbial odds in Battlefield's favor in a big way?

At the end of the day, this is what i know: I know that I am a brand-loyal kind of guy. If a brand treats me well, I will return with my wallet in hand to continue purchasing products from that brand until the relationship is tarnished. For me, the way in which a developer, publisher, and/or company handles the DLC for their release is the variable which proves whether or not they have as much respect for the gamers buying their product as we have for the games they are making. Correspondingly, video game publishers are not going to stop doing something that makes them money until we, as the ones giving them those funds, cease to hand over cash until they provide us with content worth spending it on.

Cheers!

JohnnyWayne_

Twitter:@JohnnyWayne_

[In the latest episode of our podcast we discuss EA and DICE's decision on DLC: http://www.gamersriot.com/archives/2743]

Battlefield 3 Gameplay Teaser

Posted on by
446

So after the teaser for Battlefield 3, we get another teaser, but this time there is tender tender gameplay footage. And, oh my, it looks great.

I don't know about you guys, but I am always looking for a new FPS fix. I love myself some Black Ops at the moment, but I think that if there is nothing else going on by the time that this comes out it will take position as the go to game where I shoot guys in the face.