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!