Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3 – destructive environments a big factor

 

By Posted 9 Aug 2011, 12:26

Almost a week ago we posted an article which took a look at the best Battlefield 3 destruction videos, here we saw plenty of videos showing how explosives could be used to blow up parts of the environment, today we will look into whether Modern Warfare 3 needs a similar feature.

The game devs over at EA DICE have used the Frostbite 2 engine to not only give BF3 better sound and graphics than previous games which use the original Frostbite engine, but the new engine delivers much more advanced destruction of buildings and scenery – so far we have seen nothing comparable from the guys behind MW3 (SledgeHammer Games and Infinity Ward).

Also See: COD: Advanced Warfare PS4 Midnight launch price, or pre-load

Modern Warfare 3 uses a similar engine to Modern Warfare 2, MW2 used the IW 4.0 engine, whilst MW3 utilizes the IW 5.0 engine. As the name suggests the IW 5.0 engine has been developed by Infinity Ward, according to many sources this engine will improve on IW 4.0′s texture streaming technology to allow larger levels enhanced audio and lighting, however there is no mention of destruction.

In our opinion this doesn’t mean that MW3 will not offer destructive environments, however it does perhaps suggest that the developers behind the game are not taking destruction all that seriously – could this be a mistake? We certainly think so, below we will explain why.

It is pretty obvious that MW3′s campaign will see its fair share of destruction, however we think that the game’s multiplayer elements need walls that can be blown up etc, this is because we think it could change the dynamic of all multiplayer games and could be used to combat two common problems which affect most Call of Duty games – camping and spawn trapping. We are not saying that every wall on a multiplayer map should be destructible, but anything would be better than nothing.

Treyarch brought some interactive features to its Black Ops maps, these really helped to mix up gameplay and added a more tactical side to what has become a run’n’gun franchise, The rocket taking off on Launch and the blast doors on Radiation are just two examples of interactivity which seriously affected how a map played out, take both of these features out of the maps and we guarantee that games would be much more predictable. We feel that destructible environments will affect multiplayer games in a similar way – do you?

We would love to hear your opinions on the matter, therefore feel free to leave us a comment below explaining to us whether you think MW3 needs destructible environments – we sure think so. Please remember we have not been told that MW3 will not feature destructive environments, therefore perhaps this is something devs are keeping quiet on purpose.

  • Rock8798

    what they need to get right is the lighting/colours/decor of the maps. the mw2 maps were far superior to the black ops maps despite the interactive features you list (the 2 you mentioned were good, kowloon zip wires/radiation conveyor belt not so good).

    maps on black ops were bland. the only maps on black ops worthy of ever making a comeback are Firing Range, Summit, Radiation, Jungle and Kowloon. Oh and discovery

  • Rock8798

    and you know what, Stadium too. Still the point remains, the colours and look/feel of the MW2 maps were superior to Black Ops, no question

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think any call of duty game will feature destructible environments any time soon.  I feel like destruction would upset most cod fans.  85% of cod fans DONT want cod to change.  Which is why i think it would be a good move for activision to open up a new franchise to compete directly with battlefield. 

  • Prashanth Ps3

    Both games can take some genuine inspirations from each other,that said,both these games offer two different experiences for two different set of gaming audiences,i am happy that Call of duty games are more focused on gun on gun combat which makes it super fun satisfying to play,where as Battlefield games are more into destruction and vehicular combat which offers fun/satisfying experience to those set of gamers. Its upto us fans of these two franchises to say which game is fun and whats so fun about it,i find Call of Duty games super satisfying/rewarding and fun to play online and its always my most played multiplayer franchise day in and day out!

  • Moragami

    Call of Duty should reduce suckage by 70%, and increase destruction 100%.  Call of Duty had made a mockery of online warfare.  Might as well be TF2, except that TF2 requires some sort of teamwork or collaboration, unlike CoD.

  • Deadeyemojack

    Call of Duty is retarded. It’s getting so old. Each “new” game really has hardly anything NEW about it. Five year olds play and camping is unreal. Not to mention how a .105 shell from a franking AC130 can’t even penetrate a cloth overhang to hit the person under it. It’s gay. Battlefield is a war game for real men.

    • Fgsgfsfeaef

      i think he is right cuz the new games like basicly all the ”new” games u cant shoot thro anything like if  
      u shot at a peace of tissue papper it would make a fake black hole and woldint even hit the guy on the other side well wat do ya want realistic fun. or fake n none tactacle fun.i mean ur sooo right wat ur yrying to get at is ”games need to be more real and not gay”

  • Deadeyemojack

    Call of Duty is retarded. It’s getting so old. Each “new” game really has hardly anything NEW about it. Five year olds play and camping is unreal. Not to mention how a .105 shell from a franking AC130 can’t even penetrate a cloth overhang to hit the person under it. It’s gay. Battlefield is a war game for real men.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DRMR25YG3IN2R4P77NULCP2YUA Someone

    I love destruction in BFBC2 and it really changes the experience. I can’t remember how many times when everyone would quickly rush with tanks and jeeps to grab the control points at the start of the match or get into hiding spots behind a sand dune. After several minutes of constant bombardment the ground is pock marked with craters, making rushing around in tanks a slow and bumpy slog while speeding in a C4 laden jeep/ATV would accidentally set it off before you even reach your target. Of course if you are a recon you could try and snipe from these craters. Everything changes so your strategies change.

  • Kojinp

    I think that people should appreciate both games for what they do by themselves. Call of Duty fans choose CoD for the run’n’gun game style, while BF fans like the tactical style.

  • Luckygodzilla95

    no its stupid to belivee that cod would improve with destruction. imagine nuketown for example, if one team were to level the other teams house, they would have direct line of view to the opposing teams primary spawn. there is a reason people memorize cod maps and not bf maps