Posts tagged ‘mw3’

February 28, 2012

Modern Warfare 3 DLC: Liberation and Piazza

For months now I’ve hated on Modern Warfare 3, complaining of its unoriginality, bemoaning it’s failures in comparison to Battlefield 3, and in general just letting it collect dust while I enjoyed other games.  But I had an epiphany last weekend.  When a friend of mine came over for drinks, we ended up playing MW3 the entire night.  This is because, despite all it’s percieved faults, MW3 did

read more »

February 2, 2012

The Bayonet

This Thanksgiving I found myself at a table with my uncle and my cousin’s grandfather, veterans of Vietnam and World War II respectively.  We talked about normal family things, but at some point the conversation turned to war.  With great interest I listened to them exchange stories about the forests of Alsace Lorraine and the jungles surrounding Saigon.  It was at this point that my uncle began talking about Vietnam and his experiences there as an 18 year old Marine.  It’s not hard to feel lazy and sheltered when you’re listening to someone recall their

read more »

January 6, 2012

The Uzi, A Kosher Alternative

Of all the weapons shown in 80’s actions movies, perhaps none were as ubiquitous as the Uzi.  Before the rise of all manner of personal defense weapons and machine pistols, the Uzi stood out as a unique, fully-automatic weapon that looked strangely distinct from its assault rifle counterparts.  This gun was different.  It looked just like a pistol, it had a magazine loaded into the grip, a tiny barrel, and was small enough to be wielded single-handedly.  Of all the guns we saw as kids, none were as instantly recognizable as the Uzi, and that’s what added to its mystique.  But these days it seems like the Uzi has begun to fade from prominence.  

read more »

Tags: , , , , , ,
December 22, 2011

The Modern Warfare 3 Map Problem

By now, I’m sure most of you have noticed that Modern Warfare 3 just isn’t as fun as some of the previous Call of Duty titles.  I know I sure have.  Hell, I loved Black Ops to no end, and I played it for nearly a year straight.  So why then, when I bought MW3, did I almost immediately dislike it?  That’s the question I’ve been pondering non-stop for the past month or so, and I think I’ve finally found the answer.

read more »

Tags: , , ,
November 24, 2011

Up Close and Far Away: Battlefield 3 v. Modern Warfare 3

I had to put Skyrim aside while I finish up a mountain of work for the next few weeks, and have instead focused my breaks on shooters lately.  And while playing both Modern Warfare and Battlefield, I’ve obviously noticed some substantial differences.  But today I want to focus on two main differences, both in the area of one-hit killing:  knifing and sniping.  Both games take a somewhat different approach to these integral aspects of combat, and in my personal opinion, Battlefield 3 has done a better job with both.

Yes, obviously...


Call of Duty’s knifing system hasn’t changed much over the past few years (but honestly, what has?).  It’s simple really, you’re guaranteed a one-hit kill if you get close enough to an enemy and take a swipe at him with your knife.  It’s become such a second nature to the games that when two players come within a specific distance of one another, continuing to shoot is simply foolish and suicidal.  It has caused every gamer across the world to shout out in rage as they pump their enemy full of bullets, only to be felled with one swipe of the knife.  I personally find this a problem.

Close enough.

First of all, in what world do the game designers live on where a cut is always more deadly than a gunshot wound?  Not that MW3 doesn’t have stab animations, but all too often we’re presented with a mere swipe of the knife and the enemy is dead.  In the above picture, the guy’s backpack might get torn open, but to have us believe he’ll keel over and die because of it is a little too much for even a gullible guy like me to believe.  When your blood is quickly being replaced by bullets, giving the guy a papercut isn’t going to stop it.  I know we need knifing to be one hit kill so that we’re not left with a slapfest like in Goldeneye, but at least make it realistic.  Maybe something like below?  A little animation where you turn the guy around and actually, you know, put the knife in him?

Like this?

Yes like that!  Modern Warfare, you should have done it exactly like….well hell, like Battlefield.  See, in Battlefield you don’t just limp-wrist your knife at a guy and hope he’s a hemophiliac, you let him know you’re stabbing him.  It’s all the more satisfying to do it, all the more enraging to have it done to you, and all the more realistic.  Plus, not only does it make things way more balanced, but it actually makes knifing more ruthless.  Knifing is far more difficult to pull off, but if you do it, it is a great feeling.  You don’t feel like you got a cheap kill; you feel like you just brutally killed someone.  And when you’re playing a war game, that’s usually the effect you’re going for.  Oh, and did I mention you steal their dog tags?

Kinda a dick move though...


I saw someone say that Modern Warfare 3 is like laser tag and Battlefield 3 is like paintball, and I have to agree.  Whereas in laser tag you run around constantly in a small room shooting each other and giggling until the nitrous wears off, in paintball you move slowly and deliberately; the opposing sides are more delineated and precision, teamwork and patience pay off in the end.  In MW3 I don’t really care if I get killed.  I immediately respawn and run back into the action, guns blazing until I die.  I’m more of a kamakazi; death is inevitable, so why not take out as many people as I can with me.  But in Battlefield, it takes forever to get to a good spot and hold it.  I don’t want to die, I have a real incentive not to.  This is true for all classes and play styles.  And though I’m mostly an SMG man in both games, I’ve recently tried my hand at sniping.  In one game I had fun, in the other I did not.  I’ll give you a hint.  Laser tag doesn’t have sniper rifles lasers for a reason.

My dad wishes I played fooooootballllll!

Here’s my main beef.  Modern Warfare 3 has tons of great weapons in it, just like Battlefield 3 does.  In fact, they have tons of the same weapons, both being modern shooters.  But while in Battlefield you can make good use of really any of the guns, in Modern Warfare you really only need the SMGs or the assault rifles.  I mean honestly, when each map is the size of a Wendy’s, why do you need a sniper rifle?  Quickscoping?  That cheap method of running and gunning with a one-hit kill weapon?  Who here honestly believes that’s how snipers work in real life?  I know video games are able to take liberties with reality, and sometimes that can be good, but what is the point of having a sniper rifle in Modern Warfare?  Some may make good use of it I’m sure, but not to the extent you could if it was on a far bigger map.  This isn’t really what you should see when you’re sniping:

Close enough to knife him, really.

That’s like someone sniping their neighbor in some twisted Hatfield-McCoy feud, except in the suburbs.  The beauty of sniping is the incredible accuracy these weapons offer, matched with the skill of the shooter.  In Battlefield, with the maps as large as they are, one has to take into serious account leading the enemies and the effect of gravity on bullets over an extended distance.  That’s why a kill like in the image above may be sort of satisfying, but it’s nothing compared to a Battlefield snipe:

See, that is sick.  And while I’m nowhere near close to that good (my Battlelog shows my longest headshot at a paltry 112m), it is quite fun in a game of Rush to hide atop a hill and watch the combat below, waiting for that one shot.  And though I miss a lot, and when I do choose to snipe I get very low overall game scores, when I do get that headshot from a distance, I feel very accomplished afterwards.  Because I feel like an actual sniper, licking my finger to test the wind, aiming above their heads so I can watch that white orb drop and pop them a split second later.  Modern Warfare gives us the guns, but they don’t give us the ability to actually engage in all types of this so called “modern warfare”.  We’re only given a part of it.  This very claustrophobic close-quarters combat type of warfare, without any of the rest of it.  So we’re left with guns that can’t be used to their full potential.  And that’s why I keep coming back to Battlefield as my game of choice over MW3.

Plus, you can tell this isn't MW3 because there aren't kids calling you a fag in this picture.

In the end, this is a very partisan approach to it all, and my inner fanboy towards BF3 is clearly showing.  I’ll either preach to the choir or generate disagreements.  So please let me know your thoughts in the comments below!

November 10, 2011

First Impressions of Modern Warfare 3

Note:  This is nowhere near a complete review, nor is it my final thoughts about the game.  It’s just a good ole fashioned, knee jerk rambling, born from playing the game for just a couple of days.

Context is everything.  This game, like it or not, doesn’t exist within a vacuum.  And because of that, comparisons are inevitable.  With that said, I’m judging Modern Warfare 3 from the perspective of someone who up until Tuesday had been playing tons of Battlefield 3 online.  As a reference, let me tell you a story.  DorisfromNoris and I logged on the other night and formed our own little squad.  We were playing conquest, and as I jumped into a jeep, a stranger jumped onto the 50cal behind me.  We drove from checkpoint to checkpoint, blasting people away and rising up as the best squad on our team.  When our vehicle was destroyed, Doris met up with us and we three proceeded on foot to continue dominating the game.  We were the Navy SEALs of the game so to speak.  And we didn’t know this other guy at all.  But over the course of a number of matches, the teamwork put in by all three of us not only allowed us to win some major games, but to also become a friend to this new guy.  It was not only a memorable evening, but probably the most fun I’ve had since COD4 came out, in terms of online FPS.

Maybe you had to be there.  Regardless, it was a great time.  Now, fast forward to Tuesday.  I pick up MW3 on my lunch break and go home to play a couple of games.  The first game I get into, the match is already underway.  There is an enemy Huey just decimating my team, so I pop a Javelin rocket at it and bring it down.  Yay teamwork!  Everyone was stoked, and we all agreed to get beers if we were ever in the area again.  Or wait, that doesn’t seem right.  No, they said, and I quote, “Goddamn Mortar, wait until the chopper’s leaving before you shoot it?  Fucking n00bs on our team, what a bitch.”  I’m torn between three options.  Asking why he didn’t shoot it down, trolling him hard just to start an argument, or muting the dude.  I went with the third option; it had been a bad day and I didn’t feel like arguing with some meth addled hillbilly about strategy and the merits of who’s actually a bigger prick.

Though in fairness, he made an astute point.

And that’s when I realized it.  For whatever reason, these two war games gave me totally different reactions.  And Modern Warfare’s reaction wasn’t positive.  It got me mad.  It got my blood boiling.  I’d mute the guys but then immediately spawn on a live grenade.  I’d be in the middle of reloading when my sprinting would cancel the action.  Not to mention the clusterfuck that happens when the game thinks 3 people should spawn on top of each other, causing the game to sputter and rubberband like a Japanese kid watching that Porygon episode.  When Doris got on, we couldn’t party chat thanks to the ingenuity of the PS3, and thus we were stuck in lobbies of people blasting music into their mics, people going so racist it’d make a Klansman blush, and kids screaming for no discernible reason.  I hated to admit it, but from the FPS wars I’d seen in threads, it seemed the BF3 fanboys may have had a point.  And all that time, I’d been on the wrong side of history.

But maybe its not the  games themselves, maybe its the players.  I had to judge the game itself and not its audience.  I love Nirvana, and that love didn’t go away when the goth kids appropriated grunge.  Just because they thought Kurt Cobain would have made a great Slipknot frontman didn’t make Lithium any worse.  It just made them stupid.

Smells like team spirit, amirite?

So I hopped offline and decided to take a stab at single player.  And this is when my frustration subsided.  Because say what you want about Call of Duty, they can still make one hell of a campaign, and this is no exception.  Its so intense and crazy, you’d be inclined to watch First Blood only when you need to fall asleep.  I won’t spoil anything, but there is a certain Inception-like fight scene that totally blew my mind (and eerily resembled a Perfect Dark 64 level, if any of you out there are keeping track).  And here’s where I noticed something else.  Whereas Battlefield is clearly made for PCs, and the graphics dumbed down for their console brethren, MW3 is fully rendered on my PS3.  60 frames per second does wonders for the fast paced action, and the guns are beautifully rendered, complete with Remington or Colt etched into their sides to give that added touch of realism.  And the cities are just great looking.  Ah yes, I was loving this game, and I could finally breath a sigh of relief.  Nothing worse than hating the first 10 minutes of a game you just bought.  That’s certain to bring you down.

See, I loved Black Ops; loved it with a passion.  I didn’t really play games for a year or two there, and so when I got Blops I got into it with a vengeance.  And I played the multiplayer nonstop.  So I was worried.  Just what was it about Modern Warfare 3 that was getting me pissed off?  If all the complaints were that MW3 was just more of the same, that wouldn’t mean I’d be getting this mad at it, especially since I loved the same this was supposedly more of.  And I realized a couple of things.  First, I didn’t get Blops when it first came out, I got it in late December.  By that time the Ritalin munching kids had grown tired of it (to an extent) and so there were more serious players online.  Secondly, coming from BF3 with all its teamwork and mostly polite-player goodness, I was drowning in a sea of teenage angst, the likes of which I hadn’t seen since I was in high school.  And lastly, I was playing the matches that drew in the most weirdos of all, Team Deathmatch.  I decided it was time to hop on over to something a little more serious, and haven’t left Search and Destroy since.  It has made a huge difference.

So what do I think overall?  I really don’t know.  Its still far too early to make a definitive judgment, let alone try and decide which game I like better for FPS of the year.  I will say this, it does have it’s problems, and it isn’t a whole lot different from its predecessors.  The graphics have been improved, and I think it looks better than BF3, at least on the console.  The survivor mode is simply a ton of fun, though I do miss my Nazi zombies.  Last night I got into a group of about 7 of my friends and we all played together, something that just doesn’t happen on BF3 (because more of my friends have MW3, by far).  The campaign is sick, maybe the best campaign of a single player FPS I’ve ever played, and the multiplayer can be very, very addictive, especially if you mute the morans and have some friends to play with.  The maps are small and cramped, certainly in contrast to what I’ve been used to for the past few weeks, and you will die a lot quicker, especially if you have “skills” like me.  Though I wanted to get on here the first day I got the game and trash it like everyone else has done on Metacritic, I had to remind myself that this is a franchise I’ve loved for years, and have had some great times in.  Maybe all the hate had subliminally influenced me and my opinion.  I had to go back and remember what made Black Ops so special, and try to reclaim that passion in this newest installment.  And so far, I have.   The screaming kids didn’t create the game, and they certainly don’t have to define my opinion of it.  So with tons typed and nothing really said, I’ll leave it with a big “we’ll see…”  Not a satisfying answer, but I want to make sure my review, and ultimately my MW3/BF3 comparison, are well thought out and not based upon pure emotion.  So I’ll leave you with this:

Robber attempts to take MW3 at gunpoint

Man threatens to blow up Best Buy over MW3

Criminals tear gas truck, steal 6,000 copies of MW3

November 7, 2011

The Eve of Modern Warfare 3

Days before Battlefield 3 was released, I wrote an article about how I predicted my favorite of the two big shooters this season would be Modern Warfare 3.  I recanted later after having the opportunity, nay, the privilege of playing Battlefield and seeing first hand just how amazing that game ended up being.  I’ve played so much Battlefield over the past two weeks that Arkham City has sat lonely and desperate under a veil of dust and neglect.  And while that’s not entirely true (I’ve got one hell of an Arkham City review coming up soon)  what I found was that Battlefield 3 had taken all the things I loved in shooters and improved them.  This wasn’t just an expansion pack over previous shooters with minor tweaks here and there, it was an entirely new title, it brought an entire new perspective to shooters.  Intensity, violence, and teamwork.  I only stop playing once the flashes of the gunshots permeate my brain to the point my eyes dilate and my body teeters on the brink of seizure.  Its like a drug, the adrenaline pumping through my veins, my epinephrine gland akin to a junkie’s needle, Battlefield pushing down the syringe more and more.

I love Caspain Border

Ok, maybe that’s all hyperbole.  But anything can seem intense when your day is spent discussing wrongful termination lawsuits.  Regardless, what I found I loved the most about Battlefield was that it was something new.  It gave me that feeling you get when you experience something new, something unknown.  The novelty of it all overwhelms you.  And so, in direct contrast to my previous posts, I fear I may be disappointed with Modern Warfare 3.  It is simply inevitable that one will draw comparisons between two games so similarly situated in terms of gameplay.  And when all signs point to MW3 being more of the same, banking on its successful formula to offer an improved (but not much different) game, I fear that I will be left wondering why I can’t do certain things that I otherwise could in Battlefield.  Call of Duty plays their cards so safely, keeping players in a comfort zone and refusing to take chances that may screw up their formula, that it may end up lagging where BF3 soars.  Its understandable that when you have something good, why mess with it?  Coca-Cola has always been the dominant force in their industry (sound familiar?) so when they tweaked too much, we ended up with New Coke, something people hated with a passion.  Fear of backlash inevitably will handicap innovation, which sometimes keeps you safe from the failings not unlike the soda industry, but can also keep you from grasping success with new changes like many developers have seen before.  You could be Mortal Kombat introducing 3d fighting and screwing everything up, or you could be Grand Theft Auto introducing 3d gameplay and becoming legends.  Battlefield went with innovation and it has been great, and now its hard to think that playing more of the same can be as satisfying as it was before.

No, no it didn't

None of this is to say that I think Modern Warfare 3 will be bad.  I know the story will be awesome, and I’ve heard some pretty controversial things that the campaign may include (but I won’t spoil it for all you good people out there).  And the formula has always been one I’ve liked, and I’ve liked it a lot.  I’m going to the midnight release tonight, I can hardly concentrate I’m so excited about it, and I know the multiplayer will steal countless, Skyrim-like hours of my time.  And I would be willing to bet that my review will be pretty damn positive too.  But in the end, whether I want to or not, subconsciously I’ll have chosen a winner.  And right now, Modern Warfare is looking like  Casey Anthony OJ Simpson Amanda Knox an underdog.  Sure, it might end up winning, but before the jury gets back, its not looking good.

November 3, 2011

Two Strange Guns From One Strange (Russian) Developer

Russia has always been the unusual kid in the classroom that is the world.  Not quite European, not quite Asian, the Russians have for centuries struggled to find their identity.  Sometimes they fall in with the wrong crowd, sometimes they get an inferiority complex and sometimes they go full art school and just get weird.  But for all their ups and downs with communism, dictators, revolutions and world wars, they’ve always had a soft spot in their heart for military innovation.  And thus in 1927 the Soviets developed the KBP Instrument Design Bureau.  Something like a DARPA, their goal is to develop “high-precision weapon” and their poorly translated website inevitably will have you reading the text in a voice not unlike a Bond villain.  Regardless, through its long history the KBP has overseen the development of numerous military technologies and innovations, ranging from small arms to automatic cannons.  These automatic cannons, no joke, are made to use “depleted uranium enhanced armor-piercing shells.”  And while I know nothing about what that means, it sure does sound dastardly.

Our bullets need more, how you say, poison...

Yeah, that’s the former president, current prime minister, and future president of Russia Vladimir Putin.  His entire persona is based around shirtlessly wrestling tigers and assassinating political opponents and he has an 80% approval rating, so its no surprise that his state-run gun manufacturer makes some pretty crazy weapons.  With all that said, two stand out from the rest.  They are both submachine guns and to varying extents are in use in the Russian military and police.  The first was designed by Salvador Dali himself (citation needed).


The PP-90M1 was developed in the mid 1990’s.  It was designed to be an extremely compact SMG that could fire from a 64 round magazine, no easy task for the SMG class.  It uses overpressure armor piercing ammunition which means the bullets (9x19mm) use far more gunpowder than is typically used for that caliber.  This means it is capable of piercing steel plates at up to 800 rounds per minute.  And none of that is too unusual until you see the weapon itself…

What the hell?

In order to house those 64 rounds, it uses an “innovative” helical magazine.  This design is extremely rare, and though it can hold an incredible amount of ammunition in such a small space, it requires highly complex internal mechanisms in order to function properly.  Except that it doesn’t always function properly, and that is one of the biggest drawbacks of this weapon.  It has a far higher chance of feeding failure than any other type of magazine.  That’s ok though, because when it shoots, it is a very, very powerful weapon.  Which incidentally is also bad news for the PP-90M1.

You see, the charging mechanism to retract the bolt is directly above the barrel, at about an inch difference.  That means in order to cock the gun you basically have to reach in front of it.  Surely this can’t be safe.  But then again, who needs safety when you’re a part of the vodka swilling Putin police.

To save money on red arrows, this points to both where you charge the gun, as well as where you shouldn't be putting your fingers.

It is rumored to be making an appearance in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, which to my knowledge is the only video game to ever feature such a weapon.  I actually am very excited to try this out myself.  And speaking of crazy Russian guns developed by the KBP and featured in recent FPS games:


While I spent a lot of time crapping on the PP-90M1, this next weapon is actually a pretty intriguing gun.  It is also a SMG, but it uses the traditional box magazine.  Introduced in 2004, this weapon is now available worldwide, though only in use so far with the Russian Army and various Russian swat teams.  It is part of a class of personal defense weapons, a sub-class of SMGs, made to capitalize of the armor-piercing capabilities of its carbine cousins.  What is interesting about the PP-2000 however is that it has space to hold a secondary magazine, and that magazine can serve as the butt stock for the gun.

It can also be equipped with a normal folding stock, a la the Skorpion, and is capable of being outfitted with all sorts of additions like silencers, tactical lights, and all manner of sights.  It is advertised as being superior to the FN P90 in that while it retains armor piercing capabilities, it also has increased stopping power by making use of jacketed hollow point rounds that have been overpressured.  The gun is advertised on KBP’s website featuring soldiers, fully masked, to really emphasize the nefarious image of their guns.

You don't need to see my face

The  gun recently made an appearance in Battlefield 3 and has risen to the rank of one of my favorite weapons, especially in close quarter combat situations.  With its extremely compact size, unusual design, and powerful capabilities, it looks like where the KBP failed in the 90M1, they got it right with the PP-2000.  Oh, except that the bolt is still over the barrel.

Update:  I have confirmed the PP-90M1 will indeed be in MW3, as per the following screen grab:

Though the gun can use a traditional box magazine as well, I'm happy to see the helix make an appearance

October 24, 2011

Why I Want MW3 More Than BF3

The Battlefield/Call of Duty debate rages on as both franchises are set to release their latest installment in a matter of hours/days, respectively.  Both companies have handled this competition respectfully and professionally, and by that I mean they have acted like children trying to one up each other in the battle for FPS dominance.  While name calling between businesses doesn’t exactly endear me to them, anything that has been said between them pales in comparison to what is debated in the forums online.  What has amazed me the most is the sheer enthusiasm of Battlefield players, and the overarching contention that Battlefield takes skill and is the epitome of realism, while Call of Duty is nothing but a haven for Ritalin-junkie prepubescents to practice their racial slurs.  For a fun example, take a look at a screengrab I got from a debate, where people are actually using their Facebook logins to debate the merits of two video games.

If you buy Call of Duty, the terrorists win

While his arguments make good use of “alternative” grammar structure, what may worry me the most is that he’s a security guard, which presumably means he carries a gun.  At least we know that he’s developing real skills to use in a war game, instead of such non-essential skills like “running and shooting”.  But I don’t want to spend my time ragging on some poor weirdo, especially because there are just so many more hilarious posts out there supporting their respective franchises.  The basic trend I’ve noticed though is that Battlefield, at least in the gaming forum community, has far more adamant supporters, spending almost as much time supporting their game as they bash Call of Duty.  And that’s fine.  If it was 1997 and people were shitting on Goldeneye because they thought Turok was better, I’d certainly be jumping into the fray to tell them how stupid they were.  But something seems different this time.

Nothing can compare

First of all, in the overarching scheme of things, the games really aren’t that different.  I know I may get some flack for that, but seriously.  BF3 and MW3 are both first person shooters, set in the modern day, striving for hyper-realism and the top spot in the uber competitive e-sport category.  Because of this, they will both inevitably feature similar weapons, in similar locales, with similar physics.  Now, I realize there are some significant differences in the games, and those will ultimately determine not only which game you get, if you don’t end up getting both, and also which ends up selling better.  But I think the debate that is currently ongoing, over which franchise is actually superior, is frankly a little bit silly.  The games both cater to a very specific demographic, those that like war games and competitive online multiplayer.  That needs to be understood by everyone.  It is not like there are two different demographics that each game specifically is geared towards.  To an outsider, they would be perceived as basically the exact same game.  So the major difference is subtle preferences of those within a set and well defined demographic, and that will ultimately determine who buys what.  And for me personally, that will be Modern Warfare 3.  I had originally planned on getting both, but after playing Bad Company 2 and the BF3 Beta, as well as the sheer amount of games around the corner, I will only have one slot available for my FPS category, and that will be occupied by Call of Duty.  Allow me to explain:

The debate really boils down to whether you prefer to shoot AK47s in the desert, or if you'd rather shoot AK47s in the desert.

First, I am not in the least attempting to say that BF3 is or will be a bad game.  Not in the least.  In fact, it looks like it will be simply amazing.  But it doesn’t work for me for a number of reasons.  First, it is too realistic.  I die way too easily.  Call me a n00b all day long if you need to, but I’m 26 and for some reason I just can’t keep up with 18 year-olds with that trigger twitch anymore.  Also, I absolutely love to run and gun.  And if I get killed every time I step out into the open, I’m going to get frustrated.  In Bad Company I died constantly, it was an exercise in respawning, running towards the action, instantly dying, and then doing it all over again.  It got tiresome.  Maybe those BF3 supporters are right, and maybe it does take more skill.  But it also requires something else, something I just don’t have, and that’s patience.  I’m not a patient person, and when I’m required to hide, like real life, for a long time in order to do well, I end up just getting bored.  Not to mention that on top of all that, I’m just not a team player.  I don’t typically like other people, and I don’t typically see myself as some vital cog in the machine.  I see my online personality as a lone vigilante, and my main competitors are my teammates, stealing all those precious kills.  To force me to work together with people, after a long day at work, working together with people, is too much to ask of someone like me.  See, unlike anyone who’s ever drank the mercury that is online forum debating, which magically makes people stupid, I don’t think that because I will prefer Call of Duty that that somehow makes BF3 a bad game.  Its a great game for a certain subset of the demographic, but I’m not a part of that demographic, and I don’t think I ever will be.

Get out of my way you idiots!

I am the type of person that wants instant action, overwhelming, Mountain Dew overdosing action.  Both games have tons of action, to be sure, but I’m the type that wants to run constantly towards the action like some sort of suicidal maniac with a death wish, just wanting to take out as many people as I can before I inevitably die.  (In hindsight, maybe the poster above has a point about COD = Insurgents).  Regardless, I don’t want to die instantly.  I don’t want to have to hide and wait all day.  I want smaller maps, I want modes where I can run, gun, and say to hell with cooperation.  I was shorter matches where I don’t have to commit tons of time to just one game.  Furthermore, COD is what I’m familiar with.  I’ve been playing that franchises’ games for years.  Its what I know, its what I’m used to.  I don’t want to step out of my comfort zone, and there is nothing unusual about that, in video games or anything else.  The most important factor here is that I have fun playing COD games, and that’s why I buy video games in the first place.  See, I had a great time with Deus Ex, I raved about Rage, I can’t put down Batman, and I loved Resistance 3, but there are only two games this year that had me playing, without significant down time, for most of the year.  That was Mortal Kombat and Black Ops.  And if nothing else, I know myself, and if I bought both BF3 and MW3, I would beat both games’ campaigns, and then be forced into a position of wanting to level up my character as much as possible.  I either divide my time evenly between the two games, thus wasting half of my energy playing whichever game I inevitably find less enthralling, or I only play one games’ multiplayer in order to keep as much XP in one place as possible.  And because I’ve experienced both styles of gameplay, I can safely say that I would end up choosing COD over Battlefield.  And because of that, I personally will pass on Battlefield 3 and wait until November 8th for Modern Warfare.

That all said, I’d love to hear your thoughts on BF3, those of you getting it tomorrow.  Let me know what you think in the comments below!