For nearly the entire calendar year, the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises have been at war.

Similar to the Sega vs. Nintendo days of yore, it’s a pitch, knock-down battle for supremacy; the two companies have launched ad campaigns taking none-too-subtle jabs at each other, and gamers are digging in and choosing a side, ready to defend their favourite franchise and see the opposition go down in defeat.

This has to stop.

Seriously, folks, I’m all for good, healthy competition, but what’s going on between Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is just plain ridiculous. It goes beyond competitive rivalry and turns into something out of bloody Amadeus. The antagonism on behalf of either franchise is colossally wrong-headed, and it would be in everyone’s best interest if gamers put down their torches and pitchforks, and let both games be.


First of all, this battle doesn’t make our industry look good. Though gaming has slowly risen to a place of prominence in the last five or ten years, it isn't yet quite as ubiquitous as movie-watching or listening to music, and there’s still plenty of room for outsiders to get the wrong idea about gaming culture. I can’t imagine it speaks terribly highly about our industry if its fans are willing to act like jackasses in defence of a multinational corporation, who would just as soon suffocate under their large piles of money than give specific attention to those dedicated to besmirching their competitor’s name. We’re just starting to be seen by the rest of the world as more mature; let’s act like we deserve to be treated that way.

I also can’t think of any other industry that pits its competition head-to-head in such a petty manner. At no point in 2006 did Warner Bros. point at 20th Century Fox and say "Hey! Our movie about magicians in the early 1900s is way better than yours!" Neither do book publishers declare that their new novel is 'better' than an already-established series ("puts James Patterson’s Women’s Murder Club books to shame!"), and whilst it’s hardly unusual for recording artists to enter into disputes, they rarely involve direct album comparisons. These industries appear more confident about their products, and about their ability to coexist with consumers. Fans may argue about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is 'better', but these discussions are most often held between consumers, which is a far cry from having a quarrel perpetuated by the films' own studios.


Besides, if you were to sit down and play both Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you would quickly find them both to be different and complementary experiences. Battlefield’s multiplayer-focussed shooter offers much more in the vein of wide-open spaces and free-form combat options, whilst Call of Duty places a greater emphasis on tight, twitchy action. True, both games are modern military shooters with straightforward, set piece-driven single player modes, but they both accommodate largely different play styles, resulting in two different gameplay experiences.

Which leads me to my main point: it’s okay to like both. How very basic it sounds, but how true it actually is. Getting caught up in EA and Activision’s trumped-up battle of the shooters can be great fun, but it can also result in players missing an important truth: that both games are fun, top-notch experiences, and each is worthy of your time. Personally, I alternate between the two, depending on what I feel like playing. Perhaps you can only afford one game, and need to pick between the two; choosing one over the other is fine, but liking one game doesn’t preclude you from enjoying the other.

Perhaps I’m being a curmudgeonly sod, but the whole 'one versus the other' thing just smells of stupidity. Too much time, energy, and Metacritic User Score credibility has been sacrificed to a conflict that does not matter in the grand spectrum of gaming. Both games are out now. Buy them, or don’t. Like them, or don’t. But dragging out this pissing contest of a sales matchup is unnecessary, not to mention stupid.

Labels: Andrew Testerman, Battlefield, Call of Duty, DICE, Infinity Ward, Opinion

It's over. It's finished, man. It's done - that's it.

Skyrim and Assassin's Creed are out, and with them arrive the bitterly cold winds of change; we stand on the brink of 2012, a brand new year brimming with adventure and intrigue. And another Call of Duty. With Star Wars: The Old Republic and Rocksmith bringing up the rear and probably being too late to be included in most Game Of The Year lists, you can turn your mind back to a year that saw Libya Liberated, Osama Obama-nated, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 single-handedly ruin everything I hold dear.

Unless Postal III pulls a stunner (spoiler: it won't), that's pretty much it for 2011, so we're compiling the most notable games you've played over the past twelve months and shamelessly judging them based on our incredibly poor recollections. Portal 2 is the one about the Italian plumber, right? Good.

Note: if you can't tell by now, the following list isn't to be taken very seriously.

Dead Space 2

It was kind of like Dead Space, except...Nope. I've got nothing. Basically, you ran about and shot zombie-alien things and there was a lot of blood. While it's hardly original, Dead Space 2 was actually a resounding success; the dismemberment was a grotesquely gleeful as ever, the characters were believable and well-rounded, and the story had enough hooks and twists to keep you blasting on. It's going to take a lot longer than a year for us to forget that needle-to-eye scene.

Why it might win GOTY:

A more refined, polished Dead Space that still haunts our dreams, the buckets of atmosphere and flashy set-pieces (complete with severed baby faces) make it a heart-stopping thriller.

Why it might not win GOTY:

The multiplayer was a giant alien sack of balls, and it came out in January. January. I'm pretty sure the British Empire was still intact back then.

Dragon Age II

You were called Hawke. Now, call me biased, but that's basically the best name in the world. If I could come up with a fake name, it would be Hawke. Luckily, I don't have to. I'm one of the lucky ones. The chosen ones.

Oh, the game? I don't know. I think it had something about violence in it, I forget...

Why it might win GOTY:

Building on the success of the original, what could possibly go wrong?

Why it might not win GOTY:

Quite a lot. Fans were perturbed, to use on overly fancy word, at the shoddy control system, the confusing story and general lack of ingenuity or originality. Plus, we have Skyrim now. Dragon Age II can only look on in wonder.

Homefront

Ha! Just kidding.

Crysis 2

Probably the most visually impressive game on this list - so long as you've got a high-end PC. As this PC poster boy shifted onto the consoles, many worried the Nanosuit would be dumbed down; and while the set-pieces were epic, the story exciting, and the graphics one-of-a-kind, the series had lost some of its charm; no longer were we allowed to wreak havoc in a sandbox paradise, but instead tied down in a tightly scripted, linear, shoot-em-up.

Why it might win GOTY:

It's got the looks. When you boil it down, Crysis 2 is basically an entire series based upon being pixel-perfect, and as shallow as that is; cor. Look at them explosions!

Why it might not win GOTY:

The stealth mechanics are to fiddly and slippery to be a long-term strategy, and the straight-up-shooting is just a bit bland. Crysis 2 might be a jack of all trades, but a master of none.

Portal 2

It was actually funny. Which surprised me - the original Portal was so fleeting, experimental and unexpected that it took everyone by surprise and was allowed to be itself. But when shoved on a standalone stage and told to perform for ten hours, there was a worry that GLADoS would lose her charm, the mechanics would become stale, and it would all be a little bit disappointing. But with the excellent Merchant at the helm, Portal 2 managed to be legitimately hilarious (with as little nerd-humour as possible) and keep a strong pace. Wait - did someone say pace?

Why it might win GOTY:

Cute, funny and thought-provoking, with a solid co-op mode and tonnes of little secrets. There's not another game as unique as Portal 2 out there.

Why it might not win GOTY:

If you pushed through the campaign in a matter of days, the endless portal-shooting and gel-jumping do start to wear thin. Also, it might not be the best critique of a game, but...it's just not Portal 1, is it?

L.A. Noire

Hang on - did I say there wasn't a unique game like Portal 2 out there? Excuse me - I must have forgotten about the game where you solve crimes around a perfectly-recreated 1940s Los Angeles. And accuse old ladies of being killers. L.A. Noire made up for what it lacked in freedom with a mature, developed plot, involving some superbly crafted characters, rich dialogue, and a whole lot of picking up cigarette packets. And drawing. And racism.

Why it might win GOTY:

It's a Rockstar game.

Why it might not win GOTY:

It's a Rockstar game shrouded in modern-day slavery court-cases. And did Cole Phelps put on a flamethrower at the end of the game? Like, for real?

Infamous 2

While a lot of games on this list are criticised for the fact they lose the charm of their predecessor, Infamous 2 is the exception. It's messy and repetitive and shoddy and slightly creepy (why the hell is this city so quiet?!), but it's such a beautiful game when it all comes together. The progression, the powers, the freedom of movement and the powerful-as-a-lighting-storm ending; it may not be perfect, but it sure as hell tries.

Why it might win GOTY:

It should win just for this scene only. (Big spoiler)

Why it might not win GOTY:

While they're easy to forgive, you can't quite overlook the plethora of AI issues, graphical slip-ups, and repetitive missions forever.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution

I never asked for this.

Forza Motorsport 4

Since Gran Turismo 6 won't come out until we all get hovercars and the game becomes outdated before its even released, Forza Motorsport 4 is left to hold high the torch of virtual racing. And fanboyism. It's beautiful, it's fast, and it's flashy.

Why it might win GOTY:

Enough simulation to be realistic, but enough arcade to be masses of fun.

Why it might not win GOTY:

Racing games never win Game Of The Year. Ever.

Battlefield 3

64 players tearing the French Metro to shreds, bombing it across the crisp blue skies of the Caspian Boarder and commanding tanks in the dusty plains of Iran? Forget the rubbish single-player; Battlefield 3 is all about the multiplayer, and with a slew of grand maps, an endless array of weaponry, and a multiplayer shooter that's NOT Call of Duty, Battlefield 3 has a real shout.

Why it might win GOTY:

It's big, loud and a visual stunner. EA's plugged everything they've got into making this a real winner, and they'll be livid if it doesn't come out on top.

Why it might not win GOTY:

The game is certainly not without its problems, with countless issues abound on forums everywhere. These things mount up, y'know.

Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

Serious undertones of paedophilia. That's what I remember most about Uncharted 3; you're a ten-year-old orphan getting chased around by an old man with a moustache. I think there was a lot of other stuff about spiders and adventure and treasure, but I basically zoned out after that and expect Chris Hansen to turn up at my doorstep any minute.

Why it might win GOTY:

As someone who thinks Uncharted 2 was massively overrated, Drake's Deception pumped a lot of my faith back into the series - it's got swagger, ambition and oomph. And when you're reduced to using onomatopoeia to describe a video game, you know you've got something special.

Why it might not win GOTY:

While it's the strongest first two-thirds of any Uncharted yet, it pulls its punches at the end - there's no big revelation or seismic shift for the series, but just another 'sunset and banter' fade-out.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Why it might win GOTY:

It's a brand new Call of Duty!

Why it might not win GOTY:

It's exactly like Call Of Duty 4. Again.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

I'm not even going to talk about the game here. Instead, I'm going to ask you to look at Dead End Thrills. You'll see why.

Driver: San Francisco

Why it might win GOTY:

Best interracial back-and-forth of 2011.

There you have it folks. We'll know soon enough which of these games will come out on top, in the meantime, troll us below with your picks.

Labels: 2011, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Crysis 2, Dead Space 2, Dragon Age II, Driver, Forza Motorsport 4, Game of the year, Homefront, L.A. Noire, Portal 2, Skyrim, Uncharted 3

When Battlefield: Bad Company 2 launched this year, it was met with positive response from much of the community, including myself. Although it never toppled Call Of Duty in way of an online experience 'to never stop playing', it came a close second and I'm pleased to say that I still jump on every so often.

One of the best bits about Bad Company 2 is the extensive post release support it has received. Releases of new maps, free to those with a V.I.P code, have helped to hold back people's urge to start throwing stuff at EA, in annoyance to some of their other plans. However, up until now, most of the DLC hasn't been 'new', as such. They've really just been changes to the original maps, adding a new game mode. Now, bringing cooperative into the Bad Company 2 universe, the Onslaught pack has arrived.

More games today include co-op at release, and it's becoming more of a necessity in this generation, just like online play has become a real requirement if you wish your game to be likely to succeed. Onslaught does exactly as you'd expect and hope, mixing the frantic team-based online play with the single player mode's 'capture and hold' idea.

In terms of maps you won't find anything new. It seems that, although Dice are willing to support their titles, they're not planning to give up any new content until the next installment - or at least until the Vietnam pack, releasing later in the year. However, the new co-op mode does add some changes to the gameplay, and new objectives change the way which you might have previously used the map. Perhaps the best part about using 'Valparaiso'; 'Atacama Desert'; 'Isla Innocentes' and 'Nelson Bay' is that you already know your way around, so there's no navigational adjusting and memorising to do with the new mode.

The objective based gameplay gives you three main sectors to clear - points A, B and C - before you end the level. These are all placed roughly around the online M-Com bases. The best part of the objectives are that, on the way to capture, you'll find a somewhat surprising force holding them. Until you manage to take a point enemies will continue to pour out and into the area, hoping to push you back enough.

With difficulty ranging from easy to hardcore, you might be occupied with the pack for a week or so, trying to get all the important trophies or achievements. However, with only the older maps on offer, the question is if you can justify spending your cash on something that only adds to them. While definitely one for the hardcore fan, the more casual should perhaps wait a while if not so sure, to see if they support any more co-op in the upcoming Vietnam DLC.

7/10 [?]

Labels: Bad Company 2, Battlefield, DLC, EA, Jacques Hulme, Onslaught, Review

Despite the accumulating mouldiness of the war theme seen in so many games, DICE’s Battlefield series has rarely disappointed with its persistent instalments. The newest entry, Battlefield 1943, streamlines the franchise through Xbox Live Arcade faithfully, plunging you into sprawling Pacific war zones as a soldier in the US Marine Corps or Imperial Japanese Navy. What’s more, 1943 only costs 1200 Microsoft points, so it’s easy to forgive the lack of map and mode variety and occasional frustrations. It’s the Battlefield series at its roots, offering long-lasting multiplayer excellence at an honest price.

1943 is a pick-up-and-play affair, usually taking seconds to jump into a map. Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal and Wake Island are the only maps (excluding Coral Island, a fighter plane only map). Although they’re different in subtle ways, they share the same characteristics of a tropical island: lush grasses, palm trees, mountainous terrain. But these locations are by no means paradise. Players are deployed into opposite ends of the map and must fight over five nodes spread across the island. The more nodes each team controls the more their kills are worth, so it’s likely that the team who controls the most nodes will win. Likely, but not definite, because battle circumstances are always churning and teams are constantly struggling to keep or gain control. There are no quick victories in 1943, allowing for some unpredictable outcomes that keep each match fresher than the last.


Since such a team dynamic is required to win, 1943 bolsters a squad system that’s accessible before the match begins. Squads can respawn at a set point on the map or where living squad members are, though there’s still the option of respawning individually at a captured node. Squads are a helpful feature, since one-manning anything in 1943 usually results in frustrating deaths, but it feels sort of tacked on. Being shoved into a group of two to four people tends to have the same result as twelve. There’s little communication between squad members due to the wobbliness of 1943’s voice chat, so what’s heard through the headset is usually silence. Squads can even polarize a team when victory is hanging by a thread and all players on the team, not just squads, need to co-operate. So playing with friends is the way to go, albeit playing with strangers can still be a blast as long as you’re patient.

You can also, upon respawning, choose one of three soldier classes. The infantry, rifleman and scout are used for short-, medium- and long-range combat respectively. Their weapons are standard FPS fare and, when used with a tactful mind, can be extremely effective on the battlefield. Infantry can destroy tanks with their rocket launchers, riflemen can flank a base to provide safe capturing, and scouts can land shots from across the map. While using classes to their advantages is rewarding, all classes are vulnerable and stressful to use in certain situations where they’re out of their element. Scouts who can’t find cover won’t last long. Infantry who can’t get close enough to the enemy can only hold onto their helmets and hope not to get killed. Riflemen, despite being the most balanced, can still find themselves annihilated in the face of multiple enemies.


It’s obvious that there’s a certain unity required among soldier classes in 1943, and this is no different for vehicles. Anyone who’s familiar with the Battlefield series will know the sheer vastness of its maps makes vehicles an important asset. You can take to land with jeeps and tanks, to sea with motorboats that can carry up to five team mates, and to air with fighter planes. The land and sea vehicles are fairly straightforward and thrilling to drive due to the neat first person perspective that jostles the camera, though you must be cautious when navigating in narrow and bumpy places. There are plenty of sudden cliffs in each map, and accidentally swerving off one will almost always cause your vehicle to explode and kill you. The fighter planes are even trickier to use because it’s common to crash after clipping your wing against a bushel of trees or getting shot by a turret from below. But if you can get the hang of the floaty feel and dual joystick navigation, fighter planes can be devastating. They are the fastest of the four vehicles and can drop bombs with a cool down time of only a few seconds. Well placed bombs leave enemy nodes consumed in destruction.

And destruction is one thing that distinguishes 1943 from the typical multiplayer shooter. You can destroy almost every structure and tree on any given map, which isn’t as easy as it sounds since the hilly terrains block much of your view. If you manage to get a good vantage point, however, letting grenades and rockets fly always makes for fun results. Not to mention, the explosions look fantastic. You may be jolted out of your seat by an air strike as it delivers a resounding boom followed by a realistic spray of flames. Even throwing a barrage of grenades against an enemy tank’s hull as it inches by looks awesome (though not for long, as any adequate driver would momentarily blow you to smithereens).


1943 doesn’t promise anything new, but it does offer the same addictive multiplayer that gave its pedigree a reputation. Since its rocky release on the XBLA, the only addition to 1943 has been the Coral Island map which pits fighter planes against each other in a struggle for territorial domination. Hopefully there will be more maps and features available for download in the near future; but for now, Battlefield 1943 is a fantastic value that encapsulates the core of what made the series great in the first place.

8/10

Jacob

Labels: 1943, Battlefield, Jacob, Review

With Battlefield 1943 still newborn, Bad Company 2 in the works and the rest of the series still going strong, EA's Battlefield franchise is showing no signs of stopping, recent statistics reveal.

According to GamesIndustry.biz, the DICE-developed, free-to-play PC release, Battlefield Heroes, is still picking up yet more speed after leaving the pre-release BETA phase on 25th June. In fact, the number of users has rocketed to an astonishing one million registrations in less than a month.

"The team is really proud to have hit one million registrations at this early stage," said Ben Cousins, general manager of the Battlefield Heroes team. "Creating a character and gameplay experience that is totally yours is what sets this game apart."

Based on the free-to-play concept popular in Asia, Battlefield Heroes is a PC-only, downloadable shooter in which players take the role of a soldier of either a 'good' or 'bad' inclination. Items can be bought in-game to customise and change characters, using Valour points or 'Battlefunds', a fictional currency used in-game.

The rest of the series is going from strength-to-strength too, with last week's release of the download only console FPS, Battlefield 1943. Xbox360 users have already completed the community challenge of reaching 43 million kills, and PlayStation 3 users aren't far off either, with a whopping 30,286,806.

Expect to see more on the Battlefield series soon.

Linford

Labels: 1943, Bad Company 2, Battlefield, Linford Butler

Yep, that’s right: the Warhawk-esque latest from EA’s DICE Studio has taken off, heading fast to battle over the Pacific. The latest in the Battlefield franchise, Battlefield 1943, is now available to buy in digital download format from either the Xbox LIVE Marketplace at 1200MS points. PlayStation Network users will have to wait a little longer, however, as the release will not be present on the store until tomorrow’s update of the PlayStation Store, but when the Store has been updated the game will be available to download at a price of £9.99 ($14.99, €12,99). Those not quite ready to part with their points or pocket money just yet can also test-drive the game, as a demo version will be released alongside the full release.

Set in the Pacific Theatre during the Second World War, Battlefield 1943 throws gamers into the action and experience of war with an FPS viewpoint and four classic WWII maps: Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and Coral Sea.

“We are excited to witness the intense battles that are going to take place on these tropical Pacific Theatre maps, ripping them to shreds and leaving nothing but debris behind,” says 1943’s producer, Gordon Van Dyke. “Reliving these classic maps with the DICE Frostbite engine’s destruction capabilities and full FPS gameplay ups the ante on what can be done in downloadable games.”

The Coral Sea Map will be unlocked as part of a worldwide challenge to rack up 43 million kills across both online networks. The official countdown begins on July 10, 2009 at 19:43 GMT.

We’ll leave you with the trailer for Battlefield 1943. Keep your eyes on GGTL for hands-on demo impressions.



Linford

Labels: 360, Battlefield, BF1943, Linford Butler, PlayStation Store, PS3, PSN, Releases