Another year, another summer spent with fans of Modern Warfare and Battlefield bickering at each other over which game is better. Well, the reviews for Battlefield 3 are slowly trickling in and the Battlefield 3 fanboys are in outrage. "Only reason IGN didn't give it a 10/10 is because they didn't want to upset cod fanboys, fucking pussys." "YOU GAVE THE BEST GAME A 9 CAUSE OF THE ACTION PACKED CAMPAIGN. FUCK IT NEVER WATCHING IGN REVIEWS AGAIN." These are just a few comments I pulled out of the IGN review for the game on YouTube. Obviously, we can tell, that the Battlefield 3 fans are really, REALLY mad that they're beautiful baby didn't get a perfect score (IGN gave it a 9, which is still a pretty impressive score.) Not only are they claiming that the Battlefield 3 review was rigged, but they are ALREADY claiming that Modern Warfare 3 is guaranteed to get a 10/10. This, my friends, is complete and utter bullshit.

The major knock on Battlefield 3 so far has been it's ridiculously linear campaign. The people making this game are the exact same ones that made the Bad Company games,  one of the most non-linear first person shooters in recent history. Joystiq, a pretty respected gaming website, gave the game a 4.5/5 (again, a VERY good score) pointing out that the campaign just wasn't fun. They said that unlike the Call of Duty games, everything in Battlefield 3 was linear in its single player. Even the destruction of buildings, which was a big thing in the Bad Company campaigns, are now scripted. Here is Joystiq's quote on the campaign:

"Battlefield 3's campaign isn't just a straight line, it's tactically linear. Firefights almost always unfold the same way. This is partly due to enemy AI that often seems stuck to a six foot leash from where they initially appear, but it goes deeper than that. For all the talk of destruction and immersion, Battlefield 3's campaign is a step backward from the manic calamity of Bad Company 2. There's no more blowing holes through walls to make an alternate route. Environmental destruction is cosmetic or scripted." 

Of course, there has to be something good about this game to warrant a 9/10 or a 4.5/5, and that, as the reviews are saying, comes from the robust and amazing multiplayer. Some are saying that this is the most fun they've ever had playing a first person shooter online since Battlefield 2, which came before the first Modern Warfare. Again though, there are still problems with the multiplayer that are getting pointed out. The maps are apparently a little bit to big for the reviewers, as they are saying that it takes too long for you to even get to the battlefield. This is going to be a problem for the consoles. The PC version of the game (the versions that are currently getting reviewed) support up to 64 players. The console's on the other hand, only support up to 16. There is a HUGE difference between 8 on 8 and 32 on 32. This, coupled with the lackluster single player and the almost certain downgrade on graphics for the consoles and I'm guessing that the console versions are going to get a lot lower scores than its PC counterparts.

Does this mean that I believe that Modern Warfare 3 is going to get a 10/10 like the idiots on the IGN video's have said? Hell no. There is absolutely no way that MW3 will get a perfect, because A: The graphics are showing it's age (2 year old engine). and B: it just looks to damn similar to MW2 to warrant a 10/10. In the end, I still think Battlefield 3 will get better scores than Modern Warfare 3, solely due to the fact that it's graphics are a lot better and it's multiplayer seems to more fun from the reviewers. Either way though, I'm still going to get both games.

And if Jason Murphy gives Battlefield 3 a Better than Sex because of it's fucking graphics, I might just kill someone..