Comprising studios and executives may have been too good for journalists, but when it counts - with the players - the results seem one-sided. Preliminary sales data point to a sales winner in the struggle between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3: Activision, clearly triumphant with what is described as the biggest entertainment launch in history. the history of the whole entertainment area. Perhaps EA analyzed their first week sales and thought that the performance of Battlefield 3 should have been better, given the huge marketing done to the product. From a UK perspective, BF3 sold less than half of the copies of FIFA 12 for that same period of time, and is well behind the total collected by Call of Duty: Black Ops in itsthe first week of sales. The extent lifetime of sales of Modern Warfare 3 is yet to be knownhave yet to be released, but everything points to an even greater level of success than that of last year’s game.

Electronic Arts has managed to use the brand's marketing to sell within a different style - which may have always been planned. According to sources, BF3 managed to double sales in the first week compared to Medal of Honor and has sold more than all previous Battlefield games combined. This is very good, not to mention an excellent platform for future titles in the series. After all, it is worth remembering that COD did not become an imediate phenomenon - took four years, four games and a new generation of consoles before the series gain traction. Electronic Arts and DICE knows this and almost certainly planned it. Our argument is that the war between these two heavyweights in the FPS genre is not over yet - in fact the fight has only just begun - and gaming technology defines the conflict.

The gameplay offered by Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is closely linked to the phenomenal technology at its core. The visual top gameplay combined with a game at 60 frames per second produced not only great aspect but also felt like no other: it was in its arcade aspect of command and response. The combination of this exceptional interface between player and game, along with the mechanical XP, created a great sensation. Infinity Ward and Treyarch spent four years to build and improve the underlying formula. However, the single force of Call of Duty is also a way of its greatest weakness. The changes made in MW3 are impressive - clearly incremental in nature. The performance level of the 360 and PS3 versions have been leveled to some extent, the audio greatly improved by a sound effects system that occur in context with concept similar to (but not as effective) "HDR" audio presented by DICE in its initial work in Frostbite. Lighting and particle effects have also been improved, although the room for improvement here has a set distance due to the tight budget for the rendering.

DICE's approach on consoles is strikingly different. Despite lowering Battlefield 3 to 30 frames on console, obviously affect the input lag, doubling the time available for rendering opens up a whole new world of possibilities. The scheme based deferred rendering lighting allows weaving at a level that is completely different from the IW engine, so hundreds of light sources can be generated at the same time - flashlights, sights, and all particles are genuine sources of dynamic light. Also, although COD still allow different materials to offer varying resistance levels to the bullets impact of, brands and generate over detail of the environments to mark damage, the destruction of the DICE system even allows a protection disappears with the shots, and that complete collapse structures, offering a more realistic and visceral experience - not to mention the opening of new gameplay strategies. At a more detailed level, the engine of DICE allows more players and bigger scenarios, thus opening the possibility for the use of vehicles.

In a way, MW3 plays as the best version of a game within a formula successfully found for the first time in Quake 3 Arena, while Battlefield 3 offers a complete experience. Visually the console versions may be inferior, but all the elements of the main range are there. Each game has its own strengths and weaknesses, essentially summing up to a higher frame rate and response commands against larger maps, more players, and a higher level of fidelity in graphics and sound. But of course, there are many similar points between the two single player campaigns and this is where the games can be compared. DICE chose to highlight the potential of new technology Frostbite 2 with a range of beautifully lit levels, cut-scenes with destruction and a small variety of expanding levels – that is, maps which gradually grow, essentially, as the game goes on - that are common in the multiplayer portion of the game.

However, much of the campaign is based on the same type of linear gameplay, and pre-set to which COD pioneered and from which its studios are masters, and BF3 simply not compete. DICE also copied the exact concepts presented in COD to switch between different locations and different characters - although in this case the characters did not captivate and not even care about their stories, making their eventual outcomes rather insignificant. The end result is that until the last levels, the design of BF3 feels much like a COD game, but with the ultra-fast response exchanged by characters, and lighting effects in more detail - much less action. 

Perhaps the biggest difference between BF3 and MW3 in their single-player campaigns is simply that Activision is much more exciting - the pace and plot is a completely different level. It is a game full of over-the-top action, a constant spectacle that consistently tries to outdo itself by endlessly upping the ante, not at all lending asingle moment of rest or downtime to recover the insanity of it all. So if the first clash between the Battlefield series and Call of Duty resulted in a sweeping sales victory from Activision, what proof exists to suggest that the battle is far from over? What prevents that the same can be repeated in the future? If the conflict of BF3 and MW3 tells us something its that we are dealing with studios and publishers with two very different agendas: the COD studios clearly has its focus at present, while DICE looks to the future. The Frostbite 2 works fine on current consoles, but is built to challenge the next generation. How can the talented Activision studios fight back? This is the battle that we're really anxious to see.

Marco Cecilio, NoobFeed