No Rivalry Between Modern Warfare And Battlefield?

No Rivalry Between Modern Warfare And Battlefield?

The founder of Sledgehammer Games, Glen Schofield, has said that he does not see Modern Warfare 3 as being in competition with Battlefield 3, insisting that his competition “has been Modern Warfare 2“.

Schofield, who is the boss of the studio that is co-developing Modern Warfare 3 with Infinity Ward, denied any rivalry between the two games, distancing himself from the war of words between EA and Activision’s CEOs earlier in the year when the former, EA CEO John Riccitiello, said that he hoped that Call of Duty would “rot from the core“.

“There’s definitely a mutual respect at the development level,” Schofield said.

“The guys at DICE are great, they’ve made great games over the years and I think they have the same respect for us. We need to make a better game for the fans.”

Schofield reluctantly admitted that he “may have” played the Battlefield 3 beta, and when asked for his thoughts on it, he said: “I like Modern Warfare 3″.

He said the reason Modern Warfare 3 doesn’t have a beta like Battlefield 3 is because it can sometimes backfire on the developer.

“Personally I don’t like to show a painting in progress,” he said.

“I don’t like to show anything in progress, because you know as the artist what it’s going to look like when it’s done and you’re looking at it now and don’t feel right about it, because it’s not finished.”

From what we’ve seen of reader comments, people seem to be backing MW3 or BF3. Do you believe the two games aren’t in competition? Or is Schofield just being diplomatic? Which game will you be picking up on release and why? Let us know!

Sledgehammer boss dismisses BF3 rivalry [Eurogamer]


  • There’s no need for the competition. The MW series, for me, has always been about hopping into a quick game and having instant, simple fun. The BF series (BC1/2 excluded) on the other hand is fun but in the opposite way, it’s more complex, more strategic.

    So in my opinion they are two very different beasts that cater to two very different styles of gaming.

      • Completely agree. For me, I grew up playing lots of quick deathmatchy games (like CoD) and so I’ve gotten over it and want something more challenging, hence objective-based MP being my choice of MP nowadays.

        However, few gamers will recognise that and still get their knickers in a knot and claim that either game sucks because they play the other one.

      • i would like to see the percentage of CoD players that even know the word superior…
        Or how many times that word has been used to describe anything in online chat during CoD.

      • i am a 35 year old neckbeard who spent more on my pc than i did on my car, you don’t play battlefield because you are a little kid, pc master race etc

      • lol, Cod for children. Last Time I checked COD was MA15+. I think Once Upon A Monster that is due to come out on kinect is more for you Matt.

    • CoD is fun sometimes, I guess, but it’s too rage inducing and has too much bullshit in it (like Commando as an example, there’s tons of BS in BO and MW2) for me to consider it “good”.

  • we’re all hoping the underdog (BF3) wins. But alas it won’t. But maybe it will at least be decent. Though the current single player previews have me concerned 🙁

    • The BF series isn’t really about the SP experience tho. That’s where the storytelling aspects of the CoD games will always be better.

      BF (BF2, 1942 and even Codename Eagle, BF’s spiritual predecessor) are all about the large scale multiplayer, with heaps of small battles going on all over the map. CoD’s MP is a lot more localised and focused on getting all the action in a small space.

      IMO, you really can’t compare them to each-other. Sure they’re both FPS games, but both set out to accomplish something different (unfortunatly the inclusion of ‘no vehicle’ maps in BF kinda greys the lines tho… This is entirely CS / CoD influenced and has me avoiding these maps)

      • Completely agree with you regarding the fact that it’s all about the MP.

        But the fact is, Battlefield fanboys and well gamers in general, seem to still take jabs at COD for its campaign yet that too is a game that’s all about the MP.

        I’ve only recently warmed up to Battlefield and still play COD and am the furthest thing from a fanboy for either series. I’ll play CoD and after a while & get bored; sometimes if I suck and dying too much or if gamers keep voting for maps I dislike so I play some Battlefield and lately the B3 Beta and same thing happens.

        Sometimes I feel like something more fast-paced like CoD or I generally aren’t as good at Battlefield. Or I continue to get my head blown off from bloody snipers. Or the very bad spawn points that occur in the BETA which make me wanna write a letter to DICE. So I go play some CoD.

        Gamers can enjoy both without bringing the “politics” into it like gamers continue to do these days.
        Whether you like a series or not, at least respect another persons opinion or preference. It’s becoming as bad as YouTube – if ya not interested, don’t go posting comments about it, simple as that!

  • It’s really not that hard to like both… Unless of course you are a fanboy – then it’s just naturally wired into your DNA to say one is superior.

    • I find it hard to like both because I just despise CoD’s gameplay. Why is it so hard for people to realise this? Just because I hate CoD and like BF doesn’t mean I’m an illiterate fanboy. I despise CoD because at the end of the day, it’s aiming down the sights and shooting someone and getting a split second sense of enjoyment from that before you get killed and repeat the same process over and over. There is no gameplay variation at all, aside from Killstreaks which should not be in the game at all. I prefer BF because you need brains to play it and it does have variation in its gameplay, meaning it has vehicles, jets, spotting, healing, and being a team player. But just because of that, people immediately jump to the conclusion that I believe it’s the superior game! I like BF3, and I hate CoD, but I also play Fallout more than any other game, I love Borderlands, I love Halo, I love a lot of games.

      Anybody who insists that I’m a “fanboy”, get it through your thick skulls right now: I like BF3 because I believe it’s a good game and it caters to my tastes, and I hate CoD because I dislike the gameplay and perceive it as repetitive and mindless.

      End of story.

    • Because it’s the internet. Equal respect for both games for different reasons is like… being logical and tolerant and accepting of others.
      I don’t like this new fangled hippie attitude, no sir.

    • I agree, both games should be great, for different reasons. One does not have to be better than the other, not all of us are 13. And just because we are time poor, does not mean we have to choose one or the other, maybe just one to play before the other.

  • With every new edition of Call of Duty, my total play time decreases. I am just losing interest because it has become a shallow experience.

    I loved the BF3 beta, especially Caspian Border, because it is pretty, amazingly immersive and promotes team work and stradegy.

    In my opinion Dice offer the most intelligent, visceral and playable FPS on the market, even in beta form.

    BF3 gave me my modern warfare era fix and TF2 gives me my arcade fix.

  • BF3 for sure. When MW3 aaa that i can drive a tank into the middle of a battle with my mate on top while dog fights go on overhead. Maybe then i would play MW3. untill then if i need a run and gun match then i will join a battlefield server with no vehicles

    • Must read that with a cleaner mind… must read that with a cleaner mind… must read that with a cleaner mind…

  • I was originally leaving toward BF3 (I’ve only ever played the CoD games) but the beta didn’t really sell it to me. Granted, it was a beta, but as BF3 is a little more punishing if you don’t use great teamwork and communication, and since I don’t have the time to play as much games as I would like, I prefer the quick play mechanics of CoD. Not that I wouldn’t like BF3, I just don’t have the time to invest in something like that.

    • BF3 can be easily played as a “lone wolf”, that’s what I basically did the whole beta. I managed to be the top player on several occasions, and was barely ever outside the top 10 (on Caspian Border anyway)

  • I wonder if anyone recognizes how childish they are bashing CoD. I personally find it hilarious how they preach maturity yet their actions are closer to the perceived CoD player (in their eyes). Bravo boys, bravo.

    • LOL, this guy. Have you ever played cod online on a console? 90% of the games I play prove this point, there are a lot of childish players. Though maybe it will be the same audience in BF3 when it is on console.

      • Well if your going to play BF3 and you prefer mature players jump on the Ghosts of Chaos servers, we have 3 servers (64/32/32) for launch and people that arent mature usually get banned from the server 🙂

        Average age of the ‘clan’ is 25 i would say and only 2 members out of 30 under 18.

      • He has a point. On the articles relating to CoD and BF here on Kotaku alone, the most childish remarks have come from those bashing CoD.

        • While what you said might be true, Nearly all the childish remarks on the net come from kiddies defending CoD against the Battlefield fanboys. You only have to go as far as looking on the forums to see what I mean…

  • I’ll be picking up both. Whilst the similarities are obvious, I don’t see them as being in competition, they are two very different games. COD has the over-the-top, Michael Bay style exciting campaign and a fun drop-in style MP, whilst I ;ve found BF3 to be a bit more realistic and involved in both the campaign and MP. They’re both great for different reasons.

  • i think the franchises are in competition for market share but to be honest i’ll probably get both for the different experiences.

  • I usually have a bucket of lube close by since I almost literally suck at both games.
    So I tend to play the one that I got 0.5% chance of staying alive for a minute. Which is the one with the bigger maps. ARgo BF

    • Correction:

      BF3 – Call in an Airstrike but watch some noob pilot kamikaze the only plane your team has into a tree…

      I, for one, will be buying BF3 on release day just for the comedy aspect 😛

  • There’s no competition between the two because Activision doesn’t give two shits about the PC platform.

    Everyone on PC will buy BF3, everyone on console will buy MW3.

  • I’ve already preordered BF3.

    I won’t be playing MW3 til it’s down to about $20(which will be about 10 years), purely because I paid about $40 for Black Ops and felt so ripped off. It felt more like a interactive movie than a game with all its cutscenses that just went on and on and on………..
    As for the multiplayer, I hated it. It felt so “childish”.

  • Why is this shit such a big deal to everyone? For fucks sake, get the game you want and enjoy it. Seriously, its pathetic.

  • I’ll be buying both.
    COD has always been about quick short gaming sessions, while BF games tend to last longer.
    My biggest issue with BF is the community. How many times have you got into a chopper only to have your teamate blow it up. EVERY server has a few dicks like that who stand around in their base wanting to get a particular vehicle instead of helping win the match.
    Both games have their pros and cons and i’ll be enjoying both seperatly. Probably depends on what i feel like at the time.

  • Help: My guess would be nowhere easy. At the moment CoD is sadly smashing BF3 on preorders and a lot of places are flat sold out of hardened editions. My advice would be look at smaller shops or the EB/GAME stores that are in the smaller shopping centres.

    Agree with what was said above.. the successive CoD games my playtime has just gotten down. With MW3 looking almost identical to MW2.. I imagine that’d happen twice as fast. BF3 for the win eh 🙂

  • I plan to buy both. I play for enjoyment and I play almost solely single player/coop campaign, avoiding multiplayer.

    I have no idea whether one will be “better” than the other, I’m looking forward to both and hope they’re just as fun as the many other games I already own and continue to play and enjoy.

  • Ive bought nearly all the Battlefield series and both the Modern Warfare games..

    My experience has been that Battlefield holds my interest over Modern Warfare by about 100 times.. MW feels arcadey and I loose interest in its MP very quickly.

    Personally, Im buying BF3 and CBF with MW3.. Not because I’m a fanboy but because I honestly believe that BF3 is a much more mature game whereas MW3 really is just a rehash of the previous two that tends to attract much more immature gamers..

    I really do feel that BF3 is the superior game in nearly every aspect.

    Sales wise, I have no doubt that MW3 will outsell BF3, but I think people may be surprised just how many copies BF3 will actually sell.. It could be close..

  • Personally I will be getting both purely because they are both two different types of shooters. Regardless of fanboys saying which one will be better. I do know that COD has pre sold over 50000 in Aus where BF3 has not even hit have that. Not saying that makes COD any better, but I do believe there will be more activity online for COD then BF3.

  • I’ve preordered BF3 but am hoping that MW3 outsells it, purely so there’ll be fewer dicks playing BF3. I’m hoping that those people inclined towards douchery and/or playing as if they’re Rambo without any tactics will flock to MW3 so they can call each other gay and teabag each other after camping in a corner (although the BF3 beta was rife with prone campers).
    You’ll still be able to find full servers for each game regardless of who wins the BF3 v MW3 pissing contest.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!