The debate has been fought since the inception of both games: which is the better First Person Shooter?

We’ve heard it all, about how one is better than the other for reasons X,Y, and Z. But we’ve played both Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 and this is how we feel about each game and how they stack up. When considering multiplayer, and multiplayer only, the two cannot be compared. Why not is somewhat obvious: their reward systems are complete opposites of each other. Modern Warfare is all about individualism and quick thinking.  It rewards players with initiative by giving them kill-streak rewards which may be used to control the flow of battle. Disrupting enemy HUDs and calling in a bomber to wipe out the enemy are just two of the many ways one can achieve this control.

Battlefield, on the other hand, is much more static and team orientated in its flow. It gives incentives for players to stick together and aid each other. You earn points not only for kills, but also for giving teammates ammo, health, motion detector assists, and spawning off each other. The fighting is more realistic, as long lines of sight, enemy fire, and even tanks and helicopters make for brutal meat grinders for lone wolves. Teams must work in unison, like controlling zones, using vehicles and mortar, and coordination to take objectives. Lastly, a smart player in BF3 knows how to use their destructible environment to create opportunities. Firing your grenade launcher at a wall to collapse it and kill players underneath is not an unheard of practice.

So then how do we compare them? The answer is simple: we don’t. It all depends on the player’s preference of combat. Both are quite easily enjoyable and great in their own aspects, but it cannot be objectively said one is better. It’s comparing apples to oranges, and insulting or arguing with someone over opinions is, dare we say, a moot point.