For the last couple of years, EA has been saying that their goal is to reclaim the first-person-shooter throne from Call of Duty. A decade ago, EA’s Medal of Honor and Battlefield games were the kings of the FPS market. Then Call of Duty came along and started to really dumb down the genre. EA then turned to Swedish developer DICE to take out the Call of Duty juggernaut and show the world what they could do.
The first salvo was Battlefield: Bad Company on the consoles. This introduced the Frostbite engine, and laid the groundwork for what the developer would hit gamers with in the next couple of years. Naturally, PC gamers were burned by not playing the first Bad Company on their platform where Battlefield was born, so DICE made good by releasing Bad Company 2 for the PC complete with a Frostbite 1.5 engine and all of the dedicated server features and PC customization that Call of Duty was ignoring.
Not long after the Vietnam expansion was released for Bad Company 2, gamers learned of Battlefield 3. The first core entry in the Battlefield series in nearly eight years is being put right up against Modern Warfare 3. That means that DICE needed to be at the top of their game and deliver a FPS that could both blow away console gamers, while still pleasing the PC audience that made Battlefield what it is today.
The result is one of the best competitive first person shooters ever made, and a game that should not be ignored for another shallow Call of Duty installment. Here are just five reasons why Battlefield 3 destroys Call of Duty once and for all.
The big feature of the original Frostbite engine was destructible environments. Frostbite 2 expands that to not only allow the environments be completely devastated by your battles, but also adds in things such as enhanced animation and even audio. The result is one of the most realistic looking first-person-shooters you’ll ever see. They also, on the PC side, did a really solid job optimizing it as it commonly sees better performance than Bad Company 2.