Take the 2-minute tour ×
Arqade is a question and answer site for passionate videogamers on all platforms. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm really confused with EA's strategy to update their current shooting franchise and to release a new game for another. I REALLY enjoyed MoH (especially the single player which remains the best one I've played in a shooter for a while) and I play BF3 every now and then.

But now with the release of BF3:Premium and the upcoming MoH:Warfighter, I'm really confused. It seems that there aren't a lot of differences between both games now, is there?

I haven't been able to see a good side-by-side comparison between BF3 and MoH:W anywhere on the internet... Can you guys can help me out?

share|improve this question
1  
Recommendation questions are off-topic, please see our faq –  BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Jun 13 '12 at 3:21
    
Is it OK like this? –  Eric Gagnon Jun 13 '12 at 4:39
1  
Much better this way –  SSumner Jun 13 '12 at 14:27
1  
No fan boy rages/flame-wars yet. Nice! –  Doomsknight Jun 13 '12 at 15:15
1  
Don't see a whole lot of flame wars between BF3 and MoH. Usually it's between CoD and BF3, and on this site I haven't run into many of them –  SSumner Jun 14 '12 at 14:23
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Since MoH: Warfighter is not out, I will compare Battlefield 3 to 2010's Medal of Honor. Battlefield 3 is a larger game - maps are bigger, and allow the use of vehicles. Both use the Frostbite engine, although different versions, and Battlefield also uses the Destruction 1.0 engine, whereas MoH does not (this could change in Warfighter). The physics in Battlefield 3 is more realistic - it has bullet drop and flight time, whereas MoH does not.

As far as singleplayer, the Medal of Honor game was deep, with detailed character development and a storyline loosely based on real-life events (Battle of Robert's Ridge), whereas Battlefield 3 uses a fictional storyline. Medal of Honor's campaign drew excellent reviews, while Battlefield's did not.

Overall, the differences seem to be mainly more in-depth campaign in MoH and more in-depth MP in BF3. I found the campaign on MoH to be engaging, while the MP was disappointing and came off as half-baked. Similarly, I found BF3's multiplayer extremely addicting, whereas I never even finished the campaign because it wasn't engaging. Hopefully this shows enough differences.

share|improve this answer
    
This makes perfect sense, thanks! However, I'm hoping they could merge both games. You know, the single player option would be called "Medal of Honnor" and the Multiplayer "Battlefield". Obviously it's not in their interest (financially) but that would make an AWESOME game. –  Eric Gagnon Jun 13 '12 at 23:30
    
Yeah, not in their interest at all...but if they could make the BF3 campaign as good as MoH, maybe I wouldn't be tempted to get both –  SSumner Jun 14 '12 at 14:22
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.