Battlefield 3 vs. MW3. The dumbest argument this year.

What is wrong with everyone. This has to be the most upsetting and ridiculous argument this year in the gaming community. I want to express something to you. The FPS community of this day in age is spoiled. It is rotten. It has been torn apart. Would you compare Barbie Horseback Riding Adventure to Forza 4? No, but they are in the same genre of racing game. Would you compare Fable to Mass Effect? No, but they are both RPGs. Now you are saying to yourself, "Well, 308, those games are not similar in story and context. This is true. Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are both "modern military shooters". There is one difference that people seem to blatantly ignore. They are two different gameplay styles. Battlefield, the grandaddy of modern military shooters, is a hyper-realistic team-based military shooter. It supports team play with a squad structure, realistic terrain destruction, realistic pacing, vehicle combat, and a single player story that makes you a part of something bigger. In Battlefield you take on the role of an everyday soldier in realistic combat situations. You advance in one of four specific, and specially balanced, classes. You play the role that you want to be. Utilizing the pinnacle of realistic graphics technology, DICE is set to release one of the greatest games of all time. On the other hand, and it is on a totally different hand, there is Infinity Ward and their MW3. Call of Duty has always been about making you the hero. You are the epic hero in an action movie. Cinematic events and unrealistic combat situations make it a terrific game to play. It accounts for hours of entertainment. This game, however, is an arcade style shooter. The goal is to obtain as much experience to unlock more powerful weapons. You can become proficient with a certain weapon to unlock upgrades for it. The upgrades are weapon based compared to Battlefield's class upgrade system. MW3 is lacking in the player controlled vehicle combat, but you have the ability to call in airstrikes and support helicopters. MW3 will focus on small intense battles in skirmishes with very fast paced gameplay. Battlefield has a more strategic slow paced gameplay system based around vehicle combat, destruction, and team play. They are two very different games with two very different gameplay styles. They can be compared only on the aspect that they are both modern military shooters, but they cannot be compared against each other. They having something in common, but that is all. Let's just all get along. I will be purchasing both so I can experience both gameplay styles and enjoy both. Think about it people. That's all I have to say about that.

Wii U Troubles?

Nintendo may be in trouble. I've expressed my concern for Nintendo in the past. When they released the Wii in 2006, they were already in trouble. They put all their effort into providing their innovated motion sensing technology and provided no support for third party developers. They also put no effort into advancing their graphics capabilities or processing power. This automatically killed off most of the core gaming community's interest in the console. With the Xbox 360 dominating the next generation market and the PS3 launching nearly simultaneously, the Wii had almost no shot at making a chunk on the market. That is thinking from a logical perspective. There will always be die hard fans. The Nintendo Wii survived due to the inexplicably large Nintendo fan base and the very young and very old communities getting heavily involved in the simple gameplay. Now, after the Wii's fifth year on the market, Nintendo is acting out of desperation. The lifespan for the current generation of consoles is supposed to be ten years. That was stated from the beginning. Now Nintendo has announced the Wii U, originally code named "Project Cafe". The Wii U is supposed to be a revolutionary way to play video games. It includes an overhauled graphics card and processor. It also includes a massive controller that includes an interactive screen. It has potential. There are a few things wrong with it though. As of right now, it only supports one controller. They are working on making the console support two controllers, but it still isn't enough. The novelty of the controller will dissipate rather quickly. It's a very clunky design. I won't go into the other downsides of the console. It still has a lot of development time before it's release next holiday. There are, however, many developers are saying that developing games for the console is "absolute hell". Things aren't looking good for Nintendo. Falling Wii sales. Utter failure with the 3DS. A price drop on 3DS and immediate design change for a 2012 re-release is going to kill them. Now things aren't looking good for the Wii U. Nintendo is going to fail as a company unless they get their act together or partner with a different company. That's all I have to say about that.