New ‘Call of Duty’ not as cool as ‘Battlefield 3’

Here's a video game conundrum. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" is a very good war game. So I can recommend it on its own merits.

However, "Battlefield 3" just came out, and it's a huge and amazing war game. So after playing "MW3" for a few days, I'm ready to ditch it and go back to "Battlefield 3."

First of all, "MW3's" solo campaign is standard. America and Russia are at war. You portray soldiers shooting at rivals in the rubble streets of New York, Dubai, Paris and elsewhere.

It's always you against a zillion bad guys, even if those bad guys stand still in front of your guns, as if they were practice dummies.

"MW3" is decently crafted but not addicting, since I've played this kind of "Call of Duty" game many times before. It feels arcade-y and slightly dated.

Meanwhile, the solo campaign of "Battlefield 3" is cooler and sleeker.

So let's move on and compare the online multiplayer of "Modern Warfare 3" to "Battlefield 3," since that's the reason millions of gamers buy them.

BIG VS. SMALL: "Battlefield 3's" online multiplayer has enormous, splendid maps. You must ride a tank, jeep, helicopter or jet onto fields of battle, or else you'll be jogging for a full minute to the front. The immensity is incredible.

By contrast, "MW3's" maps seem puny and more cramped, making them less exciting.

REALISM VS. ARCADE: "Battlefield 3" is drawn and moves so realistically that when tanks turn slowly toward your head, you think you should be able to smell the steel.

But since "MW3's" maps are little, you rapidly run, die and come back to life. It feels like a hurried arcade game where you rarely get your footing.

That's not necessarily bad. I love arcade shooters. But "Battlefield 3's" realism is far more entrancing.

BALANCE VS. IMBALANCE: "Battlefield 3's" nice, long matches offer very good balance between teams. Maps were created in ways so one team doesn't have an advantage over the other team, geographically.

What's more, "Battlefield 3" does a better job of placing good, average and bad gamers on both teams, so matches are usually close victories.

"MW3's" maps have decent balance, geographically. But matches are much shorter. And I have yet to play an online skirmish where one team didn't obliterate the other team. I'm sure there are balanced teams to make my heart race, but I can't find them.

I really don't like "MW3's" new kill-streak system. It allows battles to immediately turn into madcap anarchy, where you get slain by helicopters and missiles the moment you spawn to life. Boo.

BOTTOM LINE: For a few years, I have preferred "Call of Duty's" multiplayer games to the "Battlefield" series. But not this year.

If you get "MW3" and enjoy it, I don't blame you. But if so, I bet you haven't played "Battlefield 3." It is the superior winner in this year's battle of the war games.

("Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" by Activision retails for $60 for Xbox 360, PS 3 and PC; $50 for Wii -- Plays fun. Looks good. Challenging. Rated "M" for blood, gore, drug reference, intense violence and strong language. Three and one-half out of four stars.)

Contact Doug Elfman at delfman@review journal.com. He blogs at reviewjournal. com/elfman.