While I do think that anyone looking at the numbers would think that CoD would out sell the new battlefield, I think it really takes someone with some real idea of what players look for in the video games they purchase. In the Call of Duty series, Activision has used Infinity Ward to innovate and change the modern FPS experience, then the following year releases a follow-up game developed by Treyarch which doesn't add innovations as much as it rides on the quality of Infinity Ward game that precedes it. Black Ops, the most recent Call of Duty, was a product of Treyarch's labor. Black Ops, in many critics eyes doesn't even live up to the brand name despite usage of the same innovations that MW2 brought. Since Activision has been fighting with IW, this year's Call of Duty (if one is to be released this year) will not be from the creative minds at IW or even from the desks of Treyarch (since they are working on 2012's CoD). It is then perceivable that the proposed Call of Duty of 2011 would not only under sell those developed by IW but also those developed by Treyarch.
Battlefield 3, unlike the first person shooters released by Electronic Arts, has been in the making for years, the first real documentation going back to 2008. The features in the documents (which did not exist in 2008) have slowly been integrated and tested in the form of the quickly produced shooter's by EA which have been released over the course of the last 3 to 4 years, starting with the development of destructible environments in Battlefield: Bad Company, and ending with the breathtaking graphics of EA's Medal Of Honor: Tier 1.
The short of it is, EA has been building the sequel to the well known Battlefield 2 for many years, testing out new concepts such as in match "squads", fully customizable avatars (in Battlefield Hero's and Battlefield Play4Free) and advanced rendering techniques. Activision has been simply relying on the success of one development studio to maintain an entire brand, the same development studio of which they removed Vince Zampella and Jason West, the brilliant minds of whom have made the franchise what it is today.
While all anyone can do is speculate as to what 2011 will hold, after doing significant research, it is hard to say that Battlefield 3 will not be able to compete with the lesser games of the Call of Duty brand, especially given the downward spiral of their development process that Activision has undoubtedly caused.
Battlefield 3, unlike the first person shooters released by Electronic Arts, has been in the making for years, the first real documentation going back to 2008. The features in the documents (which did not exist in 2008) have slowly been integrated and tested in the form of the quickly produced shooter's by EA which have been released over the course of the last 3 to 4 years, starting with the development of destructible environments in Battlefield: Bad Company, and ending with the breathtaking graphics of EA's Medal Of Honor: Tier 1.
The short of it is, EA has been building the sequel to the well known Battlefield 2 for many years, testing out new concepts such as in match "squads", fully customizable avatars (in Battlefield Hero's and Battlefield Play4Free) and advanced rendering techniques. Activision has been simply relying on the success of one development studio to maintain an entire brand, the same development studio of which they removed Vince Zampella and Jason West, the brilliant minds of whom have made the franchise what it is today.
While all anyone can do is speculate as to what 2011 will hold, after doing significant research, it is hard to say that Battlefield 3 will not be able to compete with the lesser games of the Call of Duty brand, especially given the downward spiral of their development process that Activision has undoubtedly caused.
