Some people had strong feelings about Jim Sterling's opinion of Battlefield 3. Some people were upset that Jim didn't like the game as much as they did, while some were actually happy to see the game get a "low" score like a 7.5, because for them, that score confirmed that Modern Warfare 3 is a better game. Never mind that Modern Warfare 3 isn't even out yet, and has yet to recieve a review. If Battlefield 3 got a 7.5, then that means it automatically lost the fight going on between these two inanimate objects that we call videogames, which was a good thing for some.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. Why do people feel the need to pit these two games against each other? Though they have similar settings and themes, they have pretty different features, gameplay styles, and priorities, right? Why treat them like two titles that are trying to do the same thing, where only one can win? Is it a Coke Vs. Pepsi, Team Edward Vs. Team Jacob, or Sony Vs. Nintendo Vs. Microsoft-type thing, where riling up the consumer on either side of the rivalry only works to instill cult-like brand loyalty, and in doing so, ensuring profits for both "competing" parties? Is it partially a PC Vs. consoles thing, because the Battlefield series is associated by some with PCs, while many think of Modern Warfare as a largely console focused affair? What's really going on here?
And why wont anyone just tell me which game is factually better than the other? Is it the one where you shoot guys, or is it the other one? I NEED TO KNOW.