A forewarning--this is an opinion piece, and I know both “sides” of this war are quick to retaliate, so let’s just leave it at that. Workman has already covered many reasons why Battlefield 3 seems to be falling a little short in the first-person shooter department. But, there is one thing that he kind of touched on and I want to expound upon it--and that's multiplayer. While we here at Gamerlive.TV spend a great deal of time gaming for the sake of writing, we also game for the sake of gaming. And my personal favorite game to game in at the moment is, you guessed it; Call of Duty Black-Ops. And it's not for the single player or the often juvenile experiences you have online, it's the fact that I can invite people over my house to share a few beers and play a great split-screen game.

For many of us, split-screen gaming has been a staple of our childhood. One of the fondest memories I have is staging a Royal Rumble in WWF No Mercy on the Nintendo 64 with 3 of my other friends and beating the crap out of the jobbers on the roster (I'm looking at you Al Snow). And c’mon, everyone split-screened the crap out of 007: Goldeneye so much that Activision attempted to capitalize on that lore with a reboot (and then recapitalizing on the reboot this holiday season). Titles like Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros--the list goes on and on. Split-screen gaming is what brought many of our Xbox Live trash talking abilities to a Ndamukong Suh on Matt Ryan like level.

In college, it was all about Left 4 Dead 2 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. Even with one console, we were still able to get our multiplayer on. And if there were a few more of us, we would just LAN with another 360 across the apartment. It was simple. Now, DICE has to make things complicated by making it so that you need a separate console to play with another person. The reason? Their awesome HD graphics, which granted are pretty “awesome,” but I find it a hard pill to swallow that I don’t have split-screen gaming. And while I’m tempted, oh so tempted, to pick up my pre-order, I’m holding back because of the impending launch of Modern Warfare 3.

Because really, there’s nothing like kicking back with a few friends, unleashing some bots out on Nuketown, and vying for the final kill cam. It’s just not the same online. Sure, many people on there have claimed to have their way with your Mom--and possibly your Dad, but it pales in comparison to a high five or a fist bump for a kill well done. And when it’s all said and done, at least for me as a gamer (not as a gaming journalist) I spend my personal gaming time on a few titles over the course of a year that I can play with my friends. Every once in a while, a title comes along that is an exception to that rule (Zelda, Mario, Portal..the list goes on), but when it comes to multiplayer, only a short few make the list--Black-Ops being one of them.

And this, I think, is where Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is going to shine above Battlefield 3. It’s not that I hate playing on-line--I don’t. Do I prefer to play in-person? Absolutely. Most gamers would likely say otherwise, and perhaps I’m old fashioned. Maybe split-screen gaming is a lost art? No. DICE and EA have just made a smart decision--75% of gamers would rather play online (guesstimate), and might not always have friends or roommates at their disposal. It’s a disappointing reality for this title, but I understand where they are coming from. Battlefield 3 is a title that fans know to be a predominantly online game--why try to add things to an already solid formula? It’s going to be a success with or without it, and replay value is already through the roof. But for a small sector of gamers, perhaps larger, it’s disappointing that the walls of in-person video game socialization have been put up on Battlefield 3.