A topic I wanted to avoid because it's been debated enough, but approaching the release date of both games, this argument seriously needs to be addressed. Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 are two of the biggest releases of the year, and yes, both games are in the same genre. That's been clarified. But not all first-person shooters are Call of Duty knockoffs. Bulletstorm, Fallout 3, GoldenEye; all first-person shooters and in a completely different league of the genre. So why is Battlefield, a realistic military simulator clumped in with Modern Warfare 3, an easily-accessible, run-and-gun arcade shooter?

This petty debate has been raging ever since DICE unveiled the third installment in its long-running series. And what's pathetic is this debate hasn't been perpetuated by the community even in the slightest. The classic battle between genre heavyweights has been heavily detailed by gaming sites looking for an easy boost in readership. Supporters of both games can bicker all they want, but this argument is getting increasingly ridiculous as each day passes.

The allure of comparing military shooters is appealing, sure, but each game is on the farthest end of the spectrum. There couldn't possibly be two more opposing games in a genre than Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. Activision has prided its prized franchise with record-setting sales and marking a new standard in online multiplayer. The publisher did that through accessible multiplayer, where anyone can pick up a controller and have a whale of a time. It's the run-and-gun formula exercised perfectly and that formula has been massively successful. Battlefield is the complete opposite; a squad-based military simulator created specifically for the hardcore fan. For example, sniping from far away will produce no hit marker so the player needs to accurately gauge where the bullet hit. DICE is knocking heads with realism while Activision stretches the laws of imagination. Both games (from what we've seen) play exceptionally well, and fans have been catered to understand what each game brings to the table.

Another key difference which is rarely mentioned is the success on different platforms. Call of Duty has made its mark on the consoles, whereas Battlefield has imprinted its superiority on PC. On Xbox Live in the average week, four Call of Duty games reached the top ten while Bad Company 2 can barely hold a spot in the top twenty. Now I'm no mathematician, but if one franchise has three games more frequented than one game in a series, it's kicking ass. Especially on consoles, where three-year-old games rarely achieve continued success. Battlefield, however, dominates the PC realm. One of the main selling points for Battlefield when this needless rivalry began was the inclusion of free, player-controlled servers. Activision punished the PC audience by not including such servers and the franchise's sales on the platform dropped considerably.

Clearly, the rivalry will favour one or both franchises. Passionate fans will turn out in droves to purchase each game, driven by the debate or not, and both games will be the better for it. Sources can speculate all they want on which game will dominate the success, but the community won't get hard numbers until after Christmas. So keep bickering, keep driving up sales, and after the release dates pass, can we please not look like children and move on?