Battlefield vs Call of duty

just another poll. bf vs cod, i prefer batllefiled for MANY reasons, bf is MUCH more realistic.

Battlefield ftw!!  It is not that cod is a bad game, but the cod community are a lot more into the game and 80% of them don't realize it is just a game it seems.  Oh and Battlefield is a billion times better than any other first person shooter games.  dats my opinion.

4emersons wrote:Battlefield ftw!!  It is not that cod is a bad game, but the cod community are a lot more into the game and 80% of them don't realize it is just a game it seems.  Oh and Battlefield is a billion times better than any other first person shooter games.  dats my opinion.

well said my friend.

neither.

K, lemme go off here. First off, Call of Duty.

CoD has the long standing record of 'best fps out there', despite recent disappointments and Battlefields incredible successes. Now, to me, the game that really defined this series was not the favorite of MW2, but World at War. WaW restructured the way campaign and multiplayer was played, as well as how it was marketed. The campaign was solid and moving, and it introduced Zombies, which would become a long standing staple of Treyarch games. MW2 then catapulted the CoD series into what it is today.

Now, what MW2 did for the fps series was incredible, in terms of guns and fairness. Before, each gun was a definite level up and a lot better than the previous gun. MW2 literally tripled the unlocks for each gun, meaning that the guns overlapped in terms of how effective each one could be. 

Despite the phenomenal success of MW2, InfinityWard didn't capitalize on it by investing in new technologies or theories of gameplay. Instead, they churned out MW3, which did nothing innovative and probably didn't cost them that much. I can't really blame them, though. They found a winning formula and used it to maximize profits. The problem arises, however, when winning formulas don't win anymore. That's whats happening to CoD right now.

From what I've seen and read, Ghosts will hopefully rectify some of the problems seen in the past few CoD games. However, they are innovating slowly, which opens up the field to a newcomer. 

Of course, Battlefield isn't exactly a newcomer. They've been around for a while. However, with BF3, they really exploded into a new world. Battlefield took it's dominance on the pc into the console and brought along all the realism, all the destructive powers of its frostbite engine, and all the sappy campaign along with it. Dice did a couple things right; massive maps, interactive terrain, and the feeling of open-world. However, it was still in a cookie-cutter shoot em up feel. 

If you were to ask me what the future of the fps looks like, I'd say 'bleak'. As long as massive companies like Dice or Treyarch/InfinityWard continue to control the genre, we will continue to see MW2 in increasingly desperate repackages. The best bet they have would following in the footsteps of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which offers a massive range of choices for every encounter. Whereas CoD or BF struggle to deliver much more than two choices in a very scripted, controlled fashion (Yes, even Battlefield limits you with how you can play its games. It really boils away to stealthy, or blow-it-all-to-hell choices), Deus Ex has a plethora of options available. Stealthy, diplomacy, guns blazing, the list goes on. 

Granted, it's hard to pull this off in a fps, but I think an unsung hero wrapped it up nicely: Spec-Ops, The Line. In SOtL, choices are presented constantly to the player without the player being aware of it. Unlike Mass-Effects freeze choice scrolling, Spec Ops will set itself up like a standard CoD ripoff: Look, enemy, shoot! But as the storyline progresses, the world you perceive in the game warps and twists until good and evil are merely subjective, and your choices are never right.

Game Spoiler:

And so, I voted 'neither' in this poll because so long as these two games are considered 'good', the entire genre suffers as a whole.

Coaltrain615 wrote:bf is MUCH more realistic.

ArmA. That is all.

flomzilla wrote:

Coaltrain615 wrote:bf is MUCH more realistic.

ArmA. That is all.

That is true, but this is comparing Battlefield with Cod, not with ArmA.

mickdude2

Videogame Rant:

Finished my novel.

I play battlefield 3 when I want to play seriously, I play cod when I just want to shoot and laugh. There for, I like them both. Of course, bf is much more realistic. But if you take the children out of cod, its fun too. You just have to find the right servers.