Call of Duty vs. Battlefield: The War Over War Simulators

[Orange]

Alright, so after talking about this with my brother last night I thought it'd be an interesting thread given the large amount of gamers that we have here on FAN.

I am the very definition of a casual gamer; I like games, but despite my best efforts I just can't get into them as much as I would like to. Because of this, I have a viewpoint of somebody on the outside looking in with regards to the industry and its games, so that's where I'm coming from here.

Given that Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty: Ghosts both came out just a short time ago, this has brought out fans of both series in the seemingly never ending battle between these two series. One side feels their game offers an overall better experience and vice-versa; certainly nothing new in the realm of entertainment.

Now, out of both series, I've played (the campaign of, that is) Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops I and II, as well as Battlefield 3. I had begun playing the campaign of Battlefield 2, but it was around a time where I just grew disinterested with video games as a whole so I never finished it. Both offer different but equally fun experiences, in my opinion, and I can get enjoyment out of both series even though FPS aren't really my strong suit as a gamer.

However, there seems to be some hypocrisy and overall smugness that really confuses me in regards to these two game series, and I think the popularity of one Call of Duty is partly responsible for this hypocrisy.

Battlefield is seen as a game series that caters more towards hardcore or "real" gamers, whereas Call of Duty has always been marketed towards a mainstream, casual gamer audience. Because of this, there's a sense that I get, more so now than ever with 4 and Ghosts, that Battlefield is automatically a better game because it's more "serious" and "real" than Call of Duty; a viewpoint that seems to be supported by the fact that Call of Duty is, right now as a whole, more popular than Battlefield.

Couple that with the fact that both games were offered to consumers with bugs and glitches, but yet, and this is just based off of my reading (not from reviews, mind you; just from regular people) Battlefield's glitches are "okay and to be expected with a new game that was just released", but Ghosts' bugs and glitches are "inexcusable and terrible".

I just can't help but feel that this hypocrisy goes hand in hand with the fact that Call of Duty is the more popular franchise, and given that people like to root for an underdog and shit on anything that's popular (the underdog in this case being a game published by EA; a multi-million dollar company) the same problems that both games have are not seen as the same; Call of Duty's are worse.

I'm rambling, but the main question I'm posing here is...

Does Battlefield really offer a better experience than the Call of Duty franchise, or is it just perceived that way because Call of Duty is the more popular and more easily accessible of the two?

I'm really interested in hearing what our gamers here have to say, because, as I said, this is just my very casual gamer opinion here.

[Koda, Master Crunchyroller]

Single player wise CoD is far and away better. Both series have shite single player with crappy stories and barely fleshed out characters(though I will say they at least TRIED when it came to MW1, Black Ops, and Black Ops II. At least in those three I can legit say I played the campaigns for their stories), but at least CoD has fun shite single player. BF3 was a chore to play on single player. It was boring as all f***.

Now multiplayer wise......BF wins and will always win, imo. It is just a better experience. Bigger, less campable maps(trust me it isn't easy to camp in BF as every building you can enter has multiple entry ways AND you can destroy buildings), motherf***ing vehicles, and unless you are playing a free for all mode everyone generally plays as a team.....more or less. Whereas in CoD more times than not it is just teams of lone wolves looking out only for themselves......even in the team based objective modes.

In BF I can pick a role and fill a niche. I like playing the Assault class in BF as that is the medic class. I'm the f*** mothering guardian angel for my team, swooping in and reviving guys and dropping health packs and shit.

That being said CoD is a faster experience. It can take as little as 5-10 minutes to end a match in CoD, but 15 minutes tends to be the minimum amount on BF.

But yeah, BF is much more my kind of competitive multiplayer.

[Cyno]

I can't really compare the two series because outside of being military shooters, the two games are completely different. CoD's probably more casual-friendly of the two, but that's more due to the bigger variety and sheer size of Battlefield matches. Otherwise it's pretty easy to get into both games even as a casual gamer.

DICE does have a history of releasing games with a lot of really bad bugs at launch, probably why you get the "it's to be expected" response concerning their games. They usually sort them out with patches at a reliable pace, though.

With Call of Duty, the games release on a yearly basis because they have two separate studios making them. Usually the Treyarch-developed ones (Black Ops, World At War) are seen as superior to the Infinity Ward/Sledgehammer ones (Modern Warfare 2-3, Ghosts) since CoD4 came out, which was the last really great IW-developed game.

["Gentleman" AJ Powell]

Call of Duty generally has the superior campaign by far. But Battlefield's multiplayer is always much, much more fun. In Call of Duty, it comes down to who has the higher level equipment and killstreaks, in Battlefield, you have to play as a functioning unit if you want to come close to winning.

Plus, everyone has their clearly defined roles. I myself was usually a medic, sprinting between corpses to revive and hand out medikits whilst occasionally laying down fire, or would grab a shotgun and charge in as a Recon.

Then again, sometimes I'd just grab an M60 and go full blown Rambo of people!

[J is Justice]

Battlefield is probably better, but I have way more fun playing COD (talking about multiplayer here; the single player for both series usually suck). I hate to say it, but just running and gunning like an idiot is just more enjoyable for me.

[Orange]

These responses thus far tell me that I really need to play multiplayer for Battlefield already.

[Malcolm]

I remember having a lot more fun with Battlefield's multiplayer than CoD's multiplayer. I suppose CoD's single player is considered generally superior, but I loved the hell out of Bad Company 1's campaign out of any FPS's single player this gen.

[Koda, Master Crunchyroller]

Nov 6, 2013 21:22:32 GMT -5 Orange said:

These responses thus far tell me that I really need to play multiplayer for Battlefield already.

Yes, you should. There are few things scarier/more tense then turning a corner while on foot and finding an enemy tank, and then realizing they haven't seen you yet, so you have to try and get around them or destroy them(hint, if you aren't playing the one class designed to take out armored vehicles, you should definitely do the former). Or you can hide like a wuss until they drive off.

[Wolfaga]

COD brings out more of the Arcade vibe when it comes to shooters. Everything comes quick and fast, you're being able to customize everything from scratch (Ghosts makes this alot more complex and stupid however) to cater towards what kind of player you are, the modes are alot more quick and frantic too and the maps make everything and everyone seem close together.

Battlefield on the other hand is alot more realistic bringing tanks, helicopters, jets. The weapons feel alot more real (Sniping is amazing, especially in LONG distance shoot outs). The classes are ones which you see in actual war and there's no stupid perks and killstreaks. The maps are huge in comparison and it's main mode lasts alot more longer than your standard CoD game.

If I was in an island with a Xbox One and only one of these games. I will stick to Battlefield. Call of Duty in my opinion has had it's day. Battlefield is more stricter, skillful and tactical. It's also a game which requires teamwork and rewards you for it unlike CoD.

UNFORTUNATELY me and my brother have had to settle with Ghosts at the moment. I would do a mini review for it but to put it to terms; Having a dog as a game-seller means you're running out of ideas. The MP Maps are a mess (but it's Infinity Ward, what do you expect), The weapons, perks and killstreaks are more misses than hits. How you OBTAIN everything MP is an absolute joke too. I used to love the CoD series but Activision has clearly started to show it's disinterest for the series. It's a lazy sequel. 6/10

[Super Weak Machine]

I'll be the odd man out and pick ARMA. PC-only, sure, but if you want a war simulator, you can do no better.

["Gentleman" AJ Powell]

Nov 6, 2013 22:01:06 GMT -5 Koda, Master Crunchyroller said:

Nov 6, 2013 21:22:32 GMT -5 Orange said:

These responses thus far tell me that I really need to play multiplayer for Battlefield already.

Yes, you should. There are few things scarier/more tense then turning a corner while on foot and finding an enemy tank, and then realizing they haven't seen you yet, so you have to try and get around them or destroy them(hint, if you aren't playing the one class designed to take out armored vehicles, you should definitely do the former). Or you can hide like a wuss until they drive off.

Although, if you're feeling particularly manly and are playing as the support class with C4, you can try running at the tank to put the explosives on it, then running away and detonating before it sees you. It's usually better to detonate early and go down with the ship though.

I'm more fearful of when I'm running through an empty space, only to hear the beating of a helicopter's blades, shortly followed by missiles or bullets flying everywhere around me, trying to get to cover before I'm expunged.