Header Ads

Battlefield Vs Call Of Duty

Hey people, sorry things have been few and far between on here, but I've been busy, and I'll try my best to update this a little bit more. Anyway, I want to raise the question here and ask which game franchise is better, Battlefield or Call Of Duty?

With the upcoming release of Battlefield 3, and the slightly later release of Modern Warfare 3, internet message boards have been battling like Trafalgar over which franchise is better, and which game will take home the all important first week of sales. It's going to be a tough one, that's for sure.

Both of these games have their own merits, and both of them are enjoyable and easily played, but for some reason hardcore fans of either game slate the other for focusing too much on what people find enjoyable about them. For example, people say that Battlefield is a smarter game to play as it's more open and you don't just run into the centre of a map with a machine gun and lay down to shoot everyone. But Call Of Duty fans say that this is too slow and that the maps should be smaller and should be easily playable. But Battlefield fans say that because it's so diverse, it's easier to hide on and easier to play a tactical game, especially if you're sniping. So Call Of Duty fans say that if it's not quick scoping it's not real sniping and I could go on all day with this argument. But yeah, I agree with the Battlefield fans. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy running across Nuke Town on Black Ops with a Spectre, but a more tactical, slower game is more appealing to me.

I can see why the Call Of Duty fans say their franchise is top dog though. Especially with first person shooters focusing on US Marines and Al-Qaeda, it's refreshing to see games like the Modern Warfare series catering to the British market with the addition of the SAS. But again, Battlefield fans say that the single player for Modern Warfare is basically British people shooting at Russians or Afghans or whoever else we're supposed to be fighting, and for a story mode this just isn't feasible. But, come on, isn't the whole idea of a modern first person shooter meant to be in an alternate time-frame, like if the Soviet Union didn't collapse? Isn't it meant to be an unfeasible story line, with hypothetical situations which can be resolved by shooting at anything that moves? Call Of Duty fans seem to think so. But again, Battlefield were there with Bad Company all those years ago, so it's really an empty shell that the Call Of Duty fans are firing at the other side.

Graphics tend to play a big role in deciding factors around these games. In my personal opinion, I think Battlefield is the better looking game, where water isn't grey and invisible walls rule the jungles. Everything is colourful, the blues are bluer, the greens are greener, and as for invisible walls in the jungles, there are none. You go outside the battle zone, you end up getting mortared. The Call Of Duty faithful seem to think that it's not how the game looks, but how it plays, which brings me neatly onto the subject of the game engines.

For this game, Dice (who make the engines for the Battlefield series) have released their new Frostbite 2 engine, which adds more destructibility to the maps. Now it's not just standing structures like buildings and trees which can be destroyed. Roads can be pot holed and from what I've been researching, you can deepen rivers, making it hard for the enemy team to cross. And as for the destruction of buildings, instead of just having the building either have a wall taken out, or have it collapse slowly like in Bad Company 2, but will reduce the buildings to something resembling an ash pile. Call of Duty however hasn't really added in destructibility to their own game engines, especially in online play. As Call of Duty has been running off of the same game engine since World at War, it's going to be difficult for them to transfer over to an independent engine when the next generation of Xbox and Playstation come out in a few years time. Call of Duty fans say this doesn't matter, as no one cares if a bridge can be blown up. Your loss though.

Secondary gimmicks play a large role in first person shooters. In Call of Duty: World at War and Black Ops, Nazi Zombies gave an added element of fun to the games, whereas the Modern Warfare series had the "Spec Ops" added onto them, offering challenges to the player to earn stars, and bragging rights. Battlefield hasn't really kept this up. The last added gimmick to a battlefield game was the Battlefield Vietnam: WW2 mod, which replaced the US Marines and the Vietcong with Japanese Soldiers and American Troops, as well as the weapons.

Vehicles in Battlefield, now this is a subject which, in the opinion of many Battlefield fans, is the defining factor. Battlefield 3 is going to host as many as:


  • 5 Light Armored Vehicles
  • 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles
  • 3 Tanks
  • 2 Anti-Aircraft Vehicles
  • 1 Artillery Vehicle (a self propelled gun)
  • 7 Helicopters (technically 6 as one is the V-22 Osprey which can transform into a plane)
  • 8 Fixed Wing Aircraft (all jets)
  • 1 Naval Vessel (as well as a dinghy, although a Nimitz-Class Aircraft carrier is present on a couple of the maps, although it can't be driven but can be used to launch aircraft off of)
This makes a total of 30 vehicles which will be available on the Battlefield 3 multiplayer maps. Which is 30 more than Call of Duty (unless you count chopper gunners).


Overall, I think that both of the games are even. Both games have pros and cons, but really, does it matter? Does it truly matter if one game is better than the other? Does anyone care if the maps are smaller but the weapons do more damage or whatever else there is? In my opinion, I think Battlefield is better, but hey, that's just me.

I want to see what you all think of the games. Leave a comment below with your opinions, or Twitter me on @mattinanutshell!
Battlefield Vs Call Of Duty Battlefield Vs Call Of Duty Reviewed by Matt Large on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 Rating: 5

3 comments

  1. welcome back and good to hear from you again :D
    Cant decide which one i prefer... Actually im just one of those gamers that play those games just for fun

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's good to know I have a loyal reader. I like CoD as it's fast paced and easy to kill on, but I like Battlefield as it's slower and takes a smarter game plan to win

    ReplyDelete
  3. Welcome back, hope you actualize soon!

    ReplyDelete

Leave us a comment, and we'll do our best to get back to you as soon as possible

Cheers,

The Nutshell Team

Recent Posts

Comments