Forums / Discussion / General

the Two biggest FPS and some of the most bitter rivals in the gaming industry but who will actually win?

I played both franchises and so i think i can give a subjective opinion.

i will be comparing Battlefield: BC2 and CoD: black ops.

because i am a poor hobo with a weak computer that can't run BF3 and because we all know that MW3 is utter crap.

Battlefield:
it's a very fun slow paced tactical shooty, the maps are very big but because there are vehicles and good sturcture placement it's not a problem.

there is a great element of teamwork with 4 classes with each unique role, many different weapons that all feel balanced and powerful in the right hands.
the game doesn't require much skill though, it's hard to learn – easy to master game. as soon as i grasped the game's mechanics i am able to be on the top all the time, without even killing anyone, just dropping med kits and motion mines.
the guns are very easy to use most of the time, especially sniper rifles since enemies stand still or walk slowly very often.
and the 3d spotting system is both amazing and terrible.
because on one hand it enebales great team work, but also lets you get very easy kills and wallhack.

Call of duty:
it's a very fun fast paced tactical shooty, the maps are mostly small with tight CQB areas but there are always enough open spaces for great veraiety.
there isn't much team work, it's all lone wolf. you might benefit from a friendly spy plane or radar jammar but that is all. the victory of your team depends only on YOUR hands.
there are a lot of different guns, most feel balanced but some seem to be a lot more succeful than others. sniper rifles are completly useless.

But other than that the game feels good, with a complex perk and attachment system that allowes great customization.
The game is easy to learn – but hard to master, everything is fast and energetic so every milisecond counts.

the radar system is both amazing and great that keeps everyone on their toes but doesn't allow any stealth tactics unless using the ghost perk.

final verdcit: who wins?

ME!

Because both games are freaking awsome and all those stupid fanboys can drown in their own filth.
one simply cannot be BETTER than the other

each game offers a great unique experience!

stop the hate and join the fun.

inb4 Nair

I'm going with Jolly on this. Both games can be fun, it's just the type of person you are and what you like to play.

Like Jolly, I have played Black Ops and Bad Company 2. But for my comparison I'll be using MW3 and BF3, as those are the most recent games in both series.

When I want to fuck around, I commonly go with CoD. People might try to play it like a tactical shooter, but it isn't; it's just a casual shooter that looks fancy. Then again, my common gameplay in CoD resolves around running around blindly with a shotgun. Of course scores aren't always great like that, but it's fun. And if you do it often enough your scores will obviously get better.

Battlefield is more tactical. The addition of vehicles allows for more variety and the class you choose makes a lot of difference. Bigger teams, bigger maps. You can't just run around guns blazing (although shotguns still are a lot of fun), actually going for the objective really makes it worth it (plus the Team Deatmatch gamemode in BF3 sucks).

So yeah, it really depends on the mood I'm in. My friends on Xbox-live are more a fan of BF3, so if I play BF3 it's with them. CoD is something I play when I just feel like fooling around, regardless of playing with friends.

My take, lets start with I prefer battlefield, I never go into CoD except the first one i got for pc, the campaign was great and the multiplayer i still play at school with friends. I got into battlefield after Battlefield 1943 came out, i picked up Bad company 2 after getting addicted to 1943 and then pre-ordered Battlefield 3 when i heard the announcement. I have never played CoD, NEVER, it never appealed to me enough to get it. When ever i play at a friends house or watch gameplay videos the graphics just dont appeal to me. The running is lame and the quick jerky movements of the guns too, and when people sprint in Black ops they look like worms wiggling in an upright position. But i will always agree with the fact that there campaign is better than battlefield's. Now i do have to say that there multiplayer gameplay is faster paced it keeps people wanting to play because its matches are quick, small, and getting a kill is more often, its very fun and arcade like. Now onto battlefield, I always liked the graphics, playing 1943 was amazing. storming the beaches and flying the fighters over crystal clear water. I like battlefield because it offers a more tactical and advanced gameplay, and because of the vehicles. You know how fun it is to have your friends on the battlefield spotting tanks for you to come over and assist them by blowing the tank up with your jet? In battlefield its all about playing the objective and team work. Mean while in CoD its run and gun. Now i have to give this to the CoD players, on large conquest maps sometimes the game will be very slow and boring, a half hour match with only 10 kills if your lucky (console wise that is). I like a good debate over video games, when im dealing with mature people who are open minded. Not like when im arguing with a middle schooler that goes around saying "MW3 is the best fucking game ever! Battlefield fucking sucks balls!".

TF2

/thread

In Call of Duty and Battlefield, you get C4.
In Call of Duty, you can't do anything in this video.

\both of them are equally fun
\the true winner is the gamer

you have read my mind.

I agree with the TF2 sentiment. I don't care much for games where you die so quickly like CoD and Battlefield. But I've only played BF3 once, and didn't know you could pull all that ridiculous stuff with C4 like in Sparty McFly's video. That actually got me interested in the game. Can you have C4 with a rocket launcher? I like explosives.

Nope, sadly. BF3 is class-based, the class he was using there was Support.
While Battlefield may seem like CoD with vehicles at first, though you do die quickly (even faster than Cod, average assault rifle kills in three hits), remember: Call of Duty with vehicles provides loads of things to mess around with. That, and the Gadgets for some classes are fun to use.

If you want C4, go Support. You'll have to play it like a regular shooter for a bit, but I think C4 is the second unlock you get for him (after M249). Once you do get it, remember: C4 sticks to everything and blows up when shot. Use it to your advantage.

You don't get it with a missile launcher though. Only the Engineer gets missile launchers. He's a fairly good starting class as well: good-ranged carbine that's a jack-of-all-trades, a blowtorch to repair vehicles and earn easy XP, and the missile launcher to blow up vehicles.

For other ways to have fun in Battlefield, see; jet roadkills, helicopter roadkills, the MAV, the EOD Bot, the AUG A3 with a smoke launcher.

\inb4 this becomes Battlefield General
\also go watch the rest of birgirpall's Battlefield stuff, it's very good and zany

I'd have to go with CoD, but only because of the campaign. I know you're not really supposed to play shooters for the story, but it was so much fun. I had a great feeling of epic when I killed Makrov in MW3.

ME!
Because both games are freaking awsome and all those stupid fanboys can drown in their own filth.
one simply cannot be BETTER than the other
each game offers a great unique experience!

Hear! hear! Finally someone speaks what I've been thinking

Like what you like. It doesn't matter which one is better or what anyone else thinks.

I don't care about modern-set FPS games, tac-shooters simply are not my thing (modern guns are boring, I demand plasma cannons). But if people have fun with them then its fun. Just because I might not enjoy them doesn't mean it's terrible, nor does it mean that everyone else should find it terrible too. It's a matte of taste and taste is subjective. I think more people need to realize that and stop attempting to polarize things

I'm tired of hearing people whine about how much one sucks more than the other or how one is so superior. As someone who is into RTS and arcade DM, I simply couldn't care less

Whole first level of Black Ops II:

"Get the hell outta there!"
"Get the hell outta there!"
"Get the hell outta there!"

But I jest, I jest. Both games are good in their respective areas, though I only have minimal experience with Battlefield.

Anyways, am I the only one looking forward to this?

Nope. I'm kind of excited about Warfighter asswell.

Thought it was gonna be another game I would support from the sidelines but then I saw its E3 footage and how smexy it was.

Hopefully Danger Close will make MP a nice tactical, cover-to-cover FPS and they'll give patches that actually FIX the game rather than make pixel 1035 on gridmarker (1286, 541) look a bit grayer.

Also, I'll love trolling all the new crybabies that litter the internet gaming community.

Personally, I think that both BF and COD have their merits. However, they appeal to much different demographics.

Call of Duty is more of an arena shooter than anything, multiplayer-wise. Small maps with plenty of corners and cover, but few truly long sight lines or large open areas. The few maps where sniping can be really dominant almost always degenerate into camping matches with snipers dueling for superiority. Objective based game modes at least give you a modest means to earn points aside from kills, but objectives really don't pay out near as well in most cases.

Battlefield, on the other hand, is more of an actual warfare experience as far as multiplayer is concerned. Large maps with open sight lines but decent cover. Snipers play a larger role, but due to the presence of vehicles, they can't dominate open maps. In general, it plays somewhat slower, but has more ways to get killed. Objectives almost always pay well for completing them, and there is a great emphasis on teamwork and communication to defeat the enemy.

If you prefer a more team-oriented experience, Battlefield's your game. If you just want to shoot something, play Call of Duty.

One Problem:

the guns are very easy to use most of the time, especially sniper rifles since enemies stand still or walk slowly very often.

You kidding me? Everybody runs like hell from base to base and there's an insane amount of bullet drop. Don't forget the sway of the sniper rife you need to sort out first!

---

Generally though, you're quite correct.

>CoD

>Tactical

I'm joking, after all, the fact that no one bothers to play Call Of Duty tactically is what give the illusion that it never was in the first place.

NAIR SOMEONE INB4'D YOU, YOU CAN'T JUST

WALK IN

LIKE

DUDE

Do I look like I care? (rolls eyes)

I do believe there was only one bit where he was told to "Get the hell outta there!".

Looks pretty good; You get to fly something very similar to an F-35…

Do I look like I'm serious?

yes, sniper rifles, and the recon class in general is very easy to use.

players stand still to aim, take cover give supplies and gaurd an area, landing a headshot is very easy, once you learn the bullet drop pattern it's a piece of cake.
even when someone is running, his movement speed is not that great, and the movement is very predictble so killing them is not a problem.

that and also motion mines and mortar strikes which are also very easy to use

besides the fact that you shoot people with guns the game play inst really that comparable

"It's very sad that Battlefield wasn't popular when it was a good game, but now that they've put a HUGE amount of marketing on it (most of which lies), dumbed the game down and made everything shiny it suddenly overtook CoD. DICE representative: "You don't beat CoD by being the same." Ha! The irony!"
got that from the video comments
i hate both but i hate bf more because of EA

Mortar Strikes don't kill on first direct hit which is too unrealistic. That's why I don't use it.

My favorite part is where I can cut their foot and they die.

In terms of sheer quality, Battlefield wins in a heartbeat. Even if Battlefield 3 didn't live up to the hype, you can clearly see the massive amount of work they put into the game. Call of Duty has been the same game with new gimmicks for 5 years.

In terms of what they offer though, they have different attributes that satisfy different tastes fairly equally. CoD satisfies the twitch shooter level-up fest that we know so well, and Battlefield offers an in depth semi realistic tactical awesomefest.

If you're talking about the community, Battlefield >>>>>> CoD. I've NEVER heard a screaming child playing Battlefield. In CoD, on the other hand, you can't play for five minutes without some asshole joining a lobby and immediately saying "Y'all niggas GAY." Gives me a fucking headache to play CoD for too long without muting everyone.

realitic?

i you want realism go play hardcore mode or ARMA 2.

if mortar stike would kill on direct impact it would be OP.

i still managed to get a quadra kill once from it when it took down a building with a whole enemy squad in there.

yeah, the destrutcble buildings in BF is fucking awsome.

but i still like it that on CoD you can safely rely on the wall you stand behind…

I like to compare the "Call of Duty vs. Battlefield" situation to the Android and iPhone. COD will be the iPhone. While the Android has much better features and is technically better, iPhone is the OG. I feel the same way about these games. COD is just a feel that many people are used to, and that makes it fun to play with friends as well. I feel like I have this situation in many other areas, such as websites. i.e. Youtube vs. Vimeo.

Wait a sec, do you have Xbox LIVE!?

I really want to add you now…

Tf2 and Battlefield 3

'nuff said.

And why does everybody have a damned Xbox? Less exclusives, the rumors of better online are untrue, in a year of paying for Live the price is equal to the PS3, in 4 years you'll have spent enough on Live to have basically bought the damn console twice. Controllers require batteries, and the wireless recharger isn't even included with retail. ಠ_ಠ

Guess what?

I don't care.

Everyone has a choice, and this thread makes no sense. No-one is going to agree to one opinion.

Both games lack quality either way, anyway.

What's quality? Serious question, if rhetorical.

I can't personally define quality well, but I know that releasing a largely unchanged game year after year (CoD) is as far from quality as you can get.

Why not Pokemon?

That's a good question. I've only played up until LeafGreen, so I guess I haven't followed the series as closely as some. I could easily just say the community. While I level my Typhlosion I don't have prepubescent 12 year olds screaming at me and trying to tell me exactly how many dicks I suck.