Battlefield is not CoD

[Cranyx]

I was never into the CoD games which has led to say that I generally don't like military shooters (assuming they are all similar), however I have friends that agree yet still say they like Battlefield.

Are the two series significantly different? What are the differences?

 

[Vunts]

The scale of the maps and accessibility to vehicles?

 

[ZeroMachine]

The scale of the maps and accessibility to vehicles?

This, the graphics, and more focus on teamwork. They also feel vastly different when it comes to atmosphere and weapons.

 

[Ohlawdylawdy]

1. Yes

2. CoD is a squad shooter with smaller maps featuring kill streaks and and overall more competitive feel. Battlefield has vehicles, bigger maps, and has a more warlike feel to it. BF also feels less competitive and you'll have to deal with a lot less horrible people because game chat is limited to those in your squad.

 

[stabbymcstabs]

Both of the franchises have different aspects to the genre.

Battlefield is a tactical squad based shooter.

While Call of duty is a Run N' Gun styled shooter. All it depends on is your taste of game.

I believe the only reaon they can put a similarity together is, they both use guns,and you kill stuff. This is true, but a very bad reason.

Another thing that annoys me is people who have played a Run N' Gun shooter like Call of Duty, and think that Battlefield is the same. IT ISNT! Your not going to be helping anyone on your team by running around killing people (Unless you play team deathmatch), you have got to caputure/defend strategic objectives to win.

Finally got that off my chest.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

CoD is a much faster paced game, and you are generally always in the action. Rather unbalanced with one class tat generally becomes better than everything else. With the mix of perks and generally quickly killing guns, CoD is the winner when it comes to gunfights and being a lone wolf. You can literally be a one man army.

Battlefield is a game with humongous maps, where you generally have to travel a distance to the battles. Unlike CoD, there are some pretty hefty battles where there actually is a defense line that you have to break to move on. Team Work doesn't play as big a factor as people try to make it out to be, but it is there. It also kind of suffers a little bit too much when you aren't playing with friends. It's a much slower paced game, yet it is a little bit more balanced (though the flying vehicles are underpowered and overpowered at the same time). You have to know when to avoid a fight much more so than CoD.

They are both fun, and they are both extremely different to anyone who plays a lot of modern FPS's. They also both have issues.

 

[Anomynous 167]

One thing that angered me was when they marketed Battlefield 3 as a "Call of Duty killer", mainly because of the sub-genre differences.

 

[Torrasque]

The scale of the maps and accessibility to vehicles?

Pretty much this.
CoD is closer to Halo in the regard that you are a 1 man army, while Battlefield is more team oriented.
CoD still has team elements, a coordinated team will beat an uncoordinated team, but in CoD, a single person can sweep through the enemy team like nothing (I've done so many times). In Battlefield, you are much MUCH more likely to win a game if you cooperate with your team.
So, what pretty much everyone else has said, lol.
Oh, and the maps are very different. The largest map in CoD is a tiny speck of nothingness compared to the smallest maps in Battlefield.

 

[F4LL3N]

Eh...I'm confused. Everyone here is saying "the maps are bigger and the multiplayer is played differently". I still don't get how that overcomes massive similarities in gameplay, story telling style, story itself, graphical style (Grey sweater over one eye, used teabag over other) and emphasis on multiplayer. I don't see how that is a massive difference.

Well, did you want to know the differences, or did you simply want to trot around on your high horse thinking your somehow superior for not liking "brown and grey" shooter clones?

...Oh, just noticed you aren't the OP. Still, the differences have been said.

Call of Duty: Very much a "one man army" sort of game. You still need a decent team to win, but you can generally chew through the enemies racking up killstreaks like no other.

-Run n' Gun, fast paced, arcade shooter. Emphasis on getting kills, killstreaks, and whatnot. Plenty of skill needed to be successful.

Battlefield: Much more team oriented. If run n' gun was on one end of the scale, Battlefield (3) is on the very opposite end. You won't get far running n gunning, and it actually ruins the game for EVERYONE if you try to run n' gun like Call of Duty - it's screws with Battlefields whole formula.

-Much slower pace, team oriented; vehicles (no killstreaks), maps ~5-10 times bigger than large Call of Duty maps, 4 classes/roles (Assault, Engineer, Support, Recon - with limited customization in comparison to CoD, but adds to the emphasis of teamwork).

Anyone who's played both games can see how different they are. I would say with Call of Duty, it's a lot more about your class setup, while with Battlefield 3 teamwork is more important than your class setup (although this includes your teammates using their roles correctly).

In Battlefield 3, leveling up your character generally unlocks either a pistol, a shotgun (I think) or a new camo/outfit. Leveling up 1 of the 4 roles unlocks either a new weapon or equipment for that role. Than you level up weapons and vehicles individually to unlock new attachments. While Call of Duty you level up your character to unlock pretty much everything, and depending on the game, level up/buy attachments for guns individually.

Neither Call of Duty or Battlefield is about the campaign. I thought that was well known already. In both games you'll probably get about 10 hours in the campaign and hundreds in multiplayer. If they were smart the next title will exclude the campaign and simply focus on bringing us 100+ multiplayer maps.

Although I will say the game engine feels very similar in both games. Both very smooth (although Call of Duty is more polished), and quite similar graphically. But let's face it, it's the gameplay that matters more.

 

[xDarc]

Both of the franchises have different aspects to the genre.

Battlefield is a tactical squad based shooter.

While Call of duty is a Run N' Gun styled shooter. All it depends on is your taste of game.

I understand where this perception comes from because BF3 has vehicles and crap, but it simply is not true anymore.

Both games have similar FPS mechanics and essentially they play the same. In a real run n' gun shooter, you can dodge bullets. It was actually a skill central to FPS gaming, once- dodging. No such luck in either of these games.

They both have prone. They both have ridiculous CoF penalties that discourage hip shooting, even up close. The aim down sight slows you down to a crawl, so that someone else can shoot you in the back.

It's all part of a formula to make sure everyone gets kills, everyone keeps having a good time, everyone keeps buying these mediocre games. It's what took the genre from competitive nerd sport to household couch potato past time.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

So, I'm curious, where does Counter-Strike fit into all of this, roughly? Because I know a lot of PC gamers like to use Call of Duty and sometimes even Battlefield as evidence of consoles having inferior games (which is already stupid because both are available for Windows as well), ignoring that the most-played multiplayer game on their platform of choice is almost as much of a punchline in many circles. I know this was meant to be a two-game comparison only, but I'm curious. Especially now that a sequel remake is in the works.

 

[5t3v0]

So, I'm curious, where does Counter-Strike fit into all of this, roughly? Because I know a lot of PC gamers like to use Call of Duty and sometimes even Battlefield as evidence of consoles having inferior games (which is already stupid because both are available for Windows as well), ignoring that the most-played multiplayer game on their platform of choice is almost as much of a punchline in many circles. I know this was meant to be a two-game comparison only, but I'm curious. Especially now that a sequel remake is in the works.

I find it hilarious that Battlefield is used as a point, while I would disagree it would make more sense if it was Bad company... But battlefield wasn't on console in its fullest form until then...

 

[mjc0961]

Another thing that annoys me is people who have played a Run N' Gun shooter like Call of Duty, and think that Battlefield is the same. IT ISNT! Your not going to be helping anyone on your team by running around killing people (Unless you play team deathmatch), you have got to caputure/defend strategic objectives to win.

You know, it's the same in every other shooter too, including Call of Duty. Unless you're playing deathmatch, just going around killing people helps no one. It's a problem in every objective based mode in every game, including Duty. It's happened to me in Killzone 2. It's happened to me in Killzone 3. It's happened to me in Gears of War 3. It's happened to me in Red Dead Redemption. And it's even happened to me in Call of Duty: Black Ops.

Call of Duty is not the cause of this problem. Selfish players who measure their self worth by their kill/death ratio and who realize that they can get easier kills by mowing down other players who are focusing on objectives instead of just killing everyone in objective based game modes than in deathmatch modes where everyone is out to kill everyone else are the causes of this problem. And if you play any of the objective modes in a Call of Duty game, you'll see the same problem going on. Someone who's played shooters with objective modes before Call of Duty even existed can probably tell you that it happened in those games too, and people will be doing it in newer games long after Call of Duty goes away. So stop blaming Call of Duty for those kind of players.

 

[SwiggleDyl]

From a person that doesn't enjoy COD I have so far really enjoyed Battlefield 3, while the story is similar you feel less like a secret agent who is also Rambo and more like a soldier... Albeit a very very good soldier.