COD: Ghosts vs. BF4 Mutiplayer

[astrogamic]

Two questions: 1. Which game has the better multiplayer experience? And 2. Is the campaign no longer relevant in these series due to the importance of multiplayer?

1. Battlefield has come a long way since their first installment. That's indisputable. COD has been solidified as the nuber 1 FPS as long as I can remember, but none of that presently matters. BF4 has new modes in multiplayer and variety of map sizes that makes it stand out. BF4 has the implementation of "levolution" which Ipersonally love. To me, it helps give that reality aspect that warfare games have been missing for so long. Their wide range of vehicles is really cool too.
In COD's defense, their new spinoff of zombie mode looks good. You can now be a female soldiers and new guns boost the game as well. Not to mention it hasn't had the countless glitches that BF4 launched with and still faces. Some say it's a matter of taste. That one is tailored towards teamwork(BF4) and the other is more towards individuals(COD) So, all things considered, who has the edge in terms of multiplayer?

2. Campaign mode has been lacking for the past few years in COD. I wasn't blown away with BF3's story either. Is it just that it's hard to reinvent what has already been tampered with for so long, or do devs just not put as much priority on the campaign as they once did?

 

[MysticSlayer]

1. Who cares? They're two completely different games. Call of Duty focuses on small maps, while Battlefield has large maps. CoD uses killstreaks, while BF just gives you the vehicles. CoD is mostly classless (i.e. you're free to customize with almost no restraint), while BF has a more rigid class system. CoD focuses on small teams, while BF focuses on larger teams split into squads. CoD's strategy focuses mostly on controlling individual parts of the map so the other team can't do much, while BF focuses a little more on squad movement and being able to deal with a more vast array of situations. CoD is all infantry combat, while BF is more divided between infantry and vehicles. CoD uses more static maps, while BF forces you to change throughout the battle. The list just goes on and on. Ultimately, they are two games targeting completely different audiences. That doesn't mean one is better or smarter. It just means that they are targeting people with different tastes.

2. Unless Battlefield 4 drastically improved the campaign (and I mean drastically), then this will always go to CoD. Battlefield started as a multiplayer-only franchise and has only added its singleplayer as a pointless add-on to help it compete with CoD, and the fact that it is nothing more than a pointless add-on is incredibly obvious. Call of Duty started as a game that put about as much effort into singleplayer as it did into multiplayer (arguably more to the former) and has only recently started emphasizing its multiplayer far more than its singleplayer. Still, it has more of a start, has found a style that works for it, and generally manages to be entertaining for the few hours that it lasts; so until Battlefield can find a way to make its own, better campaign, Call of Duty will likely always be the game you get if you just want to rent one for the singleplayer.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Has anyone actually bought both of these games? I'd expect most people went one or the other (or even none at all!) and so comparing them is pretty impossible since everyone already has their favourite and no longer follows the other franchise.

On topic, I'm playing the Medal of Honor reboot multiplayer at the moment, (thanks to a very generous Escapist gifting it to me on Steam) and that is such a damn mess it's ridiculous. I was tempted to go on a rant about everything they did wrong, but since the game's about 3 years old now obviously I'm a little too late to the party.
How EA thought that it was ever going to compete with the other two is beyond me. Game be whack yo.

 

[Evonisia]

I'll answer number 2, since I have yet to play Ghosts' Multiplayer (but have watched it's campaign).

I'd argue more effort has been put into CoD's singleplayers if we're talking about Treyarch games. No, seriously. I dare somebody to play through World at War, Black Ops and Black Ops II and say that less effort went into it than Big Red One and United Offensive. Infinity Ward on the hand, yeah. They don't care. MW2, MW3 and Ghosts are all pathetic in terms of singleplayer (though Spec Ops is a nice touch) and they put in barely relevant plots to justify your decision to fire missiles at a random country which isn't America.

BF started as a multiplayer series, and the only reason it has singleplayer is to try and grab CoD players. Both BF3 and 4's campaigns are awful and basically have barely any work put into them.

 

[Bonk4licious]

Actually, Battlefield has solved my crashing problem finally, and just has some of the smaller netlag issues with locked rockets and aircraft. It's not quite perfect, but it's finally playable and lovable. I really don't care for Ghosts smaller, infantry/killstreak system, so I recommend Battlefield now that it doesn't crash for no reason anymore, as vehicle combat is super fun and the new China Rising maps are awesome.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I'd argue more effort has been put into CoD's singleplayers if we're talking about Treyarch games. No, seriously. I dare somebody to play through World at War, Black Ops and Black Ops II and say that less effort went into it than Big Red One and United Offensive.

I'd say this is an understatement- Black Ops 1, and to a much lesser extent Black Ops 2, has one of the best storys I've played this generation. The whole thing with that Russian dude from Vorkuta? That was clever, subverting what you'd expect from the genre and having likable characters for some small campaign, Bowman and Woods- see, I can remember their names! And Hudson being the smooth CIA type and Mason being off his meds.
Infinity Wards campaigns are passable but they aren't as notoriously horrendous as the one from Battlefield 3. Seriously, fuck that campaign.

 

[Evonisia]

I'd argue more effort has been put into CoD's singleplayers if we're talking about Treyarch games. No, seriously. I dare somebody to play through World at War, Black Ops and Black Ops II and say that less effort went into it than Big Red One and United Offensive.

I'd say this is an understatement- Black Ops 1, and to a much lesser extent Black Ops 2, has one of the best storys I've played this generation. The whole thing with that Russian dude from Vorkuta? That was clever, subverting what you'd expect from the genre and having likable characters for some small campaign, Bowman and Woods- see, I can remember their names! And Hudson being the smooth CIA type and Mason being off his meds.
Infinity Wards campaigns are passable but they aren't as notoriously horrendous as the one from Battlefield 3. Seriously, fuck that campaign.

Well, Black Ops has the better story but I'd argue Black Ops II has the better characters. Menendez will probably be one of the most underrated villains of last gen. Woods just got better with age, and Mason didn't repeat the same agonised scream every few seconds. Though Hudson wasn't voiced by the same actor and imo he sounds more like a generic war character now =/

 

[Fraser Fitzpatrick]

The plots of Battlefield games haven't really been good since Bad Company but that's just a reflection of the change in audience demands. Who here can honestly say they'd care if the next Battlefield or COD completely omitted it's single player campaign?