How is Battlefield Different From CoD?

[00slash00]

So I've been thinking of jumping in to Battlefield 4 (once they take care of some of the bugs) but I don't have much experience with the games, other than playing 1942 with a couple friends like ten years ago. The only other mutiplayer shooter I've played is Call of Duty 4. I enjoyed it for a little while but it just became running in a circle and shooting random people. It got old pretty fast. So is Battlefield basically CoD with bigger maps, destructible environments, and vehicles, or is there more to it than that? More importantly, If I got bored of CoD multiplayer after a couple weeks, is that a sign that I would likely get bored of Battlefield 4 before too long?

Thank you.

Edit: I would not be playing with friends, just with random people. Every game is more fun with friends but does the game lose much appeal if you are just playing with randoms?

 

[Barbas]

Well, there first one I played was Battlefield 3. It's what you described and more. You join a squad and hop into a helicopter or tank to attack and hold an objective or rush a point where you have to detonate or defuse the bomb that is there. In the 'Rush' mode, you attack or defend two points. If those are taken, the defenders' lines move back and a physical destruction event may occur to open the way for the attackers, who move forward to the next two points. 'Conquest' is about holding flag points and killing enemies while not dying yourself. It's a war of attrition over much larger areas than 'Deathmatch' or 'Rush', and each respawn costs your team one of their limited tickets. If you take and hold half the points on the map or more, your enemies' tickets will drop steadily.

One of the main differences is the community. In the Battlefield series, teamwork will get you a lot further and will often mean the difference between victory and defeat. Charging alone gets you mowed down, so you should have somebody to be there to refill your ammunition or revive you, or flank the enemy with an MG or sniper rifle who is suppressing you. The people I've played with were nearly all quite easy-going and encouraging.

In Battlefield 4, there are larger and more numerous destruction events in maps that can block and open routes to attack objectives or merely serve as impressive show-pieces. You can, for instance, collapse a skyscraper or a small dam wall to flood the map and change the vehicle spawns to boats. You can untangle a Destroyer wreck to crash into an objective point and destroy the building defending it. You can also customize your soldier's camouflage, your weapon's camouflage and your vehicle's camouflage, unlock other things like attachments and abilities (e.g. TV missiles in an attack helicopter, magnification scopes on rifles or ammo types for tanks) and more. I don't think you'd be bored for a very long time, assuming the game does not suffer from the same patch woes that Battlefield 3 did (too long, little word from DICE, annoying exploits). The game rewards the clever approach in combat and just has a great deal more ways in which to approach combat. I can't stand EA, but even I'm considering getting it. Probably when it's cheaper, though.

 

[MysticSlayer]

So is Battlefield basically CoD with bigger maps, destructible environments, and vehicles, or is there more to it than that? More importantly, If I got bored of CoD multiplayer after a couple weeks, is that a sign that I would likely get bored of Battlefield 4 before too long?

Thank you.

For starters, whether or not you can get into Battlefield for longer than Call of Duty is highly subjective. Some people can get into CoD easily but cannot get into BF that much and vice versa. From my experience, it really depends on the quality of the product, and both of them have seriously gone down hill in the last few years.

In any case, theoretically both CoD and BF are more than just running around in circles shooting people. In practice, though, that is hardly the case. BF fans do like to tout how much more "team-oriented" Battlefield is than Call of Duty and how the community is more about playing as a team, but from my experience, this is a gross exaggeration of how it actually plays. Essentially, if you're just playing with randoms, you chances of working together as a team are about equal between the two franchises, though I will say I had more success communicating with randoms in CoD than I did in BF. Granted, if those randoms in Battlefield start working together, it is certainly a more robust system than Call of Duty, but don't expect them to actually work together. Unfortunately, Battlefield's design generally means you're hurt more by a lack of teamwork than you are in Call of Duty. In short, Battlefield plays better when working as a team but worse when not working as a team, so if you have friends to play with whenever you want then Battlefield should definitely be more enjoyable. However, with randoms, Battlefield is even worse than Call of Duty, because you don't have as much twitchy action to stimulate yourself and get your mind off the fact that you are just running around in circles killing and being killed.

Basically, in practice, without playing in a team with friends, Battlefield is essentially a slow, boring task of running (or driving) around in circles hoping to kill someone before a tank blows you up or a sniper shoots your head off, and it is worse than anything CoD has to offer when played in this state. However, if you have friends to play with, I would highly encourage you to give Battlefield a try. Like Call of Duty, it is really meant to be played with friends, but it is more complex and might evolve into more than just running around a large map as sniper bait.

 

[00slash00]

So is Battlefield basically CoD with bigger maps, destructible environments, and vehicles, or is there more to it than that? More importantly, If I got bored of CoD multiplayer after a couple weeks, is that a sign that I would likely get bored of Battlefield 4 before too long?

Thank you.

For starters, whether or not you can get into Battlefield for longer than Call of Duty is highly subjective. Some people can get into CoD easily but cannot get into BF that much and vice versa. From my experience, it really depends on the quality of the product, and both of them have seriously gone down hill in the last few years.

In any case, theoretically both CoD and BF are more than just running around in circles shooting people. In practice, though, that is hardly the case. BF fans do like to tout how much more "team-oriented" Battlefield is than Call of Duty and how the community is more about playing as a team, but from my experience, this is a gross exaggeration of how it actually plays. Essentially, if you're just playing with randoms, you chances of working together as a team are about equal between the two franchises, though I will say I had more success communicating with randoms in CoD than I did in BF. Granted, if those randoms in Battlefield start working together, it is certainly a more robust system than Call of Duty, but don't expect them to actually work together. Unfortunately, Battlefield's design generally means you're hurt more by a lack of teamwork than you are in Call of Duty. In short, Battlefield plays better when working as a team but worse when not working as a team, so if you have friends to play with whenever you want then Battlefield should definitely be more enjoyable. However, with randoms, Battlefield is even worse than Call of Duty, because you don't have as much twitchy action to stimulate yourself and get your mind off the fact that you are just running around in circles killing and being killed.

Basically, in practice, without playing in a team with friends, Battlefield is essentially a slow, boring task of running (or driving) around in circles hoping to kill someone before a tank blows you up or a sniper shoots your head off, and it is worse than anything CoD has to offer when played in this state. However, if you have friends to play with, I would highly encourage you to give Battlefield a try. Like Call of Duty, it is really meant to be played with friends, but it is more complex and might evolve into more than just running around a large map as sniper bait.

Well that's very unfortunate. I don't have many PC gaming friends, much less friends who play online shooters on PC. This would be done entirely with random people and from what you say, it sounds like that would lose appeal to me just as quickly as playing with random people in CoD did. I thought that maybe since maps in Battlefield are bigger, then it wouldn't get as boring but I guess not

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

So is Battlefield basically CoD with bigger maps, destructible environments, and vehicles, or is there more to it than that? More importantly, If I got bored of CoD multiplayer after a couple weeks, is that a sign that I would likely get bored of Battlefield 4 before too long?

Thank you.

For starters, whether or not you can get into Battlefield for longer than Call of Duty is highly subjective. Some people can get into CoD easily but cannot get into BF that much and vice versa. From my experience, it really depends on the quality of the product, and both of them have seriously gone down hill in the last few years.

In any case, theoretically both CoD and BF are more than just running around in circles shooting people. In practice, though, that is hardly the case. BF fans do like to tout how much more "team-oriented" Battlefield is than Call of Duty and how the community is more about playing as a team, but from my experience, this is a gross exaggeration of how it actually plays. Essentially, if you're just playing with randoms, you chances of working together as a team are about equal between the two franchises, though I will say I had more success communicating with randoms in CoD than I did in BF. Granted, if those randoms in Battlefield start working together, it is certainly a more robust system than Call of Duty, but don't expect them to actually work together. Unfortunately, Battlefield's design generally means you're hurt more by a lack of teamwork than you are in Call of Duty. In short, Battlefield plays better when working as a team but worse when not working as a team, so if you have friends to play with whenever you want then Battlefield should definitely be more enjoyable. However, with randoms, Battlefield is even worse than Call of Duty, because you don't have as much twitchy action to stimulate yourself and get your mind off the fact that you are just running around in circles killing and being killed.

Basically, in practice, without playing in a team with friends, Battlefield is essentially a slow, boring task of running (or driving) around in circles hoping to kill someone before a tank blows you up or a sniper shoots your head off, and it is worse than anything CoD has to offer when played in this state. However, if you have friends to play with, I would highly encourage you to give Battlefield a try. Like Call of Duty, it is really meant to be played with friends, but it is more complex and might evolve into more than just running around a large map as sniper bait.

Well that's very unfortunate. I don't have many PC gaming friends, much less friends who play online shooters on PC. This would be done entirely with random people and from what you say, it sounds like that would lose appeal to me just as quickly as playing with random people in CoD did. I thought that maybe since maps in Battlefield are bigger, then it wouldn't get as boring but I guess not

You could always join a platoon/clan. And there's a Battlefield group on the Escapist that you could join. Hell, you could even add me if you wanted, I'd play with you. Also, I play Battlefield alone quite a bit and I never really have problems, although I can understand if people have less fun without friends.

 

[Brian Tams]

Battlefield puts a larger emphasis on team play, rather than Lone Wolfing in CoD. When you're getting your ass kicked in a game in Battlefield, it tends to be because the team is performing poorly as a whole, rather than one awful player dragging the whole team down in a game of CoD.

I've played both (and at one time I was into them seriously at different times), but I noticed my enjoyment level was just higher in Battlefield than CoD.

 

[Zipa]

The biggest difference you will notice between cod and battlefield is that the hit detection is far better in battlefield. You don't get the whole shot round corners or bullets not registering as hits thing. Plus its a much more team orientated game in that it rewards people who work together. Plus it has vehicles and will probably melt your GPU on high settings.

 

[miketehmage]

I think "only in battlefield" is a good slogan. The game has the potential to be super fun with a good team and playing in a squad of your friends. There are few things more satisfying than sniping a helicopter pilot out of his cockpit, or nailing a low flying helicopter with a tank shell. Or bailing out of your burning airplane, landing on top of an enemy tank, strapping it with c4 running away and blowing it to smithereens.

Honestly I think BF2 was the peak of the series but it is still fun and I'd definitely recommend battlefield over CoD

EDIT: I'd just like to address the point made by the guy who said "something's are pretty bullshit and that choppers can be repaired in mid air."
I would quote but it's too much work on my phone. What I want to say is:

LEAVE MY HELICOPTERS ALONE ;(

Seriously though on a 64 man server as soon as I take off I'm locked onto by about 6 different people. I have countermeasures to avoid 1 of those missiles. I will be hit by the next 5. Needs fixed. I disagree with in-flight repairs too but remove AA capabilities from tanks and engineers and boats first ty.

 

[Yarkaz]

Just picked up battlefield, and so far I've noticed that trying to play lone wolf will get you killed pretty quickly. Vehicle play is also a much bigger factor, I suppose the larger map sized have something to do with that though. I feel like I have more options in BF, like there are more ways to approach any given situation.