Poll: Battlefield fanboys vs Call of Duty fanboys

[Cabisco]

Crazy notion here:

Spoiler

I enjoy both

They might be both be modern military FPS's but they are still completely different games. If I feel like playing a smaller scale FPS like special forces without vehicles etc then i'll play COD. If I rather a large scale war simulator with vehicles then i'll play BF.

BURN THE BLASPHEMER! In honesty though I can see why you like both, though I personally do not.

When it comes to Battlefield and COD I think i've had alot more fun with Battlefield. When I think back I didn't really want to buy with Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2, I did so because everyone else did and I more tolerated the game because I was playing with my friends than enjoyed it myself. The few times i've played Battlefield with my friends i've enjoyed it so much, more 'crazy' things happen and you I feel their is more choice of what to do, you can hang back as a sniper and pick people off, get stuck into the fight on the frontlines or pull up massive tanks to blast buildings away. The extra freedom to play the battle how you want gives me alot more pleasure than COD.

Thats why for MW3, no matter who buys it i'm staying away. Though I fully expect others to buy it and enjoy it. I just know it's not a game for me.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I'm not much of a Gun fetishist, so....neither.

btw, I'm not implying that playing Gun porn is bad. It's just not my thing.

"gun porn" does something like that actually existed dear god what is wrong with people now a days

Uhh... I was saying that Call of Duty and Battlefield ARE gun porn. Maybe not literally, but you take what you can get, amirite?

 

[Hobonicus]

Battlefield fans rag on Call of Duty fans because the amount of teamwork and depth in Battlefield is greater, making it in their minds (and in mine) a far superior multiplayer shooter that is currently being vastly outsold by Call of Duty, a more shallow, solo-oriented multiplayer shooter notoriously known for it's immature and often plain mean fanbase.

They feel that Battlefield is almost objectively better than a similar (they do generally complete for the same market) product that gets so much more attention for being simplistic. And there's nothing people hate more than something that symbolizes the degeneration of an industry they're passionate about.

There's your reason. It's basically, "This is why we can't have nice things".

So I guess I was doing something wrong while I was running around and getting my team plenty of points while going completely solo in Battlefield BC2? Not to say that Battlefield doesn't naturally push more of a sense of teamwork or anything, but if I can run around the maps and completely ignore the existence of my teammates and still manage to rake in plenty of kills/objective points taken, then I find it hard to believe that Battlefield is really so different from call of duty (at least in the teamwork department).

Besides, teamwork alone doesn't define how deep a game is. There are many factors that can effect the depth of an experience, such as the amount of options a player has, the amount of situations a player can come across (or at least perceives to come across), the weight and balance behind the consequences of a player's choices, the list goes on and on. And since depth is defined by how exactly a player experiences it, it can be difficult to "objectively" compare depth between games. Likewise, I find arguing over whether Battlefield or Call of Duty has more "depth" to it than the other to be fairly fruitless.

In my honest view, both games are far too similar to really get all that worked up over which is more deep, yet at the same too different to objectively hold one over the other. Whether or not you like one over the other boils down to strictly your personal preference. Both were fun, deep experiences for me. I see no reason to argue over which is better.

I wasn't necessarily arguing for Battlefield's dominance (as I said in my edit you missed by a few seconds ), just answering the OP's question. But I would still maintain that Battlefield has far more depth and teamwork, regardless of how you decided to play Bad Company 2, which for the record, is a great game but a far cry from Battlefield 2. At the very least, the mechanics that the Battlefield games are designed around are tailored to a product that emphasizes more depth and teamwork than that of Call of Duty.

Of course the obvious response here would be that the Bad Company series is not a main Battlefield title and was specifically designed to compete with CoD and similar games on consoles, but I do think it still maintains a better sense of teamwork even though it's possible to go it alone. I've noticed that most of the teamwork in CoD is simply a collection of individual achievements. If one team wins it was because a few players were good, not because they worked together. Battlefield uses a squad system, where you stick with your squad and encourages you to work together, even allowing you to spawn on them, though the teamwork among squad mates was more apparent in Battlefield 2 where the maps were larger and generally slower paced. BF2 also had two commanders on each side overseeing the battle. On top of all that the different classes are specifically designed to work together, each having a unique ability to aid their allies.

As far as depth goes, Battlefield simply has more in terms of gameplay, I never meant that the teamwork is what gave the game depth. Call of Duty is mostly just running around a pseudo maze with a few objectives and shooting the second you and an enemy turn the corner on each other. Or camping. There's no destruction, there's no drivable vehicles, there's no spotting enemies for your teammates, there's no huge open areas. I'm totally fine with CoD being a fun arcadey shooter (and Battlefield is too for the most part), but I find it very hard to deny that Battlefield has more gameplay depth, even objectively so.

 

[MrGseff]

Would never consider myself a fanboy to any series (well... except zelda maybe) as I have tried both Call of Duty and Battlefield, I buy them both, but as an online multiplayer I prefer Battlefield, could simply be because I am better at Battlefield than on COD

 

[El_Chubba_Chubba]

I prefer Battlefield Fans...because at least their right. [SNAP]

But I do prefer the game, probably because vehicles make be orgasm.

 

[aenimau5]

I prefer battlefield simply because i am so appallingly terrible at CoD.

 

[Blackpapa]

Call of Duty has this odd world where you don't use tanks, jets or APCs. Where everybody runs around in anarchy, no squads, no commander, no orders.

I like twitch gaming. Team Fortress 2 is great for that. Quake Live is also great.

But what I like even more are realistic games. Multilayered games where even once you master the individual controls of your own avatar you then have to master teamplay. Once you have that mastered you can move on to executing a coordinated strategy with all players involved. 2142 is a good example of this, where a small, organized team can beat a much larger team, even with gunslinging skills of both sides being equal.

And in this aspect MW2 is as deep as a petri dish. There are better mindless fragfests out there than MW2.

 

[Chibz]

Ok so all over youtube I see people liking call of duty, it is probably (definetely) the most popular game shown in videos... but then I see comments hating on call of duty.

Not everyone who hates CoD is a Battlefield fanboy. I hate both equally.

I mostly hate what the FPS genre is today, a generic mesh of regenerating health, ultra realistic modern day shooter's and SPACE MAHREENS.

No more FPS' for me until the genre pulls itself out of its own butt.

 

[Tibs]

I love me some battlefield so thats what I voted.

 

[dyre]

Battlefield games have the superior multiplayer, but the inferior campaign. Also, their fanboys, at least the ones on youtube, are ridiculously aggressive, as if they're trying to look more intelligent because of the games they play...

 

[SovietSecrets]

Why pick one? I play both.

 

[RastaBadger]

I play all sorts of games but my personal favourite has to be space sims so other I guess. I've played both Battlefield and CoD. Battlefield is more for large scale combat with vehicles and lots of space. CoD is more of a compact fast paced arcade style combat. I think they're pretty much equal to be honest.
Also in case you were serious JRPG stands for Japanese Role Playing Game. I hate them.

 

[Redratson]

I enjoy both, but I prefer Battlefield over call of duty anyday. Maybe cause I grew up with it, but I enjoy teamplay more than going solo, not that you cant do that in battlefield. Plus I enjoy playing the PR (project reality) mod for BF2.

 

[Rule Britannia]

PS: No poll option for I like both? Why.

Answer:
I'm dumb and I forgot about that

 

[Rule Britannia]

This is the worst 'Vs.' thread I've seen yet. I wonder if the mods are watching?

Sorry wasn't sure what else to title it to be honest, I realise I should have put more thought into it, my bad .

 

[JohnDoey]

Crazy notion here:

Spoiler

I enjoy both

They might be both be modern military FPS's but they are still completely different games. If I feel like playing a smaller scale FPS like special forces without vehicles etc then i'll play COD. If I rather a large scale war simulator with vehicles then i'll play BF.

Pretty much this, I own both and enjoy both but they are extremely different almost to the point that comparing them to each other is a waste of time.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I honestly can't tell the difference between them. Someone put up two in-game pictures and said, "See if you can spot the difference." I was like, "Pssh, piece of cake." Then I saw the pictures and I couldn't tell. Then I saw the comment the author left. "I'm not going to tell you, because it doesn't matter." While I agree that it doesn't matter, I'm a bit annoyed because he didn't say which was which.
Anyway, I plan on getting both of them. Modern Warfare 3 because I want to continue the story, and Battlefield 3 because this one looks like it will have a good single player (and campaign co-op), something the other Battlefield games never really had from my understanding. Too focused on multiplayer, which isn't my thing.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

I do rather enjoy both series and I never understood the hate for other people based on what they play......but I will admit that battlefield fans can be a little......snooty......bordering on blatant asshole status. Now I am aware that not everybody is like this and that every series has people like this, but battlefield seems to just have a shit ton of them.

The only series that I have encountered that has very little "aggressive" fanboys that are not all 12 year old's is the halo series. But that is just stemming from personal experience playing the games. Maybe its because the game is not overly worried about realism like other grey and brown shooters. I never understood the argument against Halo being unrealistic....its not supposed to be asshole, its just supposed to be fun. And besides realism is boring that's why we play games...to escape reality. And on that note YOUR GAMES NOT REALISTIC EITHER. Yes your guns may be accurate and im not jumping 20 stories......but getting shot in the leg with a 9mm pistol and running (with a gunshot wound to the leg) to a wall to wait for the strawberry jam to fly off your face IS NOT REALISTIC EITHER.

Case and point: all fanboys suck