Poll: Battlefield vs. Call of Duty: which series do you prefer?

Recommended Videos

Razgrizaces

New member
Jul 13, 2009
118
0
0
Uhh... Call of Duty W@W /DID/ have vehicles. They were tanks, and they weren't killstreaks. I remember playing as a tank driver, shooting the hell out of other tanks and soldiers. So please, Battlefield wasn't the first game to feature tanks or vehicles, COD did it too, but nobody really plays W@W. Oh yeah, you could man the tank gunner too in W@W.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Halo. But make me choose between those two... well BF has always gotten the large scale war fun right and has been very well balanced from my experience and while CoD does have a very large 'jump in and play' appeal it's recent balance and technical problems have given BF the edge in quality so I'm going with Battlefield.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
I favor battlefield more. I have a deep seated grudge against some of the fundamental design ideas in play in Call of Duty, including game design that makes the world lethal enough that random death is common and that the game's basic design encourages lone-wolf play while punishing or rewarding players based upon their team's effectiveness. Design of this sort leads to intense frustration at times and is ultimately the reason I stopped caring about the franchise.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
I know exactly what you mean.

The Call of Duty engine does seem to run very smooth and leaves very little need to actually consciously think about you're controlling. Whereas Battlefield seems to have been a port gone kinda sloppy. Way to much "turning my character around to kill this guy is going to take waay to much effort"

Thats probably the biggest reason CoD has lasted longer.
Yeah I think people get way too focused on perks and customization - the real reason COD is the king is simply because the core mechanics are so fluid and feel so good.
 

Shraggler

New member
Jan 6, 2009
216
0
0
I'm more of a single-player guy. After playing multi-player games for years, it's all been pretty much the same. I can't really get enthused over many multi-player FPSs out there. There have been a few exceptions: Team Fortress 2, Red Orchestra, and BF:BC2.

TF2 got rid of a lot of the exploits of TF1 and created an incredibly balanced class system where the multi in munti-player actually has meaning: cooperative teamwork. It's not just a deathmatch - there are actually reasons for the other classes besides soldier existing. That was refreshing and I still play that game as much as I did when it came out.

RO was incredibly innovative when it came out emphasizing realism, "skill" and tactics and forgoing bullshit while a lot of mods/games went in the opposite direction (Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike). The combination of realism and good gameplay was well mixed together for the time and turned away most people who thought "skill" looked like an AWP. Another game I still play quite a bit and am looking forward to the expansion.

BF:BC2 was the first BF game I played for more than an hour since BF1942. I played BF2 and liked it on the merits that it was a BF game, but I played it over at a friend's house. Once. Never played it again. BF has always been an arcade shooter in the vein of Halo & Counter-Strike so I never took it seriously as a platform. I saw BF:BC1 and liked the idea of destructible environments, but was disappointed that it was console only. A friend of mine, who games more than the sun shines light, fervently told me to buy BF:BC2 while espousing its many virtues and innovations. So I bought it.

I like BF:BC2, but it never struck me as a great multi-player FPS. It wasn't like the first time I played DoD in the alpha days when P2s and Celerons were the norm and P3s were top-end for smug, rich assholes. BC2 feels like it's got some good mechanics but there's something missing. It essentially feels like a ported console game on PC - extremely dumbed down, simple mechanics and a class system harking back to BF1942. It does have merits: partially destructible environments, straight-forward and somewhat encouraged teamwork element, awesome vehicles (sans UAVs), good server support, smooth gameplay.

But I'm level 7(?) or 8(?), so I obviously haven't been hooked into the game at all. It just doesn't have the replay value for me. It's fun and it's the kind of game that's boring to play by yourself, so it encourages some social interaction by those who tend to see the outside world as diseased from the basement, but there are too many aspects that fall far short of expectations. You could replace every model and arena of the game and the gameplay wouldn't change. It could be Rebels versus Stormtroopers or Cops versus Robbers and nothing would be unique besides the skins. It doesn't feel like you're in a 21st century war-zone; it feels like a generic team deathmatch. There are no advantages, disadvantages or differences between the opposing factions.

CoD has been more my taste between the two. Not for the multi-player at all, but the single-player. I liked MW1 - it was a refreshing restart on the series that had been in the WW2 sphere for years. The narrative was excellent, the story was decent, voice acting was great. The only nice thing about MW2 was the variety of weapons, but for the rest of the game it was a retread of old mechanics and plot devices. The story was terrible and took a shit all over MW1. One of those "Wow, I can't believe I just wasted money on that" kind of games. Black Ops has a good story, great voice acting, a huge variety of environments and an interesting weapon catalogue. It suffers from some gameplay issues that cause the game to literally take you by the hand. I'm not against linear games or stories, but a game that forces its linearity is pretentious. It also makes it feel very console-biased as the developers apparently think every console player needs a nanny to direct the story. It suffers from cross-platform implementation, but it's already made over a billion dollars, so my complaints in that department with modern gaming can go kiss the wind. However, Black Ops still on par with MW1 and has far surpassed MW2.
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
Call of duty, by several landslides, though with Black ops out, I can't say that without a bit of a guilty conscience. But then, as long as there's a "battlefield" in front of bad company 2, even The Sims is a superior military shooter franchise to the battlefield series.
 

Mcface

New member
Aug 30, 2009
2,266
0
0
Brawndo said:
Mcface said:
BC2 is so campy its ridiculous. Literally 9/10 players on the team are recon. it's so tedious to play BC2, spawn, sniped from across the map.
Sounds like an exaggeration from a frustrated player. I play BC2 several times a week and the teams with mostly recon rarely win on attack in Rush. Good teams have a mix of all classes. Also, the best way to counter recon snipers (especially when on the attack) is just laying 40mm smoke everywhere.
You have obviously never played the PC version.
It's every single game.
And why not? 1 shot kills, mortars and C4/TNT the class has a counter for everything.

I was just in a 32 player map on conquest.
24 of the total players were recon.
 

TriGGeR_HaPPy

Another Regular. ^_^
May 22, 2008
1,040
0
0
GeorgW said:
BF2 BF2 BF2 BF2 BF2 BF2 BF2!!!
ITZ LIEK TEH BEST GAME EVAH!1
So... Battlefield. But I like them both for different reasons.
This, pretty much.
I, too, like them both. But when it comes to multiplayer, if you can get a full 64 player server up on a BF2 game with good players compared to a full 24 or 32 player server on CoD 4 with good players (my favourite games out of their respective series), BF2 takes the cake for me.

EDIT: With singleplayer, the Call of Duty series probably wins out, but it's not what I get the games for. So, for me, the Battlefield series still wins out.
 

TheTim

New member
Jan 23, 2010
1,739
0
0
it all depends on the mood, if i'm pumped, then i play black ops, and if i just want to relax and blow shit up then i play bad company 2
 

The Hairminator

How about no?
Mar 17, 2009
3,231
0
41
mrdude2010 said:
battlefield as a series is better, but COD 4 is the best game of both series
Exactly 100% this.

Probably my favorite competetive multiplayer game of all time.
 

The Rockerfly

New member
Dec 31, 2008
4,649
0
0
Personally I find COD to be a lot smoother, games have a much faster pace approach to gameplay and I massively prefer that style as opposed to Battlefields rather sluggish gameplay. There is also the fact that CODs single player is vastly superior

This doesn't mean I prefer COD overall though, I think COD has gotten rather stale over the last few years because of yearly releases and overall gameplay becoming repetitive. I also love BFBC2s destructive buildings, the tactical respawn system, the vehicles in Battlefield 2, the overall scale in maps and the meatier gun feel of Battlefield

To me, Black Ops is the last COD game I will ever play and I am hoping Battlefield will permanently take over in sales but seeing how ridiculously popular COD is I know it won't happen
 

StormShaun

The Basement has been unleashed!
Feb 1, 2009
6,948
0
0
CoD4 was the best out of the series, just that

and the rest is Battlefield but they could do better...cod dying its just laying their with nothing new to offer, Im not looking forward to the future of FPS, well theirs Crysis 2, now THATS unique...
 

Dimensional Vortex

New member
Nov 14, 2010
694
0
0
Well I first played Battlefield 2 with a friend at a computer cafe and the first thought running through my head was "Wow, look at the variety in classes, this could be fun, I think the Medic suits me." Then I thought "Ohh F*CK! We can get in tanks, cars and planes?" Then I thought "Wow we can join squads and everything? And there is no just run and gun?"

Basically Battlefield was a series of big surprises, and I think I will like it more, if I ever happen to pick up a battlefield game.

EDIT: This is a vs thread right>?
 

Irriduccibilli

New member
Jun 15, 2010
792
0
0
I have to give my vote for Battlefield. It has so much more depth than CoD. Also, having to rely on your teammates to win a match is much more fun than running around with a Tactical knife and killing everyone
 

Duskwaith

New member
Sep 20, 2008
647
0
0
OhJohnNo said:
Duskwaith said:
BFBC 2 and pretty much every battlefield game(except vietnam)
I slightly prefer Vietnam to vanilla BC2. Medics can actually resurrect revive people right from the off, it's more atmospheric (first time I've seen atmosphere in a multiplayer game, actually), and you can play Ride of the Valkyries in a helicopter while shooting Vietcong to pieces with rockets.

Even if said helicopters are made out of paper and can literally be taken out by pistols sometimes...
Thats what i was alluding to with Vietnam as the Helicopters where just insane for driving mechanics. Hilarious yet annoying at the same time