I enjoy playing both franchises. I do, however, like the cod: modern warfare series better than any battlefield series.
Poll: Battlefield vs. Call of Duty: which series do you prefer?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Were you not turned off by the horrible climax? I've never played any CoD games, but it can't be possible for their last level(s) to be anything like as bad as BC2's.Mr.K. said:
The rest of BC2's campaign was perfectly decent though. Also, the characters were great.
Battlefield. Call of Duty is bland, broken, un-fun, broken, has a terrible community, and most importanly: INCREDIBLY FUCKING BROKEN.
I think that Battlefield has a better quality multiplayer than Call of Duty. However, I prefer Bad Company 1's singleplayer to Bad Company 2. Yeah, BC2 might have more weapons, locations etc, but BC1 was just fantastic.
I can't fathom why DICE completely forgot about the story in BC1. Gold, mercs and general hilarity from Sweets and Haggard. Easily a better campaign than BC2, which was just boring!
I can't fathom why DICE completely forgot about the story in BC1. Gold, mercs and general hilarity from Sweets and Haggard. Easily a better campaign than BC2, which was just boring!
BFBC2 hands-down. It's balanced and beautiful. The story is entertaining and has many fun replay aspects. The multiplayer is fun and if desired can be frantic. Damn near all the DLC is free when you buy it new, which is a really good deal. The menus are all easily navigable and good looking. It's overall an excellent and well crafted game that has no competitors in the FPS genre.
Black Ops, on the other hand, is just plain "ugh". The story is flat and either predictable or confusing and offers NO replay value what-so-ever. The multiplayer is the most hair-brained, IMBALANCED, cockamamie, slap-dash gaming experience I've ever had with snipers dealing less damage than a sub-machine gun. No opinion on the DLC since I haven't played it, but I'm not expecting much. The menus are however entertaining and relevant to the game (main menu and how any of the other menus look like classified government documents). It's pretty much a turd in a plastic box, in my opinion, and I regret spending $60 on it.
But you know, that's just my opinion...
Black Ops, on the other hand, is just plain "ugh". The story is flat and either predictable or confusing and offers NO replay value what-so-ever. The multiplayer is the most hair-brained, IMBALANCED, cockamamie, slap-dash gaming experience I've ever had with snipers dealing less damage than a sub-machine gun. No opinion on the DLC since I haven't played it, but I'm not expecting much. The menus are however entertaining and relevant to the game (main menu and how any of the other menus look like classified government documents). It's pretty much a turd in a plastic box, in my opinion, and I regret spending $60 on it.
But you know, that's just my opinion...
Oh that plane part, ya that was actually really horrible, but I think CoD is partially to blame for that since they brought the whole "switch to drama sequence" idea... if they would just leave it as normal gameplay it would be atleast decent.OhJohnNo said:
But up to that point it was a nice experience, and they end on a light and funny note so I forgive them.
Not my favorite game of all times but in contrast I highly prefer it.
Yeah, it did have some nice moments. A bit overscripted for my liking, but then I'm rather sensitive to that.Mr.K. said:
I particularly liked the mission in the extreme cold. Took you out of your comfort zone and made you cautious.
Same here. I love the voices yelling about snipers and the echos of gunfire in buildings. The sound of distant tanks in Heavy Metal gives me an awesome feeling.Slycne said:
I like both games, but it depends on my mood. Sometimes I want more of an arcade shooter(CoD). Fast paced and unforgiving.
Sometimes I want to work with a team and run from helicopters and tanks, and have to take bullet physics into account.
It just depends on what I'm in the mood for.
I've got to go with Battlefield. My first BF games was Bad Company 2. I think it beats the hell out of Blops and MW2 for a lot a reason:
Vehicles:
BBC2: Vehicles with an attempt at realism (aircraft have pitch, yaw, roll, and trust. Land vehicles are a ***** it SP, but a lot of fun in MP)
Blops/MW2: Crappy gunship and chopper gunner kill streaks i must earn to have. No thanks. If i need fire support, i don't need it ten kills from now, i need it NOW.
Firearms:
BBC2: Not enough guns, but all are balanced and usable, except the flamethrower, that's as balanced as a drunk fat guy on a unicycle. Sniper rifles act like the high-powered precision death machines they are. Unlike the castrated Barret .50 cal of another FPS i could mention, the .50 cal of BBC2 is a one shot, one kill gun.
CoD: Sadly, more guns. Sadly, most are unbalanced and lack any semblance of realism. Bullets don't act like bullets. They act like lasers.
Maps:
BCC2: Big maps, lots of cover. Makes hiding realistic and makes sniping fun. Buildings are breakable!
CoD: Lots of bland kill zone hallways and paths. No destructible buildings.
Tactics:
BCC2: Endless amounts. From fire support to sneaking around in the bushes, anything is fair game.
CoD: Camp, run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, or spam grenades. Simple maps lead to simple (and boring) tactics.
Updates:
BBC2: New maps? Free. New game types? Also free. Big expansion? Well, no i did have to buy that, but i was a well spent $15... *Flies a Huey into a Vietcong M-com station whilst listening to "Ride of the Valkyries"*
CoD: PAY ACTIVISION FOR EVERYTHING LEST THEY BLACK OUT THE SUN!!! Seriously? Why not reward your players for liking the game? Give them some FREE maps. You've already grossed more money than a Columbian drug lord from Blops. Now you want me to pay you $20 for new maps, too?
Really, I'll trade going prone and lots of shiny guns for fun gameplay and vehicles that i can actually control.
TL
R: Battlefield beats CoD because i hate paying for stuff that should be free and i like tactics beyond "run in, spray bullets, leave."
Vehicles:
BBC2: Vehicles with an attempt at realism (aircraft have pitch, yaw, roll, and trust. Land vehicles are a ***** it SP, but a lot of fun in MP)
Blops/MW2: Crappy gunship and chopper gunner kill streaks i must earn to have. No thanks. If i need fire support, i don't need it ten kills from now, i need it NOW.
Firearms:
BBC2: Not enough guns, but all are balanced and usable, except the flamethrower, that's as balanced as a drunk fat guy on a unicycle. Sniper rifles act like the high-powered precision death machines they are. Unlike the castrated Barret .50 cal of another FPS i could mention, the .50 cal of BBC2 is a one shot, one kill gun.
CoD: Sadly, more guns. Sadly, most are unbalanced and lack any semblance of realism. Bullets don't act like bullets. They act like lasers.
Maps:
BCC2: Big maps, lots of cover. Makes hiding realistic and makes sniping fun. Buildings are breakable!
CoD: Lots of bland kill zone hallways and paths. No destructible buildings.
Tactics:
BCC2: Endless amounts. From fire support to sneaking around in the bushes, anything is fair game.
CoD: Camp, run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, or spam grenades. Simple maps lead to simple (and boring) tactics.
Updates:
BBC2: New maps? Free. New game types? Also free. Big expansion? Well, no i did have to buy that, but i was a well spent $15... *Flies a Huey into a Vietcong M-com station whilst listening to "Ride of the Valkyries"*
CoD: PAY ACTIVISION FOR EVERYTHING LEST THEY BLACK OUT THE SUN!!! Seriously? Why not reward your players for liking the game? Give them some FREE maps. You've already grossed more money than a Columbian drug lord from Blops. Now you want me to pay you $20 for new maps, too?
Really, I'll trade going prone and lots of shiny guns for fun gameplay and vehicles that i can actually control.
TL
R: Battlefield beats CoD because i hate paying for stuff that should be free and i like tactics beyond "run in, spray bullets, leave."
Honestly, both franchises are losing their appeal to me. Only differences that I see between them is that in Battlefield you have the chance to get stupid teammates and get spawn camped by vehicles/ helicopters while in CoD you have the chance to get stupid teammates and have campers everywhere.
I picked CoD for this poll because it is easier to deal with CoD campers. I still say that it's just the lesser of two evils. I can't until Bulletstorm and the new Mad Max comes out so I can have some have some fps's that are more about having fun than realism.
(btw if you choose to quote me be logical and not cynical about your response)
I picked CoD for this poll because it is easier to deal with CoD campers. I still say that it's just the lesser of two evils. I can't until Bulletstorm and the new Mad Max comes out so I can have some have some fps's that are more about having fun than realism.
(btw if you choose to quote me be logical and not cynical about your response)
I like both, although I find CoD to be greatly hindered by the stupidity of their developers. The concepts they have in multiplayer could be so much better if they bothered to apply balance and actually make the game competitive and fun at the same time. People that hate it always constantly complain how it never innovates, but the first thing I say that comes in a game is refining what is already there to perfection, and the CoD series is far from being refined. The amount of potential wasted is just sad in my opinon. Nonetheless, it's still fun at times if you can handle the community and some of the frustrating gameplay mechanics and it's easy enough for the average person to pick up and play the game to a degree of success. The multiplayer focuses a lot on twitch reflexes, which I think is more important to have if you ever want to do well in any FPS games but it's generally not the most fun when you're constantly playing TDM. The major problem with CoD is that it allows for lone wolfing and almost does nothing to promote team-play, as you can see when playing objective games.
The Battlefield series has somewhat gone on a weird tangent since the Bad Company series in my opinion, and DICE opted to go for more of an infantry-focused gameplay instead of an expansive map with a large amount of players. Of course, DICE did fairly well for this and managed to make two good games out of it. The multiplayer is more team oriented and while you can still lone wolf to some extent, you can't take out entire teams by yourself unless you had assist, for the most part, it's more objective based than CoD. One major complaint about Battlefield that I personally have is that the controls always feel a bit clunky and stiff in comparison to other shooter games. You can hate CoD all you want, but you can't deny that CoD tends to have more smooth controls and more fluid gameplay.
The Battlefield series has somewhat gone on a weird tangent since the Bad Company series in my opinion, and DICE opted to go for more of an infantry-focused gameplay instead of an expansive map with a large amount of players. Of course, DICE did fairly well for this and managed to make two good games out of it. The multiplayer is more team oriented and while you can still lone wolf to some extent, you can't take out entire teams by yourself unless you had assist, for the most part, it's more objective based than CoD. One major complaint about Battlefield that I personally have is that the controls always feel a bit clunky and stiff in comparison to other shooter games. You can hate CoD all you want, but you can't deny that CoD tends to have more smooth controls and more fluid gameplay.
I know exactly what you mean.MiracleOfSound said:
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.
Well, overall I'd have to say I liked BC2 better mostly because of the variety of ways you could complete objectives, whether that be going in guns blazing as an assault class or sneaking in covertly using your knife and silenced SMG or simply picking them off from a distance as a recon sniper or even blowing shit up with an Apache attack helicopter.
Not to mention the various ways you help your team out using spotting, defib, and ammo packs, etc.
COD on the other hand is more of a free for all where the guy with the best equipment and best reflexes will almost always win, regardless of how good his team is.
Whereas in BC2 if you've got just two pro's on a team playing and the other team has mostly average players, the more balanced team is gonna most likely win (in my experience).
In fact my only complaints about BC2 are that you can only get unlocks for specific classes by playing as those classes Whereas in COD you can use any weapon class you damn well please and unlock a weapon in a completely unrelated class and that I don't believe there are any REALLY close quarter maps like Nuketown or Rust in BC2.
So yeah, Blops is probably gonna be my last COD game for a few years.
I'm rather undecided on the campaigns of either series though, BC2 takes kinda a silly 70's action movie approach whereas COD wants to be taken more seriously as a dramatic war story.
But my vote ultimately goes to BC2, Sorry COD but we're just not meant for each other anymore.
Not to mention the various ways you help your team out using spotting, defib, and ammo packs, etc.
COD on the other hand is more of a free for all where the guy with the best equipment and best reflexes will almost always win, regardless of how good his team is.
Whereas in BC2 if you've got just two pro's on a team playing and the other team has mostly average players, the more balanced team is gonna most likely win (in my experience).
In fact my only complaints about BC2 are that you can only get unlocks for specific classes by playing as those classes Whereas in COD you can use any weapon class you damn well please and unlock a weapon in a completely unrelated class and that I don't believe there are any REALLY close quarter maps like Nuketown or Rust in BC2.
So yeah, Blops is probably gonna be my last COD game for a few years.
I'm rather undecided on the campaigns of either series though, BC2 takes kinda a silly 70's action movie approach whereas COD wants to be taken more seriously as a dramatic war story.
But my vote ultimately goes to BC2, Sorry COD but we're just not meant for each other anymore.