Poll: Call of duty or Battlefield?
- Thread starter Andrew_Mac
- Start date
Recommended Videos
honestly they are both so similar cause they are both just epitomes of the 'brown gritty chest high wall, recover from bullets in seconds'genre, that make serious gamers be grouped with the idiots who seem to play these games (obviously not everyone who plays them since they are so widely played)so i have voted for nothing since there is no 'try to ignore bith edging towards battlefield because its fans are less annoying'. just my opinion.MegatonDesign said:
I prefer Battlefield. Enough that I'm spending $600 on a new graphics card to play it on high. I would never spend that much money to play any CoD game.. EVER..
I prefer Battlefield series more. But I really did enjoy Call Of Duty up until maybe Modern Warfare 2.
Why is a FPS W/ a prone option not good? Hell, even D&D has a prone option.xDarc said:
OT: Probably both for me. BF3 is more for the team player. MW3 is going to be more geared for the solo player. The BF3 "open beta" was impressive, but I actually will need to pick it up and do walk throughs of the maps to get a better idea of how to play. MW3 looks like they're balancing the perks... again... to try and make the game less punishing on support-oriented players.
I prefer Call of Duty. IMO, in general, it has had better campaigns, smoother and more satisfying gun handling, better music, and I don't like vehicular combat. Battlefield was a lot of fun to play (I don't know how many hours I put into Battlefield 1942), but Call of Duty suits me better.
Personal taste here, CoD tend to have better story campaign while Battlefield has better graphics. As for multiplayer I like both, depends on the mood. CoD if you want to run around as a super-soldier, one-man army. Battlefield if you want more realistic team-based combat, preferably with a few mates you know to make a four-man squad to work with 
Lol'd. Best answer ever. I voted Battlefield because I prefer a higher level of realism than CoD, where everything feels as if it were produced by Nerf.PonceyMcTosserFaic said:
CoD has a very boring storyline, 1 shocking scene that causes uproar in newspapers across the country (You know, for teh lulz), and rehashed content. It's pretty much half assing it through the single player, and cashing on the multiplayer.
Battlefield 3 comes from a company thats idea of stopping people from buying the game is to make a mandatory program that must be downloaded and installed to play BF3, and the kicker is... wait for it... They want to scan all of your computer. Your files, videos, music, browsing history! YAY FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY.
The simple fact is, while the game play is tolerable, the companies who make them are not.
If you buy battlefield 3, you're telling EA "Don't worry about my privacy, I don't need that, keep making origin mandatory!"
If you buy CoDMW3, you're telling Activision "I don't care if you just cut & paste your stuff, i'll still pay £30 - 40 for your game! oh... whats that? Do I want to pay £10 for 4 maps from a previous game? all you did was put them into a downloadable file? YEAH! WHY NOT!"
Support either company, screw over gamers.
Done.
Battlefield 3 comes from a company thats idea of stopping people from buying the game is to make a mandatory program that must be downloaded and installed to play BF3, and the kicker is... wait for it... They want to scan all of your computer. Your files, videos, music, browsing history! YAY FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY.
The simple fact is, while the game play is tolerable, the companies who make them are not.
If you buy battlefield 3, you're telling EA "Don't worry about my privacy, I don't need that, keep making origin mandatory!"
If you buy CoDMW3, you're telling Activision "I don't care if you just cut & paste your stuff, i'll still pay £30 - 40 for your game! oh... whats that? Do I want to pay £10 for 4 maps from a previous game? all you did was put them into a downloadable file? YEAH! WHY NOT!"
Support either company, screw over gamers.
Done.
I agree with TCPirate. These companies are bad for gaming. Call of Duty is being milked for every dollar Activision can get, and Battlefield, while a good game in my opinion, has been nearly ruined for me by the influence of EA.
I think the poll's a bit silly, I prefer battlefield as a game but I play CoD a lot as it's a nice simple TDM game.
I have bad mouthed CoD, largely due to their new "elite" system, but here's an honest breakdown based on my experiences with the game:
CoD Pros: Perks make the game interesting. Small maps make the gameplay constant and intense. Saving killstreak rewards and devastating the enemy is awesome. Matchmaking system is good. Customization of your soldiers look is unique and complex.
CoD Cons: Small maps means one or two players on the opposing team can win the game by limiting enemy capability through skill or cheating. Perks can be unbalanced, creating an unfair gameplay. CoD "elite". Limited amount of variation on weapons and gear. Larger amount of childen and trash talkers.
BF Pros: Destructible environments. Vehicles. Huge variation on gear and weapons. Large maps limit ability for the game to be controlled by one or two players. Smaller amount of children and trash talkers.
BF Cons: Matchmaking system isn't always reliable. Learning curve on using vehicles is steep. Large maps can mean a lull in action while moving from one objective to the next. Sniper rifles can be used to create imbalance in gameplay.
As mentioned, the key factor for me was the introduction of the "elite" system. I will say that, thus far, I have enjoyed my experiences on BF more than on CoD.
CoD Pros: Perks make the game interesting. Small maps make the gameplay constant and intense. Saving killstreak rewards and devastating the enemy is awesome. Matchmaking system is good. Customization of your soldiers look is unique and complex.
CoD Cons: Small maps means one or two players on the opposing team can win the game by limiting enemy capability through skill or cheating. Perks can be unbalanced, creating an unfair gameplay. CoD "elite". Limited amount of variation on weapons and gear. Larger amount of childen and trash talkers.
BF Pros: Destructible environments. Vehicles. Huge variation on gear and weapons. Large maps limit ability for the game to be controlled by one or two players. Smaller amount of children and trash talkers.
BF Cons: Matchmaking system isn't always reliable. Learning curve on using vehicles is steep. Large maps can mean a lull in action while moving from one objective to the next. Sniper rifles can be used to create imbalance in gameplay.
As mentioned, the key factor for me was the introduction of the "elite" system. I will say that, thus far, I have enjoyed my experiences on BF more than on CoD.