There are always much more people playing it online than Battlefield. Because for example if. Join mid game battlefield you are likely to be killed by a jet or helicopter if u do not have any experienced players on your team it can be hard if not quite difficult to take down a jet or helicopter. By this I mean the game is not friendly to new players.
With cod being new doesn't make it any harder for you because the default classes can sometimes consist of some of the best weapons in the game for example MW3 game u the ump and the striker as default weapons giving the new players good weapons to start then off. There are many more arguments I could use but most of them have already been said basically battlefield is more realistic while COD is generally more fast paced and more and fun.
For example: 1. They copied Battlefield knife animation 2. They copied the idea of destructible environments 3. They implemented vehicles in the trailer you see a character riding in a heli DICE should not put up with this, as all those feature were in battlefield since My first COD was Black ops. I loved it, played it almost everyday. I met friends on there who I still talk to 3 years later.
I continued to play COD, got a new one every year, not because it was new. I got it because my friends got it, plain and simple. Now 3 years later I have matured more and realized that COD just annoys me now.
Host migration, lag, little 10 year olds, etc. I started playing Battlefield and I loved it. The idea of being able to be a jet pilot or a rouge sniper whenever I wanted was awesome.
COD sucks. Oh and reading the COD fanboy arguments on the left made me laugh. Call of Duty is a one-dimensional game. That is to say, the only focus is to kill people. That's it. As such, it's "huge variety of maps" are all tiny, to promote the killing. First of all, Battlefield HAS exactly that kind of gameplay for those who want it, so it's already on an equal standpoint. There are plenty of small maps in Battlefield 3, as well as an abundance of utterly gigantic maps.
Battlefield 3's greatness lies in that there are nearly limitless ways to kill your enemies, and it rewards creativity. Want to stay old-fashioned and kill people with just your guns? Great, go ahead. Want to kill people by loading a vehicle with C4, driving it into the enemy base, jumping out and detonating it, killing everything in a giant fire ball of death? You can do that. Not only are there a ridiculous number of avenues for taking you enemies down, they're all fairly balanced.
A sniper can shoot the pilots out of flying vehicles, an engineer can utterly destroy ground vehicles with RPGs or landmines. Each and every class has it's strengths, but somehow lack many weaknesses. What does Call of Duty have? Oh yeah, the same old "12 year-olds shooting each other on some guy's lawn" game. There's no variety in that. Call of Duty's popularity is one of life's greatest mysteries. Battlefield 3 has far more variety, not only in content, but in gameplay, than the entire Call of Duty franchise has to offer.
More realistic and requires skills and fast thinking. This game is amazing in its own way. The guns are just right when it comes down to knocking down a enemy and you have to think every step you take because you never know who is going to take you tags. Of course, everyone has different opinions, I understand that COD is a pretty decent game franchise, but it's just the same thing over and over again, it also doesn't really require much strategy either.
Sure, put some claymores around your camping spots and start sniping, but thats really it. Battlefield on the other hand, is all about strategy and working in squads to achieve objectives and what not. This allowed gameplay to feel more dynamic as fresh. Compare this to huge maps with barely any cover or variety like Galicia from Battlefield 1 or Hamada from Battlefield V, and the difference is night and day.
Recent Battlefield titles have had lackluster single-player campaigns with uninspired stories, bland characters, yet impressive set pieces. While the Bad Company 2 story isn't anything to write home about, it had more personality than subsequent Battlefield stories.
The banter between characters made them stand out among other protagonists in the series. This leads to some hilarious dialogues, especially from Haggard. The campaign does end on a cliffhanger which sets up Bad Company 3, but who knows if that'll ever happen. Another thing the Bad Company 2 campaign had going for it was its large, free-roam level design.
For instance, the "Sangre del Toro" mission starts players in a sandbox desert environment and is given a four-seater vehicle to explore the open area.
Compare this to the linear design of other Battlefield story mode missions and elaborate set pieces and cutscenes, and it is clear which game favors player choice and curiosity. There were always opportunities for the player to go off the beaten path throughout Bad Company 2's campaign, and it made environments feel more real.
With a series that prides itself on all-put warfare and destructive environments, there better be top-notch sound design to go along with it. While recent Battlefield games have high-quality effects, Bad Company 2 has some of the best in the franchise. For example, explosions and vehicles have a cinematic, almost realistic, sound to them. This is no exception for weapons. RPG rockets whizz by, silenced weapons are some of the most satisfying in the series, and LMGs pack a punch, making them sound truly devastating.
Report this Comment. Report this Vote. Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were good from both sides. Honestly, Pro's lack of sources lost them my vote. You are not eligible to vote on this debate.
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges. Pro This has been a long lasting war between call of duty and battlefield.
Report this Argument Con I accept your debate. I think Battlefield is better than Call of Duty. Pro Thank you for accepting this challenge. I shall begin with the campaign, now we all know that Cod has a better campaign than battlefield for the following reasons 1. It makes you care about the characters and have feelings about them 2. Has an interesting story which makes it very entertaining 3.
It is well structured 4. The criminals characters are also very unique 5. Multiplayer Now I shall admit Battlefields Multiplayer is better however not by a long distance as a matter of fact Cods multiplayer can be more fun I shall explain why. Battlefield is more realistic than Cod so you can do the following 1. Bullet drop 2. Destruction of buildings 3. Cod is also very good in multiplayer and more fun, I will explain why 1.
In cod everything is free 2. Cod has more perks, has kill streaks etc. Treyarch produced a very popular mode called zombies which you have to admit is very cool and fun 2. Report this Argument Con For the campaign for both franchises i do agree with every point and statement you have given and overall agree that Call of Duty's campaign is better.
Now for the multiplayer of both franchises i see you have already given some reasons why battlefields multiplayer is better so i do not need to cover them, but i do believe battlefields multiplayer is exceptionally better than call of duty's.
I think you are exaggerating the point of walking far distances to reach enemies. It does not take that long to reach destinations on foot and the only way it could get so boring to the point where people need to complain is if they have really short attention spans. Also the only way you do spawn far away from enemies is at the start of the game or your team is unable to secure bases to give you other spawn points. An easy way to stop spawning far away from enemies is play with a squad so then not only do you have bases to spawn at you can spawn at teammates who are deep in battle and you are able to get into the action straight away.
This also give you the option of choosing a spawn which call of duty has never been able to introduce. I do agree with the fact that it is bad that you have to pay real money for certain guns in battlefield but battlefield 4 has approx. So even though you have to pay for some guns, i am sure battlefield have more free guns to choose from anyway. Call of Duty does have a lot more game modes than battlefield but this year in Call of Duty Ghosts took out game modes which were liked by the public.
This could also be a reason why it is the first decline in sales between games in the franchises history! Call of Duty does have the perk system but many do not like perks as well as the people who do. They do also have kill streaks but they are mostly helicopters and other vehicles which battlefield already have without needing to earn them.
This means that they can use these vehicles in battlefield without earning them and fun like everyone else. Kill streaks also mean RAGE. I have experienced this first hand. When you are one kill off precious kill streak and then, BOOM, you walk past a claymore and die. Yes call of duty do have many fun modes but a mode that battlefield has that does not get enough credit is commander mode. I have actually caught myself using commander mode more than i thought.
If you are getting slightly bored playing but you still want to play games with your friends or still stay with you squad being the commander is a good option as not only are you still playing with your friends but now you can be a tactical mind to try help your team win.
0コメント