- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 802
Battlefield vs Call of Duty
Last edited:
Compare BF and CoD
- Thread starter KanadeTachibana
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,383
bf <3
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,369
The picture is interesting to see. Nice to see some numbers.
If this becomes an argument about which is better or becomes a COD bashing thread well I think you know what will happen. So DONT DO IT. I dont care if its personal opinions about why YOU as a person like one over the other but dont make generalizations.
If this becomes an argument about which is better or becomes a COD bashing thread well I think you know what will happen. So DONT DO IT. I dont care if its personal opinions about why YOU as a person like one over the other but dont make generalizations.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 292
You shouldn't really compare the two to be honest.
COD has always been about running in and gunning to pieces anyone and anything in your way. It's a deathmatch type setup with a deathmatch type mindset.
BF has always been objective based teamwork orientated, even on the consoles. It's main goal is to NOT include players that just storm into enemy lines firing off random shots to get killstreaks and instead rely on the team to cooperate together to achieve victory.
The two games are entirely different and it's borderline stupid to try and compare them because of this. Another key point is that the "millions sold" portion includes console gaming, of which the BF series has a very small involvement in due to limitations of the consoles themselves and the problems that arise when trying to incorporate them.
I think they're both great games (BO and BC2) and I think MW3 will be "ok" and BF3 will be amazing, but I'd never dream to compare the two, if anything, I'd compare COD series to COD2 or COD4 and the BF series to BF2/BF2142. It's a more realistic comparison in terms of gameplay and overall enjoyment.
Just my opinion
COD has always been about running in and gunning to pieces anyone and anything in your way. It's a deathmatch type setup with a deathmatch type mindset.
BF has always been objective based teamwork orientated, even on the consoles. It's main goal is to NOT include players that just storm into enemy lines firing off random shots to get killstreaks and instead rely on the team to cooperate together to achieve victory.
The two games are entirely different and it's borderline stupid to try and compare them because of this. Another key point is that the "millions sold" portion includes console gaming, of which the BF series has a very small involvement in due to limitations of the consoles themselves and the problems that arise when trying to incorporate them.
I think they're both great games (BO and BC2) and I think MW3 will be "ok" and BF3 will be amazing, but I'd never dream to compare the two, if anything, I'd compare COD series to COD2 or COD4 and the BF series to BF2/BF2142. It's a more realistic comparison in terms of gameplay and overall enjoyment.
Just my opinion
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 802
we promise
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,292
I totally agree. I played CoD5 on the xBox 360 while I was on vacation, and it was all just killing everyone and everything. In my own opinion, BC2 is more about tactics and squad cooperation than anything else. Hell, you can easily earn up to a thousand points (or more) in one game without killing a soul.
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 725
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 677
one thing to note about the development studios involved over the years, the CoD team changes so often but the gameplay itself rarely changes, with the exception of CoD's 1-3 being completely different than CoD 4 and up. Having the people developing a game continually be replaced and outsourced is not very conducive to a innovative product since they will be so many conflicting ideas floating around that they have to set a bunch of ground rules to limit the gameplay changing from CoD: BO style to lets say Halo: reach.
Which therefore limits the innovation of a team, whereas with DICE and the BF series their team has for the large part remain unchanged over the years which leads to a lot more efficient game design in that all the ppl working on the game have known each other for years which helps them know how other people think on different ideas and helps them communicate more efficiently allowing more time to give to player/community feedback and it also gives way for more polished games (except for BC2 which came out of beta too early) and a stronger design goal for future games and DLC for current games which keeps players interesting without seeing the same tactics used over multiple games to win.
(yes this can lead to stagnating design philosophies but it is better for the players to have a single studio that they can interact with and share feedback to the company without all this interstudio communication that takes time and muddles the idea down which wastes valuable development and planning time.)
just my 2 cents
Which therefore limits the innovation of a team, whereas with DICE and the BF series their team has for the large part remain unchanged over the years which leads to a lot more efficient game design in that all the ppl working on the game have known each other for years which helps them know how other people think on different ideas and helps them communicate more efficiently allowing more time to give to player/community feedback and it also gives way for more polished games (except for BC2 which came out of beta too early) and a stronger design goal for future games and DLC for current games which keeps players interesting without seeing the same tactics used over multiple games to win.
(yes this can lead to stagnating design philosophies but it is better for the players to have a single studio that they can interact with and share feedback to the company without all this interstudio communication that takes time and muddles the idea down which wastes valuable development and planning time.)
just my 2 cents
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 561
You shouldn't really compare the two to be honest.
COD has always been about running in and gunning to pieces anyone and anything in your way. It's a deathmatch type setup with a deathmatch type mindset.
BF has always been objective based teamwork orientated, even on the consoles. It's main goal is to NOT include players that just storm into enemy lines firing off random shots to get killstreaks and instead rely on the team to cooperate together to achieve victory.
The two games are entirely different and it's borderline stupid to try and compare them because of this. Another key point is that the "millions sold" portion includes console gaming, of which the BF series has a very small involvement in due to limitations of the consoles themselves and the problems that arise when trying to incorporate them.
I think they're both great games (BO and BC2) and I think MW3 will be "ok" and BF3 will be amazing, but I'd never dream to compare the two, if anything, I'd compare COD series to COD2 or COD4 and the BF series to BF2/BF2142. It's a more realistic comparison in terms of gameplay and overall enjoyment.
Just my opinion
^ This! It's what I always tell people who try to compare the two. Or atleast it's what I end up telling CoD fanboys when they bash BF =)
