Why Battlefield is Far superior to Call of Duty

Firstly, so it's said and done.

I played Call of Duty, each of them up to Modern Warfare 3. I had pretty decent experiences on them up until Modern Warfare 2 and 3. I had an amazing experience with Call of Duty 4, the original Modern Warfare. So I haven't been a "hater" since the start. I also played the Battlefield games from the beginning. The ones you could only play on the PC because the consoles just weren't capable of running them. Up until Bad company, and Battlefield on the consoles, I preferred Call of Duty to the Battlefield franchise.

That said, it's pretty hard to deny that Battlefield is a superior shooter than it's competitor.

I'm sure many who read this will have their blood boiling when they read that. Honestly I don't care. It's the truth, and it's the truth for many reasons, none of which are preference. Of course Battlefield is my preference, for a lot of those truthful unbiased reasons, and a lot more for other personal reasons. I'll get into those in different sections.

The unbiased reasons it's a superior product. First off it's engine. Call of Duty ran on the same engine for almost a decade. I can't honestly think of another game which came out on an annual basis which simply didn't make any attempt to improve it's engine, or innovate. Madden, FIFA, NHL, MLB etc.. are about the only games that come to mind which release a new game each year, and each of them has updated their engine, and innovated. In fact if you look at Madden, it has no competition, yet it still improves, more some years than others, but it's not running the same engine it was ten years ago, or even five for that matter.

Next up would be map sizes. Battlefield has maps which are just gigantic in comparison to Call of Duty's maps. It's been that way for quite some time. My chief complaint about Call of Duty when I played it was that using Sniper rifles was almost a joke, because there were no maps in which you actually engaged long range. The longest range on any map always seemed to be a hundred, or two hundred yards, maybe three hundred. In comparison Battlefield's maps offer real sniping distances, and in many cases, distances so far you simply can't snipe your target.

Destructible environments is the next big one. It might be dismissed by some of you or even a lot of you, but it's far more important than you might initially think. Choke points for instance. In both games there are choke points, that's certain spots where the enemy players simply have to go through in order to reach another part of the map. Set up there, and you'll get a ton of kills. The difference between the two games is that in Battlefield the map is constantly evolving because of the destructible environments. The enemy has set up on a choke point, okay, blow a hole in that wall, or that building and go around to hit them from behind. It makes the maps a lot less linear, it makes it even harder to get complacent. Your enemy could hit you from any direction, because almost anything can be destroyed. The enemy has hunkered down in a two story building, no problem, blow out the walls on the first floor, and watch it come crashing down. It's not just the strategic elements that it brings to the table, but the satisfaction as well. Sure it's cool to hear the boom from a grenade, c-4, or a rocket launcher, it's even more satisfying to see a wall blow up and rubble go flying everywhere, or the ground crater, if you miss. Or if you're using an LMG to see bits of concrete fly off that barrier your target is hiding behind as you whittle it down and eventually shoot through it to kill him. It bring a level of realism to something that's obviously not real, yet you get immersed in it.

The last main difference that I'll cover is one of the most glaring. Teamwork. In Call of Duty, even when you're playing team death match, it's less about the team, and more about yourself. It's almost to the extreme that it's a free for all since unless your playing with a group of friends, you're just out for yourself. Personal stats are more important than anything else is. Compare that to Battlefield, where the measure isn't on your K/D it's in wins. At least where me and my friends are concerned, and most people I've played with for that matter. Winning is the actual goal and personal stats take a back seat to that. You also see people working together, If you're a medic and low on ammo, someone near by will often drop ammo for you, or run up to you to get health from the med pack you dropped, strangers, not squad mates or friends, but people in other squads you don't even know. It's just one example of teamwork that just isn't present in CoD. Then there is the actual combat. It's not at all uncommon to see someone taking the initiative and flanking an enemy position while he's suppressing friendlies, or working out how to flank a fortified enemy position. You'll see a sniper, or support guy run up and plant C-4 on an enemy tank if the opportunity arises. It's far less me me me, and more about the battle and winning. In CoD people are more worried about that kill streak and not dying.

Now I'm sure as is the usual, some CoD fanatics will have boiling blood, most won't even read the entire blog. Those that do, let me as just one thing. Why? Why do you feel the undesirable need to defend a game which is indefensible? There isn't a single reason on earth why CoD doesn't have larger maps, a better game engine, or destructible environments. Battlefield's been doing it for a decade now. There is one reason and one reason alone, they don't have to. The reason they don't have to is because of you. The person who will always say "CoD is better" no matter how much Battlefield innovates or improves. Battlefield could come out with the best shooter ever made, and you wouldn't buy it, would still defend CoD, and say it's better. Why? What has CoD done to earn that kind of loyalty? Did they buy you a house? Or a car? Do they employ you? Those things would in some way make that kind of loyalty justifiable. Maybe even if they gave you the game for free. That's not the case though is it? In fact they literally haven't done a single thing to earn that kind of loyalty except to continue to put out the same product year in and year out. The biggest change being to change the setting, the perks, or weapons. So why does your loyalty lie with them? Clearly they don't care enough about that loyalty to actually deserve it. In essence it's like a band coming out with a hit song, and then from that point on just changing the words to that song, and having millions of fans cheering about how they are the best band out there. It's an insane notion.

While on the other side, Battlefield WANTS your loyalty, they WANT your business. They innovate, add new things, and if one of the two deserves your money it's them. While CoD has had two game engines in a decade, Battlefield has had almost half a dozen, each improving upon the last. That in itself shows the desire to not simply get by, but to improve.

Even if you are a CoD fan, the best thing you can do, is to not buy the next CoD game. The franchise will die, it will not be able to continue the current model. There is a reason Battlefield games don't come out every year, and it's not because they aren't a popular. It's because it's not a lasting development model. Look at what Activision did to Guitar Hero, the same publisher who publishes CoD. They put out a game every single year until people stopped buying them, once that happened, they just stopped making the games. Which is why I say the best thing you can do for the game is to not buy it. In not buying it, enough people WILL buy it, to keep it going, but it will send a clear message, that you want more improvement, you want a better game, and simply phoning it in, without really doing anything new isn't an option any longer.

Or you can just keep on buying it year in and year out, until you're one of the few who is still buying it, and they finally stop making it.

TLDR...but i agree :P

I've never played Battlefield, but I'm certainly not a CoD fan in the sense that I got "angry" over this post lol. I do have just a couple things to point out though. First of all, even without having played Battlefield I'm sure most of what you are saying is generally true. In other words I don't think CoD is a great game by FAR so I don't have a hard time believing ___________ (insert other similar franchise here) is better.

The only thing I'll say is that most CoD players don't want bigger maps. Close combat encounters on small maps has become CoDs "thing". The smallest map on BO3 (Nuketown) is so small that you literally can't take more than 5 steps without dying sometimes. But the thing is players love this. People go apeshit for that map. Generally because you get kill streaks a LOT faster when you have basically a tiny cage of opponents within 100 yards of you. I'm not saying this is better/worse than battlefield. Just stating that I don't think you're correct in saying CoD players want larger maps. The game style has evolved to be a run and gun shooter. If you want to get kills, you need to move. I personally don't love this, but it is what it is. I actually liked MW3, the multiplayer had much larger maps and was more realistic. For whatever reason, this was probably the last time they tried big maps like this. This was the last CoD game I actually really enjoyed. I'm sure I would enjoy Battlefield, but to me FPS online are something I play for fun to kill time before a new RPG or campaign based game comes out. I don't take them that seriously. Therefore, yeah CoD does kind of blow but I can have fun with it for an hour or so a night really just as a time killer. I highly doubt the series will ever get "better" when so many people enjoy the close combat system that it has. It's not supposed to be a "camper" game, for whatever reason it's just how the game has evolved. Again, this is a neutral post; I don't disagree with most of what you're saying against the game. But my point is just that it's not going to change in those ways you listed because those are a lot of the things players like about the franchise. I don't think serious gamers take FPS online games that seriously, but that's just my opinion. I don't care that much about CoD getting better because I don't care that much about the game to begin with. It's just for fun when I have literally nothing better to play

I tried getting into the Battlefield games several times but it just never captured me like the Call of Duty games do. I don't really care too much about game engines, who tries to innovate what, etc. I find the game's single player and multiplayer content highly entertaining and the games look really good and play really good which is what really matters to me.

@amyh7292: See that's the thing, battlefield has that as well, actually even more so than CoD does. There are maps in BF that are narrow, and confined, Metro for example in BF4. It's small, linear, and if you play right, it's easier to get a plethora of kills. Personally I think BF is far beyond CoD, in the shooter respect. CoD went from the original Modern Warfare, and if anything it went backwards instead of forwards. It turned modern warfare, and in general the CoD series into more of an arcade game than a shooter. Point proving this was the "nuke" kill streak perk. It's just ridiculous. To me it just seems far more gimmicky than something that actually relies on skill. Anyone can run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, shooting anything that movies, it takes actual skill however to line up a shot a t distance, and needing to take actual physics, such as bullet drop, and leading your target into consideration.

That's one of the big things in my mind. Where CoD is the point and click version of a shooter, where you just aim at the target and shoot, and they bullet is there instantly, requiring no lead on your target, BF takes more skill. So I can see why CoD people aren't really big fans of BF, BF takes actual skill.. skill that you simply can't get from playing CoD. You could be a top player in CoD and be complete garbage in BF.

@Archangel3371: BF multiplayer is far superior in my opinion. The thing with BF is that if you're used to CoD, it's going to take a little time in order to actually get good at BF. Where CoD is unrealistic, and arcade like, BF is realistic, there are actual physics at play, you need to lead your target, you need to adjust for bullet drop etc... But then again it's why it's far more rewarding on a personal level. On CoD when I sniped someone it was just a kill, on BF when I lined up that shot at a mile and a half away, and scored that head shot on an enemy sniper, it's just far more gratifying. Or when I set up an LMG in the perfect position to wipe out a dozen guys before they knew what hit them... It's something that you just can't replicate in CoD.

I don't think having some celebrity do voice over work for the single player game or some outlandish story makes a FPS. I think it's all in the gameplay, and to me BF excels in that far beyond CoD. Which is where the engine comes into play. The destructible environments, the bullet drop, etc... that's all the engine, and BF has an engine that simply put, makes the engine CoD uses look like something out of an Xbox game, not even an Xbox 360 game, because BF has been doing far more than CoD has since the early days of the last gen. That is why you should care about the game engine. When a company simply coasts along without innovating, it's ripping you off in a sense. While other developers are innovating and improving, they simply don't want to spend the time, or money to do so. Do you pay more for a BF game than a CoD game? No... Which to an extent means you're getting less for your money, when CoD doesn't at least make a modest effort to stay up to date with it's competition. It's more than happy to rip you off because they know... you'll just keep on buying it, no matter how cookie cutter it is. That is the saddest thing of all, because it doesn't just influence future CoD games, but all games for that matter. What one developer does, others tend to take notice of. So when CoD simply keeps on rolling along without doing anything really knew, other developers are thinking "if they can do it, so can we" then instead of seeing new games, better games, what we get is far less innovation. If you doubt this, look at the trend... less and less new titles are coming out, and more and more sequels. Don't doubt for a minute that CoD and it's lack of development play an impact in that.

both games can go to hell. but, you are trying to tell me EA is better than Activision is just absurd man, sorry. No one, not even Activision can be worse than EA. I have seen what they have done to good games and good studios.

You think either CoD of BF fans will read through all that?

@cavethug: Well that's the thing right there, it's all about preference. I prefer something that's more arcadey like Call of Duty. I do care about a game's engine but only in the sense that it does whatever I like in a game, and does it well enough for me to enjoy it. It's not "ripping me off" because it's giving me exactly what I want and what I enjoy. I really don't care for innovation done simply for the sake of innovation. People like what they like and it doesn't mean that they are getting "ripped off" or "fooled" by developers.

BF is a superior technologies but COD with a close range gunfight infantry only gameplay still make sense. I'd play both but more bf.

I've long stopped caring about either franchise. The last games I enjoyed from each of them was Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 is what moved me away from Call of Duty and I had high hopes for Battlefield 3 but I found it to be disappointing. So now my main focus is SP when it comes to games. I'll occasionally find a game where I spend maybe a good 20 hours online, but for the most part my MP days are behind me because these games are just the same nonsense over and over. Admittedly, there's a level of exhilaration in MP games that I don't usually feel in SP games. But I'd much rather immerse myself into a game world by myself and not run around the same maps over and over again.

I have an issue with the whole "Battlefield is better than C.O.D" and vice versa. I have been a big fan of both franchises since the near beginning. The first modern warfare is one of my favorite all-time campaigns. Here's my issue with the comparing these two games. They are not meant to be alike. Some people complain that Call of Duty is not "realistic", which is fine, because it isn't meant to be. Battlefield is a mostly squad based game which involves mostly working together on big maps. Call of Duty more focuses on the solo-play and gives the player a super-soldier like experience on close quarter maps. Comparing Battlefield to Call of Duty for it's lack of realism is like comparing Battlefield to Arma. Arma, as many know, is a military simulator. Some would consider Arma as one of the most realistic video games you can buy. Just because Arma is more realistic than Battlefield, doesn't make it a better game. So try not to go around comparing Call of Duty and Battlefield, because they are two completely different games with totally different objectives.

But can you really compare the two?

I mean, they both are first person shooters but one of them is designed for small battles

CoD is an arcade shooter, basically just a run-and-gun, it wouldn't really need destructible environments or big maps because it wasn't designed for that

Battlefield on the other hand is a tactical first person shooter, this requires teamwork and tactical thinking, while CoD is just run-and-gun

@enzyme97: @rosinmonkekyx17: To clarify, my comparison isn't that Battlefield and CoD are identical. My comparison of the two is based on mainly the differences in the advancements they make, or more to the point, fail to make. In a sense it's like comparing a Nissan Sentra, and a Ford Taurus. Yeah, they are both completely different cars, but they're both in the same category. If the Nissan didn't really do anything to innovate, and the Ford did x, y and z, to improve over last years model, you'd say "yes, the taurus is a better model" Of course people who own a Nissan sentra would be saying, no, the sentra is better. However purely from an outside observer's perspective, we have one company who is not really doing anything to advance it's own product, and another which is pushing the genre forward.

Now you can argue any number of points. The simple thing here is that sure, CoD doesn't have to change, or do any of the number of things which Dice has done to further the battlefield series. That in itself kind of implies that CoD is perfect and doesn't need to improve. Now no one except the most die hard of CoD fans would even put forth that kind of statement.

Now from a technical comparison, BF is a superior game, just based on the advancements they've done, and the lack of even an attempt to keep up by CoD. Just something as simple as the sound, Dice has been embarrassing CoD on sound for years. The sound in BF is as close to perfect as I've heard in any game. Every explosion, or gunshot you hear, is from another player, and every gunshot that's fired is heard across the map. The diffusion of sound over distance is just so spot on. I think I even heard that they won awards for it, or something along those lines, but I can't confirm it. As to the game engine, the Frostbite engine, it's so advanced that they're using it in a lot of other games now. Madden uses it for example. Now on the other side, what other game uses the engine from CoD? I don't know of any. To be honest, why would they want to? It's a decade old. Or was, I think they finally had to come up with a new one, or at least update it.

My premise isn't "I like BF better, so it's clearly a better game" I'm saying it's a better game for numerous reasons, none of which were "I like BF better". Whether you prefer the gameplay of CoD to BF is irrelevant to the points I made. It's very hard to argue that improved sound, a more advanced game engine, and destructible environments wouldn't improve CoD. These however are elements that are all present in BF. I haven't played CoD since MW3, so maybe you can help me out. Is there any technical element in CoD that isn't present in BF? Aside from the "kill streak" perks which shouldn't be present in BF as it's more of a simulator, than an arcade game.

Battlefield is not better than COD, Battlefield is different to COD, and also, it´s not "perfect".

@cavethug:

See improvements are great. Some would argue that CoD has made a massive amount of progress in its multiplayer and that Battlefield hasn't. Honestly, I've moved on from both franchises because neither have really improved themselves. I honestly thought that CoD BlackOps 3 was a reskin of advanced warfare in multiple ways with few changes. I also think that BF: hardline was rushed and not very good at all. The fact that it was a game on its own surprised me. It seemed more like a DLC for BF4 and lacked good maps and gameplay. Both games recently have not produced the best content they could make.

Team Fortress trumps both by 10000x

Sorry, but this post is complete bullshit. You can't say one game is better than another because of larger maps, better engine and destructible enviroment!

I have personally played both games and I enjoy COD more, because COD simply has a completely different aim - BF is meant to be a "war simulator" with vehicles, large maps, parachutes, more realism than COD.

COD is meant to be a frantic, fast shooter that requires good reactions on small maps. Why do you think people are playing quake arena or Counter Strike? Do you think they play it because of the awesome engine or the destructible enviroments? Pff, CS:GO is one of the most popular shooters and doesn't have one centimeter of destructible enviroment.

Comparing BF to COD is like comparing pokemon to Persona - yes, BF and COD both have guns and Pokemon and Persona both let you fight with monsters, but they're completely different games for various reasons, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's like comparing Witcher 3 to Fallout 4, yes, both are RPGs but come ON, they are completely different.

I am also not arguing on behalf of COD because I am a fanboy, in fact I only play COD BO3 in between, maybe for one hour every now and then. I am arguing on behalf of games being different for a reason. I like BF3, I love the destruction and the feeling of being in an all out war, being camped out with a sniper on a rooftop or healing my team while they are trying to secure a checkpoint. But when it comes down to it, I always go back to COD because I love how fast paced it is.

TL:DR - You can't compare two games and say Game A is better because it has this and this, when Game B is aiming for something completely different

@raugutcon: I'm sorry, but battlefield is way better than cod. Unless infinity ward wants to help fix Activision's mistakes, I will not change my mind.

That is your opinion, and opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one.

i enjoy both series and can honestly say both other vastly different experiences, its all about what you want. to say one is better than the other is stupid.

@raugutcon: true, but I feel like cod is more arcade than battlefield, and I prefer realism in those types of games.

It depends on what you like. I like COD because it is arcade like. Quick, time killing, mindless fun. I don't take it seriously, I am totally mediocre at it and play it between major RPG releases and whatnot as something light and easy that I don't have to think too much about. Basically I play it as a break in between the games I really care about. But it serves it's purpose really well and I love it. Variety is the spice of life and I need all kinds of different games to scratch different itches. I don't want a serious realistic military shooter. I don't really prefer the "war" and "tactical" and "military" aesthetic. It's the thing that kept me from COD in it's early years but then I found out it's just a fun arcade game. I'm glad Black ops 3 went with the sci-fi futuristic thing.

I am tempted to get Star Wars Battlefront though. Just seems too light on content. We all have our own direction we approach video games from and I'm sure mine is very different to others. That's why one game is not objectively better than another much of the time even if you think it must be.

Don't get me wrong I am one of the biggest battlefield supporters out there. I love the series. But I have never understood why it's compared to COD. They are completely different games. They are both FPS's.....that's all they have in common. It is just as silly to compare COD to Bioshock

I agree, BF is better than COD.

For me, its the large environments, having the choice to go wherever you want within them and formulate your own strategy and tactics is great. I also like the vehicles, especially attack helicopters and somehow, despite everything its all balanced. Choppers aren't OP, tanks aren't OP even though you'd think a flying or rolling death machine with mini guns and rockets and huge cannons strapped to it would be!

They were a bit of a problem in Bad Company 2 as loser try hards would circle strafe in choppers and the typical player wouldn't have the skill to shoot it with a tracking dart so a team mate could lock on, and hitting one with a dumb fire missile was (at least in my experience) almost impossible.

Now however we have lock on missile launchers which meant that the pilot had to be more skilled to AVOID being shot down instead of it being the other way around, which is how it should be and how it is in real life pretty much.

That and the destructible environments are fantastic. Honesty i think it should be a standard feature in all games that aim for any kind of realism and immersion, because if you shoot a grenade launcher at a wall, that wall should be blown to bits, and not just leave a small scorch mark on it like 99% of games do.

Not only is it a great way to immerse the player and looks awesome but in Battlefield's case it adds an extra layer of tactical game play too, allowing you to blaze your own path through certain parts of the map. Dont see a way past a group of enemies? Blow a hole in the wall and flank them from behind! Thats game play!

Now im not ragging on COD, even though i stopped playing the franchise to any serious extent after MW3, and only played AW for its campaign and didn't spend any significant time with the multiplayer since it just doesn't do anything for me, not after Battlefield.

COD is....i wont say "good" per se, but its popular for its own reasons. It offers a different type of shooter and feature set that Battlefield does not. People who like small, condensed arena shooters, they always have since the Quake days and COD also offers that same sort of fast paced, twitch like game play those old games did...just obviously no where near as good or skill based anymore.

Its a very accessible game, which is why a lot of kids play it. Battlefield still offers similar condensed maps but the game play is more skilled based, slower and more tactical (if you want it to be) and thus less accessible to the squeakers or casual shooter fan that just wants a quick blast of "pew pew pew".

Here we go...

It depends on personal preference, but I tend to like Battlefield much better. The single player campaigns for both COD and Battlefield, are pretty much on the same level in my eyes, but the multiplayer for Battlefield is so much better than CODs.

Read more than two or three paragraphs?!?! Don't speak such nonsense!

*face palm*

No wonder our society is producing such socially inept and illiterate morons when reading a bit of text on a website is too much to ask for.

Well they won't and you know it. They're the 140 characters generation.

@capri2s: You talking to me?

@Black_Knight_00: Anything wrong with 140 characters limit? Maybe people don't want to spend the time to read 8 paragraphs of something that can be said or written in 2?

@battlestreak: No I was making a point of how lazy people are that if it isn't in twitter format they refuse to read it, and agreeing with you that most COD fans are this type of low IQ larvae.

@battlestreak: And you are part of the problem. BTW nothing worthwhile to humanity has ever been said in 140 characters. Use your brain more or you'll end up with dementia in your old age.

I used to think BattleField Frostbite engine was cool. Until I realized that since Day 1 (BFBC), DICE has never EVER had proper QA on it and ever since, all it's done is crash systems, be completely UNOPTIMIZED, no matter what platform you're playing it on.

Also, BFBC is still by far the best 'BattleField' ever created because of the original Gold Rush mode. Now? They keeping effing it up to oblivion making it worse each time. Same can be said for the staple Conquest Mode. Their map designers and weapon balancers are complete jackasses.

Yeah, BattleField is fun, but DICE still---cannot---for the life of them get their heads out of their asses. Neither can EA.

140 characters are more like two sentences than two paragraphs.

Yes there is a problem with a 140 character limit. How many of you read books? How many of those who won't read a multi paragraph blog - because that's what I wrote, I simply published it on the game discussion forum - will actually read a book? Personally I don't care either way, but it's an ongoing problem which highlights the issue. One of the reasons I wrote what I did was for one, it's my personal opinion, secondly I believe it's the honest truth.

The main difference between the two games, isn't that they are completely different types of games, at least not in my opinion. The notable difference is the development, or in the case of CoD the lack of that development. What makes games great? What makes the games we play great? It's innovation and improvement. It's what took CoD 3 - a WWII game, and took it to the next level, doing something that hadn't been done before - Modern Warfare. What have they done since? Nothing innovative at all. The futuristic aspect has been done - Battlefield 2140, How about Black Ops? Well there was a game called Socom which pioneered that. In fact since 2004 there have been 19 CoD titles. 14 of which were after CoD 4. Of those 14 titles, the majority of them used the same engine, with arguably updated graphics, and different kill streaks. Nothing at all innovative about that. From a technological standpoint they have done absolutely nothing to garner the fierce loyalty and following which they have. They've basically said, "we don't care how others innovate, we're not going to, because we don't have to". And they are right. Their fans just keep on shoveling out money. Which creates a problem. You might not see it, or even want to admit it, but it does in fact create a problem. Battlefield for example, which does innovate, which does improve, and doesn't just sit back and take the money handed to them. They try to push the genre forward.

Think about it like this. Super Mario, was the first massive hit in console gaming. Super Mario brothers 2 was even better. But lets, just pretend that it was just like super mario brothers, with different levels, and the same type of graphics. And just as many people went out and bought it, then the third entry did the same thing. You wouldn't see the advancements that hit as rapidly as they did. If you just sit back doing the same tried and true, without trying to push the limits of what is capable, you do not innovate. Without innovation there is stagnation. Even if you are a die hard CoD fan you should be in agreement with me here. If for any other reason than the fact that by pumping out pretty much the same game each and every year, they are doing the exact same thing which destroyed guitar hero. Another game which never really improved notably from year to year, and people finally said "enough" and stopped buying it, and the franchise died as a result. CoD will end up the same way, of course it might take a little longer, but that's where it will head. It's not about the game, or making it better than the last, it's about the money, and doing just enough to keep you buying it. While other developers are trying new things, things that they hope will make their game better, which might make it stand out, the people making CoD don't feel the need to.

That's the truth from my perspective.

I agree with this for the most part.

How do you know I am part of the problem? Are you saying we have a problem with people not wanting to read? My God, if they don't want to read, let the people be. At least those kinds of people are educated on technology, the future of the world instead of living in the past. And don't accuse me of "not using my brain". Please. Don't be a child.

People like you disgust me.

When I said there was nothing wrong with the 140 character limit, I meant on things like Twitter and Facebook and such. Simple things like everyday life too.

lol, and i rest my case.

Dude you quoted the same comment twice and had a different response to it each time.

See what i mean about reading?

Oh and grow up you big cry baby, i disgust you over this? Get a life.

And, the guy criticizing everyone who doesn't like to read uses "lol". And a lowercase "I".

Also, I meant to quote your first reply to my comment. The first quote in my reply, should have been another post of yours. It was a technical error, or an error on my part, but it wasn't because "Oh, I didn't read".

Yes. Yes, people like you disgust me. Your last sentence proves this to me.

@battlestreak: Yes actually you are part of the problem. I don't care if you choose to read or not, that's your own problem. It does however highlight a growing issue. For one, and this is just plain simple, if you don't read, your vocabulary doesn't grow as much if you do, not to mention grammar, or lack there of. You might not care, you might not see any problems with that, but when someone like me comes along, those who can't spell, or have a limited vocabulary are called out.

As for being educated on technology, show me one person who makes their living by posting on facebook, or tweeting. I hate to say this because clearly you think otherwise, but technology doesn't educate, instead it does the exact opposite. How many people have hopped on wikipedia to look something up, only to be getting the wrong information put there either by someone as equally clueless, or someone who finds it amusing to mislead others?

You can't get a proper education without reading. How many textbooks are in audio format? how many professors take verbal homework? The thing is, twitter, text messages etc... promote this attention deficit culture we're cultivating. I see so many people who literally can't spell, they don't know basic English, and others just contribute to it because they can't spell either. It fosters an entire generation of idiots who think there's nothing at all wrong with misspelling, when in actuality it makes you look like a complete and utter moron. I can't begin to count how many people don't know the difference between There, Their, and They're. I actually heard someone say "stoled" the other day, and I couldn't help but laugh in their face. Stoled is as moronic as raned, or sawed. Sole is the past tense, you can't past tense a word already in the past tense. Steal - stole, run - ran, see - saw.

To be quite frank, I could care less for those who don't have the aptitude to read more than 140 characters. Whatever their opinions are, I'm not interested. I don't care if that sounds condescending or derisive. Truth be told if it's too difficult to spend thirty seconds to read a few paragraphs, chances are you don't have an original opinion anyway, it's just something you've been conditioned to regurgitate upon anyone challenging your conditioned opinions. Chances are you're also one of those people which I absolutely despise, which is one of those absolute idiots which can't spell, and in an age where spell check is on everything, it's just pathetic to misspell simple words. It's gotten to the point where it's very hard not to see the ironic truth in the movie Idiocracy. In fact I've had more than a few people tell me that they fee like I'm talking down to them, probably because they didn't know what the word condescending means, but it was only due to the fact that I use proper English. It's actually devolved to the point where using proper english and grammar is seen as being snobish, or as condescension.

And no, not all of this was aimed at you, however if you feel offended, then I guess some of it hit home.

@cavethug: A perfect analogy to reading would be food. I just spent thirty minutes making burritos from scratch. Sure, you can go out and buy a frozen one, which you can cook in minutes. However it would make you sick if you knew what was in it, and there's not a chance that it would even come close to tasting as good as the ones I just made. And why don't you have the time to cook something that's undoubtedly better tasting, not to mention healthier? The same goes for reading. It's not something you must do every day, but it's good for you. The mind is a muscle, and just like any muscle if you don't exercise it, it will wither away.

Well said Cavethug.

I'm not a stickler for grammar or amazing vocabularies or even great spelling (as you can tell), I understand some people just cant help some of those things due to dyslexia, or not having the same opportunities to an education that everyone else does etc, however when its clear none of that applies and someone is just being a lazy little Twitter brat who cant be bothered to take 5 minutes to read more than a couple of sentences, then gets all whiny when he is called out on that i have zero tolerance or sympathy.

@cavethug: I get what you are saying. I really do. But I have to tell you, I am notone of the people that can't read, or don't like to read more than a few paragraphs. Also, I was not defending people who are illiterate. I never claimed that technology educates people, nor did I claim that people make a living off of Facebook or some other social media site. Get your facts straight on that before you post something. Technology is a useful tool for educating, and being uneducated with technology is the modern day equal of being uneducated and illiterate in language and reading. Even more so for the future.

Listen. I get what you are saying, and I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think calling a whole group of people a problem, is right.

And, no, I am not offended. You're going to have to do a lot more to offend me, haha.

Larger skill cap for sure. The tactic using 4+ body count to overpowering player with assault rifle at 30m+ distant don't work on Battlefield.

During Bad Company 2. Someone famous from Australia who try hard ban me from UK server by running in front of my gun pointing everytime by teamfire. Which he did. Awarring exchanging UK pretending official hosting end up as famous riddling on 3rd party influence and many illegal stuff and not knowing I am playing undercover. Which is why today hosting official servers only at battlefield.

Mmm, burritos. Can I have one?

I agree with you on this. Reading is, for the most part, good for you. Some people may not prefer to read though. It's personal preference. Not everyone likes to read, and no one can call someone illiterate or stupid, simply because they don't like or prefer to read. Now, if they can't spell and even speak properly, that's something else.

Also, to Capri2S and Cavethug, how about we stay on topic from now on, shall we? I am more than willing to continue this discussion in private messages.

I do enjoy reading but I won't lie, when I first opened this thread my first thought was "Oh good god do I really want to commit to this?" I mean no offense to Cavethug he had a lot to say. HOWEVER back to the topic. I have played both COD and BF games. I enjoyed both, was even in a clan on COD (Huge Mistake) but I mean really, to say one is better than the other is apples and oranges. Both games have their flaws, both have their qualities. It all boils down to preference. COD may have had the same engine since time was time but for that games format, I mean really... what really needed to be changed? Did it feel reskined after a while? Sure, but I thought the same thing between Battlefield 3 and 4. (Don't get me started on how pissed BF4 SP made me) The whole K/D ratio on COD was obnoxious, it was like a friggin' pissing contest. Oh and for the LOVE OF GOD do NOT get into aircraft on BF if you are inexperienced!

Both series have their ups and down, their thrills and kills. Two different styles of gameplay wrapped up with Military stories, you take away from them what you will and enjoy it or not.

Coke or Pepsi... Mountain Dew or Mellow Yellow, Dr. Pepper or Mr. Pibb, Light beer or Dark. There is really no need to split hairs and say what is better because we all enjoy different things and we all have different taste.... we are all..... Snowflakes.

I have to disagree with you, I don't think you can really compare Call of Duty to Battlefield.

I was a huge Call of Duty fan back in the day, CoD1, CoD4MW, CoDMW2 and Black Ops2 are my personal favorites. Since the first game, it was constantly evolving, focusing on small scale tactical squad battles (S&D) on rather small maps. But since black ops they took it to a different direction. You could see that in Black Ops 2 but in BO3 it was really obvious. Black Ops 3 is fast paced, youre always jumping and running to places and it feels like its taken the place of unreal tournament and freestyle shooters like it, in the gaming community and the professional leagues. With one exception, Call Of Duty:United Offensive, CoD was never like battlefield. They both played very differently since the beginning. If anything, the Battlefield series added a single player campaign mode only to compare to CoD.

Battlefield is what it is, a Battlefield. Conquest mode is epic, and its really immersive in both battlefield 1942 and battlefield 4 and I enjoyed these two battlefield games the most. But when you scale the combat down to squad TDM and objectives, I can hardly say I had as much fun as in Black Ops 2.

In my opinion, if you compare battlefield to anything it should be ArmA, planetside 2 or maybe even Halo (at least the older ones, i only played halo1 and 2 online). And Call Of Duty is best to be compared with probably TitanFall and Medal Of Honor.

One thing I will say about each series as a whole, if you insisnt on comparing themCall Of Duty produced some poor games (CoD3, CoDMW3 and AW were terrible online shooters and Ghosts was just a recycled game) and every battlefield game was rather good and enjoyable, even battlefield vietnam. Battlefield devs also create a ton of content. a lot more than in CoD, in terms of everything. Still I think that if you want to compare the effort the devs put in games and how much of that effort is dedicated to the good of the fans and not money, there are a lot of games that surpass both CoD and Battlefield.

This post is completely based on opinion. Call of Duty has a completely different aim than BF4. Destructible Enviroment would be completely out of place in COD.

Why else is COD an ESPORT and BF4 isn't? It's a completely different type of game. **** off OP