Why Battlefield is Far superior to Call of Duty

@isaacfalls: You sir are an idiot.

Mind explaining the insult?

Your post is pointless, they are completely different games that have a completely different aim!

One is a fast paced frantic arena shooter and the other one is a full blown war simulator with huge maps, vehicles and destructible enviroment.

You can't say one is better than the other when you can't compare them.

It's like comparing The Witcher 3 to Pokemon. Both are RPGs but they are completely different lol.

You are honestly just hating on COD and when I tell you that you can't compare something that is completely different, you insult me HAHA

I am the idiot? Please... Take a look in the mirror

@isaacfalls: TBH you started with the insults when you posted (highlighted in black and underlined below), this sounds to me like you are telling the OP to screw off...to put it in a way thats less "offensive" wont get censored.

True I forgot about that haha. But it's not like I personally insulted him by calling him a name, I just told him to f*** off because I am tired of people comparing these two games saying "Ohh BF is sooo much better because you can destroy buildings lol xD" when you just CANNOT COMPARE two essentially different games.

BTW @isaacfalls: COD and BF are in the same genre, hence why they are compared. They aren't that dissimilar, you run around and shoot guns based on a realistic military setting. They are about as comparable as you can get.

@isaacfalls: Okay... you want an explanation, here goes.

The point of the post isn't that the games are interchangeable, but rather that since they are in the same genre, which would complete destroy your ridiculous analogy to the witcher 3 and pokemon.. wow.. just wow on that one, what a wonderfully inept and insane analogy to begin with.

The comparison holds up because it's not one based on them being interchangeable, but rather, that one innovates, while the other diametrically opposes innovation. To say a new engine, or bigger maps, or destructible environments... you say there's no place in CoD for improvement... Well there you have it, according to you, we have a game for the first time in gaming history that is completely perfect, so perfect that there is no room for improvement. It's astonishing. In fact beyond that, the game is so perfect that the mere mention of innovation in reference to it, is just sacrilege... So... Why? Why would putting in destructible environments be so outrageously horrible? Why would creating a new engine instead of simply coasting along with an outstretched hand happy to just milk customers be a bad thing? I could go on and on. In fact rarely, RARELY in gaming has one franchise garnered so much money for doing so little to improve from one generation to the next. I can't honestly come up with a single game, which has put out over 10 titles in as many years, without any real noticeable improvement.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and you... are without a doubt the clearest representation of part of the problem.

I'm sorry I have to agree with @isaacfalls on this one. It's totally pointless to compare the two.

Whoa there buddy. What's wrong? Didn't the OP express his opinion, just like you?

First of all, COD is NOT based on a "realistic military setting". Also, it is not completely without innovation. If you had at least read my previous posts, you would see my point. COD is a futuristic, unrealistic arena shooter, comparable to quake arena or doom MP.

It is not meant to be super realistic (which is also why you have fucking jetpacks and can run along walls, how is that realistic). It is NOT MEANT to be realistic. Also, COD does have innovations like the jetpack which enables better 3D movement and the wallrun. DESTRUCTIBILITY is still amiss in this franchise because it is an ESPORT, therefore they can't change up the rules too much.

BF4 is not an ESPORT but a war simulator. They are essentially completely different. What kind of argument is "both games have guns and you shoot people" what about halo? What about Counter Strike? Are they bad because they don't have a fancy new engine or destructibility? Come on your arguments are completely invalid.

I have to say, comparing COD to Battlefield is like comparing apples to oranges, if that. Two incredibly similar games in my opinion.

Just FYI Isaac, COD used to be a realistic depiction of the military, its only in the past 2 or 3 years that things have gone into the future. If you remember (sicne its clear the average memory of people on this site is about as extensive as a mosquito) COD started out as a realistic WW2 shooter, then with COD 4 changed to the modern era, and apart from Black OPs 2 remained that way until Advanced Warfare.

Just throwing that out there for sake of argument.

Man, if you are somehow instrumental in changing COD into some kinda realistic super serious military thing I'm gonna be pissed! Is there no room for fun anymore? Must we all take ourselves and our games so seriously? Is there room in your universe for the non-nerd casual gamer, the poor bastard who just wants a few minutes of time killing fun? Have a heart man! Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Opinions are great, aren't they?

@mark1974: I'm guessing you were the one guy that actually liked Duke Nukem weren't you? Did I say anything at all about serious? Did I say anything about changing the gameplay style? No. Not once. I find it absolutely ridiculous that anyone would make an argument that opposes mine.

In essence what I'm saying is, that ALL games need to innovate, and strive for improvement. What you're saying is "no, they don't need to improve at all. I don't want anything new or improved, I just want to keep giving them my money for the same thing" It's absolutely ludicrous, but then again that's exactly what you're doing. As for "casual gamers" I'm sorry to break this to you, but there are very few casual gamers playing CoD. I'd be willing to be more casual gamers are playing the zombies side than actual online multiplayer. Why do i say that? because CoD4 did it right, it was very friendly to casual players as well as hardcore, the balance was to the point that even the most casual player made an impact. That compared to now, where the hardcore player has a clear and decisive advantage... it's far from the same.

You need to read what I WROTE and not imply that I'm advocating what I didn't. I never said that they need to change multiplayer down to 2v2 only either... but you didn't try to insinuate that I was advocating that did you? I didn't say CoD needs to be BF4, they couldn't pull it off even if they wanted to, DICE make a far superior realistic FPS. CoD is kind of like a FPS with training wheels, it's great for the little kids. No need to worry about bullet drop, or leading your target etc... just aim and your bullet is instantly there. Which is fine if you like that sort of thing, personally I prefer a bit of a challenge. Regardless that's beside the point.

If you don't think CoD has to improve, or strive for improvement like BF has, then I pity you. You are part of the problem. A mind less sheep just buying what you're told to.

@cavethug: You make a lot of assumptions and seem to be taking this topic's importance to a frightening extreme! I'm hardly a mindless sheep and I have bought exactly two COD games in my life. I simply enjoy it for what it is and don't want it changed to your personal vision. I hope that does not enrage you further because I'm getting a bit worried!

Expecting all games to innovate is such an unrealistic expectation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with games that don't innovate. There will always be games that innovate and games that don't and that is perfectly fine.

@Archangel3371: Really? How many 8 bit games are you still playing? Still firing up your NES or Sega master system? Somehow I doubt that.

@cavethug: funny that you mention that. I know you were not addressing me but I still love playing 8bit and 16 bit games. This seems like a very telling point to illustrate our different tastes and preferences.

@cavethug: Technology improving and innovation are not the same thing.

@mark1974: I'm far from enraged. You couldn't enrage me if you tried. Pity isn't often associated with rage, or anger, and I clearly said I pity you. If you'd like the definition of the word, I can include it if it's really needed.

As for me making assumptions, it's kind of funny coming from you, as you're the one who made the assumption that I wanted CoD to be a copy of BF. Also, if someone reiterating his point, and debating you is taking something to a frightening extreme again, I pity you, because it seems anyone who challenges you is frightening to you. So, I'll try to make sure your "safe space" isn't violated lmao.

I'm kind of a bit lost here though. You own 2 CoD titles. Why? You liked the one so much that you didn't want it changed, so why did you go out and buy the other? Clearly the first one was absolutely perfect, with no room for improvement, why would you waste your money on another? It just doesn't make much sense to me. If I found the perfect car that I didn't want to change in any way, or couldn't be improved upon, the last thing I'd do is waste the money on buying another. Same for a house, a stove etc... Clearly however that isn't the case at all. Obviously you went out and bought another, so the first one WASN'T perfect, you thought the next one would be better or improve.

I hate to break it to you. Nothing is perfect, there is always room for improvement. You're not eating the food cavemen ate. You don't drive a car looking like a model T, We're not playing pac man, or super mario brothers, we're not playing on the NES or Sega master system. You want to sit there and pretend that innovation is bad, or that somehow if CoD were to implement some of the features that DICE has introduced in BF that it would ruin it or some other insanely ridiculous statement. The simple fact is games like Madden, and FiFA have started using the frostbite engine which Dice created. Neither of which were ruined, or made worse for it, in fact it IMPROVED them.. I know it's a crazy and insane notion isn't it? One game doing something and another separate game developing it's own version of it.... That's the way it used to work. It was called competition, and when one game company developed something groundbreaking like destructible environments, another would come up with their own version and it would go back and forth...

Somehow CoD has figured out a nifty little way of avoiding that. Hype, insanely misplaced loyalty, etc... So they don't have to actually improve, or innovate. They can just sit back and pretty much just repackage the same game for a decade. It's just insane, and anyone who defends it is equally insane. No one would buy the same exact new car type year in and year out for a decade, you wouldn't watch the same movie every time you go to the movie theater, you wouldn't go on the same exact vacation, or buy a new identical house.... it's insane to even try to argue that you would, however I'm sure you'll try to say otherwise.

It's impossible to argue with someone who is so close minded that they can't even fathom the idea of change, even if it's for improvement. Save your time, you can't flip that statement around. I'm arguing that CoD needs to innovate, as ALL game developers do, with basically the exception of CoD. You however think it's perfect, and any change at all could only be bad. Which is just ludicrous.

@cavethug: The only one being close minded here is you. You seem to think that innovation is the end all be all and that every game needs to innovate. You also fail to comprehend that people have different preferences and that your preference means that makes something the "superior" choice.

@cavethug: Wow. I think you need to calm down and relax. Does it seem rational to get this worked up about call of duty? It's going to be ok.

Cavethug, you just need to relax man. This isn't something to get all crazy about. Please don't call people close minded or mindless sheep, because they simply prefer a different series. Give me a break. Some games don't necessarily improve. That's okay. It really is, as long as the game is still fun. Personally, I never buy COD games, because the multiplayers only last for about a year. I only bought one, which was Call of Duty 2.

Call of Duty is perfectly fine the way it is. People who want to buy it, can buy it and have a blast. As long as the game is fun, it doesn't matter. That's what gaming is all about right, having fun?

l like COD camaign better of BF3 BF4 and hardline so easy and very short games

Yeah surprisingly COD has had better campaigns then BF, at least once they stopped making the Bad Company series at least. BF3 campaign was utterly forgettable, and BF4 tried harder but was still forgettable nonsense. At least COD 4, MW 2, MW 3, even Black Ops 1 had interesting campaigns, even AW had a decent campaign.

@battlestreak: The point of calling them close minded, or mindless sheep, it's because they are. I have another blog post I put up about loyalty and how it's absolutely insane. Now think about what I'm saying and what my message is.

That one game doesn't try to innovate or improve. It's not that BF is better than CoD because of this or that, it's because BF IS better than CoD because of the innovations and improvements they've made. Look at BF2 and compare BF3 to it, then compare BF4 to BF3... There is tremendous improvement. Now compare CoD4 to CoD5. What improvement is there? little to none. It's that simple. I could have used other games and genres to make the point, I chose BF and CoD because I know there are so many CoD fanboys out there, that someone would try to say I was wrong, or that CoD is better or whatever else they can come up with. The simple truth is that BF tries to innovate, tries to push the genre forward. While CoD isn't interested in advancement, isn't interested in improving. That's just the facts. Anyone who says that the things BF does wouldn't work in CoD is simply an apologist. There is no way that destructible environments for instance wouldn't make CoD better, from all aspects it would improve things, the multiplayer, the single player campaign, there would be more destruction, players would have more options. Calling in the kill streak reward, like a camera guided missile only instead of just hitting a roof and killing a guy, you bring the entire building down on him AND all of his buddies... There are just so many possibilities, so many GOOD things that could come from it. They just don't care. Why should they? They don't need to do the work it would take to advance the game, because they don't have to, people will keep buying it. It could be the worst FPS ever made, and people would still say it's great.

You can't say CoD is great, it doesn't need to innovate, or improve. If you enjoy the series, which I don't, you CANNOT say it doesn't need to improve because you're actually making my point, without even realizing it. CoD4 is a completely different game from CoD3. The thing is, they stopped innovating after CoD4. The game you like, the game you're trying to defend, only exists because they innovated when they created CoD4. Since then, the ten games which proceeded it, haven't. THAT is the problem.

In any business, the one company or product which doesn't innovate, while it's competitors continue to, ends up failing. It's a bigger problem though, it's not just an issue for CoD fans, but for the industry as a whole. It sends a message, it tells other developers that they don't have to innovate, or improve either, if they are shipping a lot of units. Just as Destiny has set a extremely dangerous precedent by sending an unfinished game, that was gutted, and 2/3 of the original content was held back for later paid expansions, and the issue with "the taken customer" expansion and charging an unprecedented $40 for it. It tells other developers that they can do the same thing, and people will fork over their money.

I hate to be the one to point this out, because it should be common sense, sadly a lot of people want to argue with me about it. When one company does something that is cheaper, and easier, and they make money while doing it, it tells other companies that they can do the same. It's like the guy in the office who does half as much, and makes the same money... That ends up spreading, the guy who does twice as much as him starts saying "why do I bust my ass when I can do half as much like that other guy". And pretty soon everyone is doing half as much, and it destroys the product. As I said, you wouldn't buy the same model car, that was identical year in and year out, just a different color. That's what CoD is. That same pig it was ten years ago, with different lipstick.

Also, stop telling me to relax. I'm far from pissed off or brooding over this. It's possible to actually write something, and state your opinion without being so worked up you want to throw your PC out the window. As for it being fine, it's not. The fact that you can't see that is sad. It's like all those people who buy toyotas or hondas, and nissans. They say "they're made in america" as though that makes it perfectly fine, and there is no difference between Ford or GM, and those foreign cars. It's an argument made out of ignorance. Buying a foreign car still HURTS the country because that money doesn't come back here, it goes to wherever country that manufacturer is based in. It's not just factory workers, but the people who work in the headquarters, the janitors, the secretaries, the executives etc... hundreds of millions if not billions that go to that other country. When you buy a ford or gm or chevy, ALL of that money stays in the US. It stays in OUR economy.

Saying something doesn't need to improve, or innovate is just something born of ignorance. There isn't a single company that exists which has simply chosen not to advance or innovate, well I guess with one exception. CoD. Even sports games, which have the shortest development timeline innovate and improve.

@cavethug: I know. I personally don't enjoy the Call of Duty series or buy the games, unless they are under $20. I am enjoying the hell out of Battlefield 4, one of my favorite and best multiplayer experiences I've ever had. But, but, why can't you just let people who enjoy Call of Duty, enjoy Call of Duty? Is there something wrong with the lack of innovation and advancement with the COD series? Maybe so. Is there something wrong with the people who buy COD games? Absolutely not, and that is where you go wrong.

@cavethug:

Can you please send me a list of Cavethug approved games? I don't want to continue my foolhardy ways of just buying what I think is fun. It is apparently ruining video games.

@mark1974: For one thing, how about NOT buying a game that comes out every year. Sports games, it makes sense. roster change every year, teams move, rules change etc.. It makes absolute no sense for other games outside of the constantly evolving and changing atmosphere of the sports world, unless your ultimate goal is to milk the customer for as much money as possible. I can't think of any game aside from CoD excluding sports titles, which release a game every year.

As for "cathug approved games" How about you just pull your lower lip over your head and swallow. I never once said you had to buy the games I like, I never said you had to buy games I approved. I said buying a game every year, which doesn't innovate, or try to improve as it's competition improves, sends the message that you don't have to improve, or innovate if you sell a lot of copies. Which is dangerous to the industry, and to us as gamers. If you can't see that then I feel sorry for you. Maybe you'll enjoy playing CoD 45 on your playstation 4 in 20 years from now. Since clearly you don't think the evolution of gaming or innovation in the industry should go on. Maybe you ought to sell your playstation 4, or xbox one, and buy yourself a NEW or Sega and just play super Mario or sonic the hedgehog, because why not... CoD is an evolution from those games... but evolution and innovation don't matter to you, just having fun does right? Well they are fun... Play them, you'll even save money since you won't be buying any new games....

@battlestreak: It's not just people who buy CoD games. I use CoD as an example because it's the clearest example. I don't care if someone buys CoD. I care if they but CoD every year. That's the problem.

@cavethug: So what? So what if people buy COD every year? It's their choice? Are you okay with that?

@cavethug: So you had a couple of suggestions there for me. The one was, "How about you just pull your lower lip over your head and swallow." I don't think that's gonna work Cavethug. But I get your point, I should kill myself for buying COD every year which I have never done. Point two was something about buying a "NEW or Sega" to play Mario. Not sure how that works either. But I appreciate the effort. We'll get me sorted out eventually we just have to keep trying.

Not sure how sports games are being defended in this case, they are even worse than COD as far as releasing the same crap every year goes, and roster changes isn't a valid enough reason to release a whole new game as that's simply something that can be patched in nowadays, sports games are the ultimate contributor to the lazy cut and paste gaming culture you are accusing COD of (which i agree with to a certain extent).

However, i don't think you need to worry that much. Its been 8 years since COD 4, and other games have continued to evolve and innovate since. The level of innovation hasn't really decreased in the gaming industry, if anything it has increased so COD obviously isn't having the all encompassing detrimental effect on the industry like you think it is.

Saying that is giving COD a little too much credit i think, credit it certainly doesn't deserve.

hello everyone