Call of Duty vs Battlefield

Can I get some opinions on the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises as we head into the next generation of gaming? I'm not sure if I'll be getting XO or PS4 yet but I think one of these two franchises will be on my launch day playlist. I've been a Halo guy for most of my current gen multiplayer needs. I've never played a Battlefield game and in the past 4 months I've played CoD:BLOPS and CoD:MW3 through the campaign with maybe a dozen MP games combined.

Which franchise do you prefer and why? Are you picking up either in next-gen?

I think BF4 looks pretty amazing, I also like the idea of the dynamic environment and the massive multiplayer opportunities. CoD:Ghosts looks good as well as well as includes Call of Duty dog! I know most people don't purchase these games for single player story but Ghosts' story has me interested at the moment. I think it's mostly because of the reveal trailer, the music for some reason makes it feel more suspenseful and interesting.

Let me know what you think! Please let's keep it civil.

I like CoD more because of the fast paced gameplay. Battlefield is much slower because of the giant maps. That my opinion anyway.

That's partly why I prefer Battlefield now.  The slower pace allows me to be a little more strategic about methods of attack.  That, and a fairly wide variety of vehicles.

I sometimes feel like I'm on stimulants when playing CoD.  There are very few online multiplayer games in which I can die, spawn and die again in two or three seconds (Halo being another).

I like them both and they're great to play with friends, but DICE's version of military FPS is more immersive to me compared to both Treyarch's and IW's version.  The co-op and zombie modes are pretty unique though, so it all depends on what you prefer.

Cod is more fast paced and better graphics and
1st person and doesn't suck

Cod is more fast paced and better graphics and
1st person and doesn't suck


Agree on 1st part but better graphic??? You must be from 80'? Or I see a fanboy here?

COD is closer to Halo gameplay wise but BF is a ton of fun with its objective based gameplay. BF for the most part is strictly multiplayer. The single player campaign feels tacked on.

I realize that story and campaign are not big factors of either franchise but I like stories a lot. If the story is going to be short or basic like most FPS are the multiplayer needs to be boss.

Do the BF and CoD communities differ much? I like multiplayer when people work together and hate 12 year olds who get a copy and love to show off how many times they can drop f-bombs.

I also have concerns with BF regarding EA. I tend to not support EA products because of their (imo) policies toward consumers i.e. online passes, microtransactions, worshiping Satan. Seems like they are trying to do better but I don't fully trust them yet. What is the Premium Subscription I read about with Battlefield 3? Is that just a season pass basically?

I've never played COD, but from all I've seen it's a corridor shooter closer to what CS is like.  BF is all about sandbox gameplay and vehicles for the most part.  I've heard that the COD crowd shit talks a lot, with little kids being a problem.  From my experience with BF, I can count on one hand how many times I've ever seen flaming.  It just doesn't happen on PC and it's rare to see anyone typing in chat honestly.  There have been a few times I'd find a clan server where there would be mic chatter, being led by some professional sounding squad leaders lol.  Other than that, BF is typically silent on pub servers from what I've seen over the years.

And yeah, premium is just the same season pass scam to get your money up front for DLC.  Vote with your wallet and don't buy into such trash schemes.

Both are excellent series and both fun in their own way.  CoD is smoother, smaller maps, more closed in, faster paced, more frantic.

BF is more open, slower paced, and with more variety to the gameplay (Vehicles!)

Imo, CoD does strict multiplayer team deathmatch better, but BF does more overall, it's more ambitious. 

I've spent literaly weeks and weeks in the multiplayer modes of both series, and In the beginning I used to play CoD 100%, then I began splitting my time between the two series, and now I play BF exclusively for my console multiplayer FPS fix.  I didnt even buy the last CoD game and I will be buying BF4 at launch.  But that's not to say CoD is a now a bad series, it's just that I personally, have gotten bored of straight team death match.  I can't remember many CoD stories other than some memorable kill streaks and a few times I've killed ppl with a flashbang to the head or a funny claymore placement.   But I can go on for hours telling stories about BF antics, surviving in a tank or a wild helicopter ride. 

As far as team communication goes, BF limits talking to squadmates only (max of 4), so theres generally less talking in BF games.  But I also see a divide across consoles.  on Xbox Live I'm usually called a derogatory term for Blacks, homosexuals, Jews or worse.  On PS3 no one has a mic so it's usually deathly quiet.

In summary, if you want to shoot as many people in the face, as fast as you can, play CoD.  if you want more opportunity for strategic play, and the ability to help you team, or even top the leaderboards without being a headshot master and getting 20+ kill streaks, then try Battlefied.

I don't really care for or even play the single player modes of these games, so I can't comment other than to say I feel a real cheapassgamer wouldn't spend $60 to play a 6-8 hour tacked on campaign mode.  Multiplayer is the heart of these games, and what you should be buying them for.

Puffa469 said:

As far as team communication goes, BF limits talking to squadmates only (max of 4), so theres generally less talking in BF games. But I also see a divide across consoles. on Xbox Live I'm usually called a derogatory term for Blacks, homosexuals, Jews or worse. On PS3 no one has a mic so it's usually deathly quiet.

Click to expand...

Both console versions do have a teamspeak option (found in the squad options menu) but very few players utilize it. Clans are far more likely to use it than lone wolves. I'm unsure if the PC version has teamspeak but with up to 32 players a side, is probably an auditory mess. The most recent Battlefield Friends episode pokes fun at it.

I'm not really into shooters myself but I tend to find Call of Duty more fun when I do play it. I would suggest you try out some of the older versions just to see if you like them. Battlefield 3 is free on PS+ and some of the older CoD are under $30 or 20.  

On consoles COD has a much larger user-base. Multiplayer is fast paced and puts a premium on quick reaction time and constantly rushing. Very similar to Halo.

BF on the other hand places an emphasis on teamwork. The maps are much bigger and Vehicles play an important role. Personally I didn't much care for BF3 but absolutely loved Bad Company 2.

COD is more for the people who want to play a quick game, get right in it and get rewarded for killing lots of people without dieing.

Battlefield is a slower paced game, but with vehicles and a larger map. Puts more focus on team work.

Granted a team in COD that works together is just as devastating, but you can be a one many army a majority of the time in COD.

I'd still take Halo over both of them. It's going to be interesting that the next Halo is supposed to be 60fps, since Halo 4 already has a run button.

Monsta Mack said:

COD is more for the people who want to play a quick game, get right in it and get rewarded for killing lots of people without dieing.

Battlefield is a slower paced game, but with vehicles and a larger map. Puts more focus on team work.

Granted a team in COD that works together is just as devastating, but you can be a one many army a majority of the time in COD.

I'd still take Halo over both of them. It's going to be interesting that the next Halo is supposed to be 60fps, since Halo 4 already has a run button.

Click to expand...

I agree I'd rather have Halo but that's not an option unfortunately. I was hoping for Halo 2 Anniversary but to no avail.

I like the idea of vehicles in BF4 but with my busy life, a quick game might be better for me. Maybe I can snag a cheap BF3 for 360 within the next few months and just see how it plays. I like the recent CoD games I've played (older ones mostly) but haven't played extensively.

kingcz said:

Agree on 1st part but better graphic??? You must be from 80'? Or I see a fanboy here?

Click to expand...

Not sure what a fanboy is. I'm not a fan of either game.

I've stopped buying Cod games after number 4 since it just became copy paste every year now with very little changes. New call of duty is lagging in technical department also, still sporting modified quake 3 engine and old titles are unplayable due to all the wannabe haxorz at least BF3 does not have this problem on consoles. My personal advice would be to go with BF4 since its gonna have substantial upgrade to 64 player servers unless you like to play corridor shooters with maps size of a shoe box where everybody kill and spawn on top of each other every 15 seconds

I tend to go in spurts of both honestly.  I was a fan of the original Modern Warfare and the first Black Ops.  I then jumped over to BF3 for a while.  However, and this may be a shock, the most fun I've had playing online with a FPS recently has been MAG.  When the community was still active, that game was an absolute blast to play, in my opinion.

jsmc said:

I tend to go in spurts of both honestly. I was a fan of the original Modern Warfare and the first Black Ops. I then jumped over to BF3 for a while. However, and this may be a shock, the most fun I've had playing online with a FPS recently has been MAG. When the community was still active, that game was an absolute blast to play, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of the same way, now that I have Black Ops 2 back in my possession. MAG I never played more than a dozen hours or so, mostly because it took a while to get into a match and then getting team-killed a lot for objective points. I do like the concept of massive teams working together; I guess I wasn't rolling with the right players before I gave up on it.

Looking forward to the next gen, Battlefield 4 will have a tiny taste of MAG gameplay with the Commander Mode. Details are still slim right now but it's strictly a strategic position that can bring in extra firepower to support teammates.

eLefAdEr said:

I'm kind of the same way, now that I have Black Ops 2 back in my possession. MAG I never played more than a dozen hours or so, mostly because it took a while to get into a match and then getting team-killed a lot for objective points. I do like the concept of massive teams working together; I guess I wasn't rolling with the right players before I gave up on it.

Looking forward to the next gen, Battlefield 4 will have a tiny taste of MAG gameplay with the Commander Mode. Details are still slim right now but it's strictly a strategic position that can bring in extra firepower to support teammates.

Click to expand...

That's what I've heard to...regard BF4. I'm curious to see how it works on consoles. I think I'm looking forward to the more Battlefront more though to be honest, but I have a feeling that is still a ways away.

So, on the eve of Call of Duty:Ghosts, I've decided to forgo picking up BF4 and CoD at this time. I had pre-ordered Ghosts but canceled it this afternoon. While I really love shooters, I've decided to grab AC4 and Dead Rising 3 for open world goodness. I can get my fps fix from my 360 still and for some reason I am not excited about CoD multiplayer.

I did have bf4 preordered but honestly the excitment id felt for it died after playing the beta ... Ill probably wait to buy it used in a month - maybe get cod ghost in a week or 2 because it is more casual looks better graphically etc.

If Target runs that B2G1 promotion for Xbox One release, I might pull the trigger on CoD as my free 3rd game. Also want Lego Marvel to play with the gf though.