Q) COD vs BF/ EA vs Activision

antijoke

antijoke

antijoke

Caporegime
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
40,004
Location
England
Can I ask a serious question, and hopefully get some serious replies?

What is the difference between the hate for COD vs the love for BF?

I see it all the time, people saying about lapping up the same old tripe, yet people jump all over info on a new BF game.

I don't get what the difference is.

I asked this in the new COD thread, but didn't think it would get much traffic.

This is not trying to troll, I am hoping for a proper adult discussion can be had on this topic as it intrgues me why EA get an easy ride.
 
Play Modern Warfare.
Play Modern Warfare 3.

Play Battlefield 2.
Play Battlefield 3.

Notice much difference on the first one?
Notice much difference on the second?

Therein lies your answer.
 
Unfortunately a lot of people feel the need to choose a side and subscribe to this black and white logic. Why do you have to pick one or the other?

Sharaaaaaaaap
 
EA don't get an easy ride, check out all the threads on Origin, not many fans.

As for the actual games, Activision liked the success of CoD4 that there's been no real updates in the series since. The graphics have barely moved on, all the subsequent CoD games feel the same. They even forced Treyarch into using Infinity Ward's engine for their CoD games.

BF3 looks brilliant, it feels similar to BFBC2 but you don't get the impression it's just new maps and weapons for the same game, unlike the more recent CoD games.
 
BF3 is to Battlefield what CoD MW2 is to CoD

Two competing franchises in a battle for dominance, a fight that could arguably be said has been won by Activision and COD due to the fact that EA/DICE have given up trying to be original and turned their product into their rivals.
 
anticonscience said:
This is not trying to troll, I am hoping for a proper adult discussion can be had on this topic as it intrgues me why EA get an easy ride.
Click to expand...

I think they get anything but an easy ride on this forum, and good luck with the bold part once the outspoken people get wind of the thread. D: Tbh, Activision and EA are the cool to hate brands at the moment, and for some reason people seem to get jollies blaming them. People do seem quite disproportionally vocal about Activision regarding just COD, where EA seems to get it for all kinds of reasons (Origin, buying companies, Bioware etc.)

I've had plenty of fun playing playing MW2 (200hrs?) with mates, the same as I've enjoyed MW3 with mates. I've played plenty of BF3 as well, and I've no idea how people can compare the two. The styles of gameplay are so different that they're bordering on different genres to me, the only similarity is the modern setting as far as I'm concerned.
 
Much of the hate for CoD comes from how it was once a truly fantastic franchise that has now been milked for as much money as possible. CoD is now a sub-standard product, but they don't care because people still buy it in their millions. Most of those buyers are idiots and if it wasn't for their mindless consumerism we could all be playing some seriously good CoD games right now.

The new game will be exactly the same as the last: people will buy it, then slate it. Ad infinitum.
 
Edrof said:
Much of the hate for CoD comes from how it was once a truly fantastic franchise that has now been milked for as much money as possible. CoD is now a sub-standard product, but they don't care because people still buy it in their millions. Most of those buyers are idiots and if it wasn't for their mindless consumerism we could all be playing some seriously good CoD games right now.

The new game will be exactly the same as the last: people will buy it, then slate it. Ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. What CoD offered was a refreshing WW2 shooter from MoH. Then came CoD4 which was a tour de force and now, well nothing needs adding to what Edrof has already said.
 
Craig R said:
Play Modern Warfare.
Play Modern Warfare 3.

Play Battlefield 2.
Play Battlefield 3.

Notice much difference on the first one?
Notice much difference on the second?

Therein lies your answer.
Click to expand...

This really. When Dice come out with a new game they've spent years researching new technology to make it look far better than the previous and will have expanded the scope of the gameplay.

CoD on the other hand will have spent a year making new maps and a few new guns and then release what is essentially a map pack as an entirely new game. The gameplay is identical. I loved CoD4 when it first came out, the SP was great and the MP was a blast too. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that it's being updated I just think that calling each one a new game and charging full price for it is a bit ripe. It's more like episodic content and should be charged as such.

But some people will always fall for it and spend their money on the map pack anyway.
 
I have always been tempted to give BF3 a go but have been put off with the origin horror stories. Surely Origin can't be that bad otherwise half as many people would be playing BF3 now??
 
Gooner Leroy said:
I have always been tempted to give BF3 a go but have been put off with the origin horror stories. Surely Origin can't be that bad otherwise half as many people would be playing BF3 now??
Click to expand...


Well there's not that many people actually left playing it tbh.
 
COD Is similar to Apple products. Infinity Ward nailed the engine, gameplay and such the first time they have only had to make minor iterations to resell it as a "new" game. With the pulling power of COD name it means each year it will sell millions without most of those gamers even knowing what's new in the game, for example most of the COD consumers probably don't even realise Treyarch make one game then Infinity Ward makes the year after. Nevermind the main "designers" leaving Infinity Ward a few years back :p

But yeah, BF3 is actually a new game compared to BF2, but the Battlefield series is still an almost yearly franchise? With Bad Company, BF 1943, BF2P and such, the difference being these are all very different games aimed at different audiences.
 
Darg said:
This really. When Dice come out with a new game they've spent years researching new technology to make it look far better than the previous and will have expanded the scope of the gameplay.
Click to expand...

I am interested to expand on your points of how they spent years researching new technology and expanding the scope and gameplay between the games.

How is the gameplay expanded from Bad Company 2 to Battlefield 3?
 
Last edited:
There are still people playing it but its player base decline has been a sharp and steady graph since release. It "averages" 50K a day at the moment and loses about 5000+ a month.

If you've never played it then Its worth trying it if you can find it cheap. Just don't expect much form it, its a very generic and shallow run and gun game that is both fun and frustrating in almost equal measures.
 
For me I just think BF has more quality about it, I remember when BF2 was released and I played that game non stop, the gameplay, the graphics, all of it, it was awesome. Years later they make BF3 that IMO takes it to another level again, awesome graphics, great gameplay, I really enjoyed the singleplayer, they remade some of the old classic BF2 maps, I just think they did a good job with it. My guess is they will run with BF3 for quite some time yet until they make BF4, but I honestly dont think that will be for years yet.

As for CoD, its just the same thing, every time. And they churn them out so quick, which in my mind just means it was rushed. You could argue, why change a working formula, they churn out another CoD, with the same ageing game engine, add a couple tweaks and maps then sell it, and Im afraid to say it, it does sell. But there comes a point when they need to come up with something new, a new engine, up the graphics and really push the envelope, otherwise they just create another stagnant game.

The funny thing is, that is exactly what they are doing (and probably the same when this new one is unveiled in May) and people will STILL buy it cos its got a favourite battered fish on the box.
 
lol Dice in their words ' lowered the threshold ' with BF3, it was dumbed down for the console market and PC as we know it now was not the lead platform so we got the clustered maps that stink with 64 player but play fine with 24. The tactical and integrated teamplay features of BF2 as well as proper sandbox map design was thrown out the window. BF3 is more of a sequel to that other console port BC2 than BF2 and it's worse for it. Already players are dropping it only after 6 months because of the linear maps and gamepay that lacks depth and tactics of previous games.

COD is COD, it's a console game through and through and that's where all the sales are for it and it will always sell because there really is nothing out there to compete with it on a yearly basis. Both COD and BF started out as PC exclusive and they were and still are amazing games, todays games are mass market trash.
 
Last edited:
It's a fair question and you are going to get some very different opinions on this for sure.

Upto now, CoD has relased 9 games year on year since the first CoD with battlefield releasing 7 since it started (1 year earlier). Even though both originated on the PC, I think I would be correct in saying that generally CoD has had a bigger following. This has certainly become more apparent with CoD on consoles.

I think I can back this up by pointing out CoD's scene in the E-sports community (CoD4 still being played competitvely).

BF has been a very succesful series. For the most part, BF players have been very happy what has been released. However, how much advertising etc was there for games like the Bad Company series compared to the BF3 release? Then compare that with the hype that has surronded CoD releases (MW2, BLOPS, MW3).

IMO, it's this difference in the way each series has been marketed and the following/communities that play them that have lead to this difference of hate for CoD over the love for BF. CoD has been promoted pretty hard since the first MW (back in 2007). Compare this to BF with BF3 as the first in the series that has had this massive CoD like marketing of a game.

Tl;Dr - CoD has been in the limelight longer than BF due to different factors, meaning that opinions about the game are larger and more widespread. I think now that BF has been released in the way it was and is seen as a direct competition to CoD, this hate for one and love for the other may not seen so apparent in the future as more people pick up BF games.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom