Battlefield and call of duty ( whats the difference) ?

COD is for ADHD suffering 10 year olds.
BF is for a more grown up audience with an attention span >10 seconds.
ARMA 3 is for the PC gaming master race.
 
Minstadave said:
COD is for ADHD suffering 10 year olds.
BF is for a more grown up audience with an attention span >10 seconds.
ARMA 3 is for the PC gaming master race.
Click to expand...

I understand you have different tastes but you really don't need to bash games just because you dislike them.
 
Two very different games. About the only thing in common is the FPS aspect, the rest is very different. CoD levels are smaller, tighter, more "linear" (to a point), not as much emphasis on teamwork, no vehicles (apart from scorestreaks), and much more twitch based.

BF4 has massive maps, helis, tanks, different class specializations, etc etc. Saying one is better than the other is like saying that stilton is better than cheddar. Both cheeses, but very different.

Dammit, I need to install BF4 now!
 
Agree to disagree then. Regardless of what hardware you're using, all PCs (assuming Windows) run through the same API, the most obvious being DirectX.

This is the console forum though ;)
 
There's two styles of play really. If you want to just get on and kill some baddies then launch cod and go TDM. 5-10 minute games and you'll get 10-20 kills. More if you're good.

Battlefield is almost on CoD level now (at least on consoles), you can get in and do the same thing as on CodD, but because teh maps are so huge it does give you a lot more possibilities. Also the team structure can work really well (obviosuly better with friends, but I've had some cracking games with strangers working together), moving as a group to different objectives, killing people, when a team member dies being revived and resupplied.

Both can be frustrating but I'd say BF is a more fulfilling game, however if it's not you're style you won't get on with it, but then CoD might not be your style either :p

If BF4 Premium is still £20 on the store then you may as well just get that anyway, you get all DLC included. Bargain.
 
I have just had a thought. Seeing as they have made a Star Wars battlefront I wonder why there has never been a Star Wars cod? I know a lot of the lore is based around the ships etc but a short range shooter with storm troopers vs rebels or Jedi would be great fun. You could have care packages etc as well.
 
ZXSpectrum said:
I have just had a thought. Seeing as they have made a Star Wars battlefront I wonder why there has never been a Star Wars cod? I know a lot of the lore is based around the ships etc but a short range shooter with storm troopers vs rebels or Jedi would be great fun. You could have care packages etc as well.
Click to expand...

There was, it was called Dark Forces :). Amazing series back in the day.

I'd like to see a new one, So long as it is not touched by any CoD devs or Activi$ion.
 
agJIP.gif
 
It's been a while since I played it but would I be right in saying that Battlefront is more comparable to Battlefield in space/tattoine/hoth?

I do remember Dark Forces but didn't play it online. Thinking about it, when was the last Dark Forces/Shadow of the empire game? I know there were the Force Unleashed games but not really a fan of the 3rd person and would love to play a massive epic single player Star Wars fps.
 
In previous versions I'd say there was a clear difference between the styles of the two games, with COD being the usual small maps, fast action, and BF being larger, more open and sometimes quiet until you put yourself into the action.

But I feel BF4 can now do what COD offers, with small maps and fast action for things like TDM and Domination, but still offers the classic BF experience of up to 64 players and massive battles as well.

I guess it depends which one feels best to you, but gameplay wise I'd have to go BF as it offers far more variety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom