Why bf is better than cod

I believe that it takes more effort to research the weapons of a period and be surprised by the variety of them that were used, but are generally unknown to your common gamer, and to get those weapons right is a larger achievement.

The battlefield series has done that most prolifically with its newest installment Battlefield 1. For instance, I knew that The Great War had the first widespread use of heavy machine guns, but I did not know that all sides implemented some of the first submachine guns on all sides as well, in addition to all the crazy rifles and explosives. The maps in the Battlefield series have always been superior to that of Call of Duty.

The scope, variety, and general design of the Battlefield maps are so smartly constructed that they allow for pulse pounding fun for veteran and amateur players alike. Snowy mountain ridges serve as perfect nests for stationary snipers, sloping valleys set the stage as a no man's land where infantry exchange fire and grenades, all while tanks and plane's bombing runs level the burning villages below to rubble.

Even in the previous Battlefield titles that mirror Call of Duty , say Battlefield 3 for instance, do modern, smaller maps better than Call of Duty ever did. At the opposite polarity, massive maps like Caspian Border offer a sprawling forest and scattered military structures that serve as excellent battlegrounds for vehicles and infantry firefights alike.

Call of Duty has never come close to the depth achieved in these maps, even those in the older Battlefield entries. The first few Call of Duty games had excellent single player campaigns with historically accurate, action packed set pieces and fun, tense shooting gallery segments.

They also featured a few vehicle levels, but nothing like the recent Battlefield vehicle levels—in Call of Duty you were usually riding shotgun and mowing down Nazis while an NPC drove from point A to point B. In the past few years, this has changed however. Battlefields campaigns have, for the most part, also been pretty outlandish, save for Battlefield 1. I believe that the latest Battlefield installment has been the first FPS to take a realistic approach to the reality of war: it is an awful and brutal thing.

With competition, especially in online gaming, come toxic players. Players that spam mics, team kill, block doorways, and trash talk like drunken sailors. Honestly, who knew that your twelve your old neighbor had such a colorfully vulgar vocabulary?

Despite this usual stigma of online companions, in my experience, the Battlefield games are the exception. Considering that most vehicles operate better with two or more players, teamwork becomes a crucial part of racking up the kills. Because the Battlefield games reward you with points for helping your teammates, like reviving as a medic or resupplying ammo as a supply class, your teammates actually become just that, teammates.

It beats having a twelve year old with a mouth full of Doritos scream at you for being a noob. Aside from the standard quick slap with the butt of your gun or a knife, melee attacks are usually the under represented aspect of most first person shooters. A few first person shooters of the day have animated their melee kills a bit, like having you slip an opponent over and stab them. Battlefield 1 has, once again, made an example that other first person shooters would be wise to follow.

Players now get a choice of melee weapons—including hatchets, shovels, and clubs—to bludgeon and slice their enemies with. Stealth melee kills will play out in quick animations that are brutal and satisfying, and each weapon has its own strengths and weaknesses, adding a depth not seen in first person shooter melee weapons before. Battlefield 1 also introduced the concept of having a bayonet fixed to the end of your weapon and being able to dash at your enemy in a frenzied charge.

Landing a bayonet charge on an enemy results in a one hit kill, making melee attacks a viable option for the first time, in a long time in modern first person shooters. But with the last couple installments, I found that the Battlefield series has come out ahead.

The eerie quiet of a helicopter cockpit as you and a copilot hover over a control point in conquest, the thundering sprint of an entire unit dashing through the trenches, or the sizzling snap of bullets flying by your head from an unseen sniper; the incredible sound design for every facet of the Battlefield games has always been a standout point in the series. Battlefield 1 is dripping with atmosphere: trenches are soaked, muddy, and filled with wounded soldiers. Tiny, remote villages sit silently, waiting for the first shots of an intense firefight to fly.

Tanks traverse eerily quiet fields; the tension building before the first shell comes sailing from an unseen enemy. Many games of battlefield series was a fail and call of duty is a great success on every single game battlefield only got better because of how well call of duty gameplay performs and battlefield gotten better after that and in my opinion call of duty is the father of FPS.

I love call of duty but not battlefield. First i work for it so call of duty has better guns than battlefield. Call of duty yes battle feild no.

Not battlepee. Ok i dont want to go to school. So buy my games and keep killing and playing and buy all of my games thanks. I prefer Call of Duty and think that is a better game overall. The game play in Call of Duty feels more natural and the graphics are better a well. Call of Duty is better when playing online a well. There are always much more people playing it online than Battlefield. Because for example if. Join mid game battlefield you are likely to be killed by a jet or helicopter if u do not have any experienced players on your team it can be hard if not quite difficult to take down a jet or helicopter.

By this I mean the game is not friendly to new players. With cod being new doesn't make it any harder for you because the default classes can sometimes consist of some of the best weapons in the game for example MW3 game u the ump and the striker as default weapons giving the new players good weapons to start then off. There are many more arguments I could use but most of them have already been said basically battlefield is more realistic while COD is generally more fast paced and more and fun.

For example: 1. They copied Battlefield knife animation 2. They copied the idea of destructible environments 3. They implemented vehicles in the trailer you see a character riding in a heli DICE should not put up with this, as all those feature were in battlefield since My first COD was Black ops.

I loved it, played it almost everyday. I met friends on there who I still talk to 3 years later. I continued to play COD, got a new one every year, not because it was new. I got it because my friends got it, plain and simple. Now 3 years later I have matured more and realized that COD just annoys me now. Host migration, lag, little 10 year olds, etc. I started playing Battlefield and I loved it. The idea of being able to be a jet pilot or a rouge sniper whenever I wanted was awesome.

COD sucks. Oh and reading the COD fanboy arguments on the left made me laugh. Call of Duty is a one-dimensional game. That is to say, the only focus is to kill people. That's it. As such, it's "huge variety of maps" are all tiny, to promote the killing. First of all, Battlefield HAS exactly that kind of gameplay for those who want it, so it's already on an equal standpoint.

There are plenty of small maps in Battlefield 3, as well as an abundance of utterly gigantic maps. Battlefield 3's greatness lies in that there are nearly limitless ways to kill your enemies, and it rewards creativity. Want to stay old-fashioned and kill people with just your guns? Great, go ahead. Want to kill people by loading a vehicle with C4, driving it into the enemy base, jumping out and detonating it, killing everything in a giant fire ball of death?

You can do that. Not only are there a ridiculous number of avenues for taking you enemies down, they're all fairly balanced. A sniper can shoot the pilots out of flying vehicles, an engineer can utterly destroy ground vehicles with RPGs or landmines. Each and every class has it's strengths, but somehow lack many weaknesses.

What does Call of Duty have? We all remember the collapsing skyscraper on Siege of Shanghai in Battlefield 4 that changed the whole map. Or the sandstorms in Battlefield 1 that took away your vision, and made planes virtually unusable. I mean, imagine how all the Warzone campers would howl if you could just flatten their house, or blow it up Call of Duty WW2: Vanguard , how can you possibly stack up to that? According to leaks, Battlefield 6 will be set around the year , in the near future, and will have a Modern Warfare setting.

It might not sound like much now, but honestly what are you up for more? World War 2 for the hundredth time, or a cool Modern Warfare setting? Yeah, us too. Nobody is really up for that. We want awesome weapons that we can customize with attachments and cool gadgets like drones or robot prototypes. We all saw how well CoD: Modern Warfare was received, and how popular it still is. EA seems to have learned from that! Battlefield 6 will get its own independent free-to-play Battle Royale mode.