Okay, first off I need to preface this article with the fact that one of my most favorite FPS games ever in the history of FPS is Battlefield: Bad Company 2. There are many reasons behind this and I will probably touch on them in a bit. So yes I will be incredibly biased here but I am going to try to be fair as well.
Call of Duty is killing the first person genre. I know it is one of the best selling game franchises of all time, I’ve played them all as well. Something that I noticed after CoD: Classic, the gameplay has barely changed over the years. There have been a few new things on occasion but it seems so minimal.
So why do I think the franchise is holding back the genre? CoD has become almost everything I dislike about FPS games in multiplayer. In order to explain this I’ll draw comparison to BFBC2.
- CoD’s gameplay is extremely geared for single play, you may play with teammates but really all people do is try to raise their killstreaks. Absolutely no focus on the team environment.
- The killstreaks themselves are another thorn that is becoming popular in FPS games. Why players are given special advantage setting perks for doing amazing is beyond me. The balance is completely thrown off and almost negates the chances of a freak comeback by the opposing team.
- Thrown weapons: These little cheap one hit kill weapons are extremely ridiculous. A knife to the foot means instant death and on some maps, the first thing players do is lob knives or tomahawks at the enemy spawn point. There really isn’t too much skill there.
- Maps are all set up in arena-like areas, everything feels so staged when playing the other team. Holding certain choke points will allow an easy victory in a fight simple due to location.
Now, for arguments sake, let’s take a look at why Battlefield does better in these situations.
- BFBC2 is extremely geared towards team based combat. Every character gets to choose a corresponding class and each class offers offensive and support based abilities for the rest of the team. As a collector of Gold Squad pins, I know a couple things about the value of a strong team. All match types are centered around the team pulling together to achieve 1 of 3 separate goals. No Rambos here.
- Where BFBC2 lacks perks, it offers vehicles instead. While a vehicle can change the tide of combat, there are also specific ways to deal with these threats. My normal squad always carries a tracer dart gun for their sidearm. That alone has gotten us out of a few sticky situations. You aren’t rewarded with anything for going an extended period of time without dying while killing opponents, it just means you are a badass and have a good team.
- Tools impact battle quite a bit too, defibs, C4 and RPGs bolster a solid equipment loadout. Allowing you to specialize your gear for the right situation, plus we can’t forget mortar strikes.
- Choke points still exist, however the ability to literally carve a path through buildings and structures can combat some of the mess that those can get you in. Maps are expansive, with many different routes to goals.
BFBC2 is the complete opposite on many points but the point I will keep hammering home is that a multiplayer FPS game is and should always be about teamwork. The whole point of solo combat should be reserved for free for alls and single player combat, which CoD is better at.
Now, both franchises will be releasing their next installment of their games next November and for most, a line in the proverbial sand will need to be drawn. I’ll be waiting to play Battlefield 3 but when you get down to it, I’ll be getting Modern Warfare 3 as well. When I feel like playing a game with skill, Battlefield will always be there for me. :)
So you’re one of them…? The people that complain about how CoD is ruining gaming yet still eat Activision’s refurbished poop? And you think you have the right to tell us what we already know, while supporting the enemy? I am disappointed. >:(
I don’t quite understand what you are saying. Please elaborate.
True gamers play and love both. I prefer The battlefield series over the bad company series. BF2 spanks bad company 2. BF2 is the best FPS ever!
In your article you keep saying COD. COD isn’t a game its a franchise. Which COD game are you referring to? MW2 is different than Black Ops.
Yeah COD games aren’t squad based. The game is set up like that by design. You like squad-based games? Fine BF BC2 is the thing for you. Team Deathmatch in COD is called TEAM deathmatch not SQUAD deathmatch. We’re all “Rambos” but we support each other with killstreaks like Spy Splane/Counter Spy Plane…etc. Killstreaks reward players who are on a kill streak. Perks allow you do customize your class to your playstyle. You wanna camp? Get the Ghost perk and put a silencer on your weapon.
People like COD games better than the Battefield games. The sales are proof of this. Sure people will call MW3 “Modern Warfare 2.5″ but is that a bad thing? No. If its not broken then don’t fix it. COD games have a formula that makes it fun and addicting. Each new release improves upon this formula. Of course they are minor improvements. COD pros will notice these things. You BF people might call it more of the same but we call it evolution. Evolution happens slowly.
Well said…so true…
CoD sucks. BF3 ftw!!!
This guy’s an Idiot!
So is this guy.
Here’s the thing. Some people like CoD; it suits their interests. Good for them. However, if one were to argue that videogames are more than toys; that they are a virtual sport or an art, then one cannot continue to support games like CoD that saturate a genre by doing nothing more than hyping it up with flawed fundamentals.
The BF franchise succeeds because it creates an environment where one cannot only have a great time, but actually treat their play time like a sport and develop skill and team work. Above all else, you can have a great time playing on your own in either game, though in BF you will always do significantly better if you are capable of working with others; synchronizing your abilities and getting the most out of everything within the game.
Thus, the Battlefield franchise is showing its true potential and I think, in my own opinion, that it will continue to work off these strengths and become a much greater platform.
Ok, I am indifferent on the matter. I am a COD player, but I am preordering BF3 because I know it will be a great game. I plan on playing both. However, your argument is flawed because if you are trying to think of either of these as a “sport”, think of how sports work. Rules and gameplay do not change much over time. Baseball is the same now as it was 100 years ago. Minor changes each season force teams to make adjustments, but in order to think of your favorite franchise as an “E-sport” (as Starcraft is often referred to as), gameplay cannot change drastically between iterations. As far as team play goes, try Hardcore Search and Destroy in COD. Completely different experience than what the average gamer is used to. Reminds me of Counter-Strike. More strategy than your mind has room for. The reason COD is so successful is because they have many different gametypes that both keep things fresh and cater to both the hardcore, casual, and annoying noob gamer.
You are right in saying that Battlefields multiplayer is geared more towards Team Play than Call of Duty as that has always been Battlefields design for multiplayer. However, that doesn’t automatically make it a superior multiplayer game, because ‘superior’ would imply that it’s better at all aspects of multiplayer and you yourself admit that Call of Duty is better at Deathmatch.
-1
Call of Duty has a feature (of which I’m sure you’re aware) called ‘Create a Class’. The purpose of this is to allow players to put together a custom class as opposed to being forced to pick a pre set. When playing with a team or clan, players will often play designated roles in a battle i.e, sniper, infiltrator, etc. using custom made classes that they can call their own and they can tweak and tweak until they feel completely comfortable.
-1
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of Killstreak Rewards. It adds a sense of pace and constant progression. I personally feel that many rewards are a bit rediculous, I mean, Tactical Nukes… REALLY? I feel that, when done right, Killstreak Rewards can really add to the multiplayer. However, your point that Killstreak Rewards negate the opportunity for the opposing team to make a freak comeback is just confusing. The whole point of KSR is that it allows a player who is skilled enough an opportunity for a comeback.
-1
I personally do agree that Call of Duty could better the structure of it’s team based multiplayer modes, but I won’t hold my breath.
I also feel that great ideas like perks and custom classes are just brought down by silly implementations like ‘Sleight of Hand Pro’ and ‘Martyrdom’.
“Maps are all set up in arena-like areas, everything feels so staged when playing the other team. Holding certain choke points will allow an easy victory in a fight simple due to location.”
Stopped reading there. Do you have any idea about how competitive gaming works? The whole point is holding choke points to do the objective to secure a win. And if you actually played Cod, you’d know that a team needs a lot of coordination to be in specific positions to force the spawn to a specific area, while in BF people spawn in the same spot everytime. What’s easier to camp? a static spawn point, or a dynamic spawn with multiple spawn areas? I DESPISE what CoD has done to the FPS genre and gaming in general, but don’t attack one of the few things the game does right just because you dislike it.
I used that example to draw a comparison to the destructive environments of BF2. True, we’ve held down a choke point to perfection in BF2 but it’s not a necessary checkmate if our opponents utilize their environment
I believe it is important to distinguish the different Call of Duty games from each other. Over the last couple of weeks I have played both Black Ops and Modern Warfare 2 a lot. I have a strong feeling that the MW2 mutliplayer is smoother than the Black Ops multiplayer.
The last is some of what I like best about MW2. The multiplayer feels very dynamic. It can also be extremely intense and action packed. I feel that Bad Company 2 does not quite have the same gameplay intensity.
In my opinion, Bad Company 2 wins over MW2 when it comes to teamwork. The squad feature is nearly brilliant when used correctly. And I’m pretty sure the BC2 multiplayer is the preferred first choice for tactical gamers.
I do not know for sure. But I’m quite certain that the strengths of MW2 and BC2 will be continued in Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. And I will not be surprised if the developers have “borrowed” ideas from each other to get gamers to switch sides.
I’m confident this fall will bring us the two best mutltiplayer games so far in the history of first person shooters. The two games will be similar in some areas. But they will also be very different. Finally, it is the players’ preferences that determine who wins.
I believe Modern Warfare 3 will sell more than BF3. But I sincerely hope that Battlefield 3 does not fall far behind. We, the gaming community, need at least two strong developers that compete to make the best game. Ideally, there should be a third name in the cross console competition too. But neither Homefront, Crysis or Medal of Honor is there yet …
Well said! I think you have just given us a reason to add a thumbs up and down feature.
Done :)
I agree that BF:BC2 is designed to be team-based and COD is not. However, I’m sure everyone has been absolutely humiliated by a clan in COD. I think that if even 3 people on a team work together in COD they will dominate. The way I see it is that BF requires teamwork, but in COD teamwork is optional but is a surefire bet to dominate. Most of the time all COD matches turn out to be a free for all where you just aren’t able to kill half the people [your team].
Cod is completely unrealistic!!! It is ridiculous. Battlefield is life-like and breathtaking. It is the best game ever!
The CoD franchise is great Agentxk, and I’ll tell you why: All CoDs are fully capable of keeping your average violent ADHD dork-child who thinks that every letter of “TEAM” is “I” at bay, while the people who enjoy ACTUAL polished simulated warfare and cooperation will flock to bigger, better games (Like the Battlefield franchise, for example [Deal with it]). This is a beautiful system that keeps those said dork-children out of our team/objective based games and help the community run better and more smoothly for all players. ALL HAIL ACTIVISION, THE PATRON SAINT OF THE VIDEO GAME COMMUNITY!
Now, let me get back to punching pizza into my face.
“Thrown weapons: These little cheap one hit kill weapons are extremely ridiculous. A knife to the foot means instant death and on some maps, the first thing players do is lob knives or tomahawks at the enemy spawn point. There really isn’t too much skill there.”
Someone can’t throw tomahawks, lol
anyway i will agree to dissagree with you, mainly because the games are geared differently. Cod focuses on single player perspective, while BF geared towards forcing you to work with your team. Personally i like COD better because one horrible teammate won’t ruin the fight
The thing that bugs me about CoD is how much it hasn’t changed. The gameplay is the same, the graphics are the same. All they have done is add things like, the ability to make your gun gold and have pink face paint. Yeh, that would be helpful in a war situation. Walking around like a clown with a bright gold gun. I mean come on, is having the ability to change the colour of a recticle really that amazing?
I read a comment saying “It’s called evolution, it takes time”. What a load of rubbish. Most games I am aware of change each time they release a sequal.
With Battlefield, I just go online and go straight into a game. I can’t be arsed with making a logo for my gun, having funny face paint and making my gun ‘unique’ with daft colours and pink recticles.
Oh, and hiding in a small shed protects you from an AC-130 does it?
I think Battlefield is for people who have skill and patience and CoD is for people who just want to jump into a game and get loads of kills.
I just prefer Battlefield over all. I have owned and played all CoD games, and got bored with them all. I know people will ‘dislike’ this comment. But they are welcome to. It’s my opinion, don’t get all arsey about it.