# Battlefield 3 vs CoD Black Ops 2



## Cyphon (Dec 23, 2012)

Now that I have had a chance to dive into both of these games I just wanted to lay out some thoughts on both. This is my first time really getting into a game from either franchise and I was also curious what the differences were and if one is better than the other.

So.....

*Custimization/RPG elements*

This goes to CoD hands down. Whether you are talking the layout of it or amount of options you have with setting up classes or even getting the challenges completed. With CoD it is an open playbook where everything is an option however you want to set it up. 

In the case of Battlefield there are just 4 set classes limited to what the game applies to each class. Within those classes there are options of course, but only certain options. I personally don't like having those limitations. 

Now what it does mean for both games is that you have to sacrifice some things you may want for others. CoD achieves this by having a limited amount of spaces you can fill in while BF3 obviously makes you choose a specific class.


*Gameplay/Vibe/Etc*

In this category I have to go with BF3 hands down. For this section I will just break down some points I really think elevates this game over CoD.

- The biggest thing that stands out to me are the sounds and overall "vibe" of BF3. It feels like war. Plain and simple. Mortars constantly going off around you, buildings blowing up while you are in them or by them and collapsing on you and killing you and just.....Mayhem. The sounds are crisp and realistic (as far as my knowledge tells me at least) and you really feel apart of what is happening.

On the flip side, CoD is kind of cartoony to me. The guns sound weak and.....Fake, is the only word I can think of. And it doesn't always put you in the hot seat for feeling like you are actually doing battle and all of that. Buildings get some bullet holes in them and stuff but it just isn't the same as a rocket or mortar hitting and seeing half the wall that was protecting you just completely gone. 

- A very obvious point here is the vehicles. BF3 has them, CoD doesn't. That just adds a whole new element of gameplay and fun. As well as strategy of course. Tanks and helicopters....I don't even need to explain what is awesome about having those at your disposal.

To CoD's credit, the Scorestreak thing is a cool idea and the rewards for those are pretty fun and it adds the extra motivation to really do good to get those things. The only negative is that for gamers who aren't that good you will almost never get to enjoy those things. 


*The Rest*

As far as maps go I dunno that I have a preference or would say 1 is better. There are maps I hate and maps I like on both. It just really comes down to the maps you have the most success on. IMO both games could use _more_ maps. It just gets boring playing the same old maps over and over. And I don't mean giving the fans 3 extra maps months after the game comes out. I am talking maybe 10-15 more maps period. Even if some are basically rehashes it would still help keep things fresh.

As far as online experience....Still sort of close I guess. I can't get into this too much because I played each on a different system which could effect my opinion. Played CoD on PS3 and BF3 on 360. I will say CoD has been giving my friend and I a lot of problems. Kicking us out of games due to connection issues, constantly migrating hosts and messing up the flow of the game etc...I dunno if that is something to do with CoD or PS3 online. It also freezes his PS3 fairly frequently. He says it is the only game that does that, so for now I put that on the game. Could be in denial about his PS3 though 

And as far as gameplay modes online....I tend to stick with the same couple of modes on each game so can't say much there either. Although from what I can tell CoD has more options which is always a plus. 

I don't really play campaign either so can't speak on that. 



So what game should you spend your money on if you are only getting one? Well, I think it has more to do with this last point I am going to make then anything I listed above, although the above is still important. 

With CoD you can play by yourself and have the same level of fun as playing with others because you can pretty much do everything on your own and have success. It is a game where going solo is just fine.

In Battlefield you can still kind of do that but it gears itself a lot more towards teamwork. A lot of that comes from the classes and certain options the game offers. For example in BF3 you can run a medic option that puts out medkits to heal and can revive killed teammates. Or you have Engineers who can heal tanks and equipment or Support class that can supply extra ammo or drop points and such. So working together allows for a far greater chance at success.


*My recommendation/Ideas*

While I like both games and continue to play both, I say go with Battlefield 3. I am giving this recommendation on the assumption you will have friends to play with like I do. I just can't tell you to pass up the vibe this game has. It really can be pretty incredible. It just isn't something you get with CoD.

That said, I think ultimately both games need to learn from each other. The ultimate game (IMO) would combine the good from both (see above for details). For example, CoD aiming for more realism and adding vehicles would really boost its value, while Battlefield could really do better on the before/after game elements like custimizing and achievements. 


Well, let me know if I forgot anything or if you have also played both games and agree or disagree with something I have said.


*Edit* This probably would have been better done (as far as timeline goes) being compared to the CoD before this one, but I didn't play that one.


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 23, 2012)

I think its pretty pointless to compare a game like Battlefield to Cod, both are targeting different demographics. Its like comparing Dragonball to something like Ghost in a Shell, you are just arguing why you like one type of game to another.

In my opinion, realism doesn't make a game better and it wouldn't help CoD in the least bit.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 23, 2012)

Xiammes said:


> I think its pretty pointless to compare a game like Battlefield to Cod, both are targeting different demographics.



You may be right. I am basically targeting people like myself who didn't know the difference going in and just saw 2 "war" games. 



> In my opinion, realism doesn't make a game better and it wouldn't help CoD in the least bit.



Can you explain why you don't think it would help?


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 23, 2012)

> You may be right. I am basically targeting people like myself who didn't know the difference going in and just saw 2 "war" games.



I can understand where you are coming from, I still just find it pointless to compare them.




> Can you explain why you don't think it would help?



Call of Duty thrives on its pseudo realism, they are not constrained by the rules of reality and they can make a game play how they want. Call of Duty is arcade shooter, adding realism would only take away the arcade aspect which is easily its strongest trait.

I'd like vehicles in games and wish Cod could implement without detracting whats makes the games Cod. World at War tried adding tanks, but the community only bitched about them because they were over powered.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 23, 2012)

Xiammes said:


> Call of Duty thrives on its pseudo realism, they are not constrained by the rules of reality and they can make a game play how they want. Call of Duty is arcade shooter, adding realism would only take away the arcade aspect which is easily its strongest trait.



Maybe I didn't explain what I meant by "realism" enough. In BF3 you can get shot 30 times in the head and be revived consistently by a pair of defibulators. That is far from realistic. What I mean are the sounds of the game as well as the the collateral damage moreso than anything. Walls that actually break and chip and collapse and a major improvement in the sound department wouldn't hurt IMO.

As for the vehicles.....There is a balance that needs to be found. They should be very powerful because they are, but they should also be "easily" defeatable by good tactics and class choices.


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 23, 2012)

> Maybe I didn't explain what I meant by "realism" enough. In BF3 you can get shot 30 times in the head and be revived consistently by a pair of defibulators. That is far from realistic. What I mean are the sounds of the game as well as the the collateral damage moreso than anything. Walls that actually break and chip and collapse and a major improvement in the sound department wouldn't hurt IMO.



Call of Duty has a long way to go in the sound deparment, destructible environments wouldn't be a good thing. Call of Duty Maps are made small so they are faster paced, destructible environments just wouldn't work.



> As for the vehicles.....There is a balance that needs to be found. They should be very powerful because they are, but they should also be "easily" defeatable by good tactics and class choices.



Thats how the World at War tanks were, but you had to sacrifice a class just to deal with them. They only work on bigger maps, the biggest maps in the games are small compared to any BF map. Its nearly impossible to add vehicles in Call of Duty without detracting on why people like it.

People don't play Call of Duty as a Battlefield substitute, they play it because its Call of Duty. A arcade shooter, thats mildly fast paced and rewards for players for doing good.


----------



## wes (Dec 23, 2012)

As a person who played both BF and CoD from the start of the series i have to say that both games do not even come close to each other the only real concrete similarity is that it has guns, in the past CoD 1 was better then BF1942 which felt somewhat cartoonish then came CoD2 and BF2 which i think were equally matched now we are up to third generation of CoD (Modern Warfare and Black Ops) and BF3 and after playing each and every MW and BO i have to give this round to BF3 without a doubt.

CoD keeps using the same outdated engine and keeps making the maps smaller and smaller and the guns easier to use with each installment making it feel like a new Quake which is what personally turns me off immensely since i do not want some crazy super fast paced arcade shooter with a enemy at every corner, CoD 1,2,MW and MW2 were more tactical and more open where you still had high pace but not to the extremes you got after the MW2 series which is where it went downhill for me.

BF3 for me is more complete the fighting is more realistic the guns actually feel like guns with each there own character and the fighting is pure chaos on some maps and its not a quick 10 minute round as on CoD but it can be anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours of heart pounding adrenaline rushing full out war, it gives me far more satisfaction and makes it feel like your hard work pays off.

I try to make a neutral post but i cannot do it because even though i played both games extensively for me this generation BF3 outclasses CoD in every aspect i could make a page length post saying how for me personally CoD is just far worse compared to BF3 but such a thing would just start another FPS war so i will just add everything in a list of good and bad sides of each game.

BF3 +

tactical
long game rounds
more satisfaction
more realistic 
guns have there own identity
vehicles add a whole new dimension and add to the overall vibe
more dynamic 
destructable buildings which can be used as weapon by making the rubble fall on enemies
better sounds
C4 
quickscoping & shotty whores are rendered near useless in BF3
amount of guns in the game

BF3 - 

certain vehicle maps are to big for console versions 
autobalance could be improved to even out teams often do you see one far stronger side playing against a weaker side
a few extra game modes wouldnt hurt (CoD's Search and Destroy)


CoD +

easier learning curve
good for if you want a quick round

CoD - 

guns feel weird
maps to small
shotty whoring
quick scoping
drop shots
headglitching

Yer not easy for me to make a neutral post


----------



## Mael (Dec 23, 2012)

I'd aim for Battlefield 3 simply because Call of Duty is the Tom Clancy of shooters and complete shit if not for MP.

Spec Ops The Line has a story that would give both a Glasgow smile but yeah...I guess for gameplay go for BF.


----------



## Grape (Dec 23, 2012)

I want tanks on Hijacked 


Also, BF3 and COD, realistic? Maybe you should try Urban Terror


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 23, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> I want tanks on Hijacked





That would be a sight to see.


----------



## Axl Low (Dec 23, 2012)

screw both of them and get a real real game: Viva Pi--
Spec Ops: The Line


----------



## "Shion" (Dec 23, 2012)

Your mom's ass, vs my dick.


----------



## Lulu (Dec 24, 2012)

I like cod better. I have no way to go multi player here so its best i stick to cod,which favors single player or playing with friends more on split screen more.


----------



## "Shion" (Dec 24, 2012)

Aren't they both practically the same shit?


----------



## Beasting97 (Dec 24, 2012)

I personally like Cod better. More people are on Cod meaning that I have more friends that play it than Battlefield. I like how fast paced Cod is even though it can get frustrating at times. In some Battlefield maps/gamemodes, I feel like I get killed by a vehicle or a camping sniper before I can even get to an objective. I've had Cod (BO,MW3,BO2) and Battlefield 3 for over a year now and I like both,but I would prefer Cod.


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 24, 2012)

"Shion" said:


> Aren't they both practically the same shit?



Other then they are First Person Shooters, they aren't alike at all.

Its like comparing Mario to Sonic, both are platforming games but the games are very different.


----------

