Why Battlefield > Call of Duty

Sorry this will be a very biased post

I believe that the average Battlefield player has alot more skill in them compared to a CoD player, Battlefield completley revolves around tactics and strategic thought, you need to pick the right class and, sometimes (But rarely) the right gun, CoD its almost all on your gun, which cannot be changed mid-game!!

Call of Duty does have one thing though, a players reactions are trained due to the nature of the game, it is extremley fast paced and only the ones with fast reactions will win, whereas with Battlefield games are extremley realistic, making teamwork necessary to win (And of course tactics in the team is important)

CoD is better i believe just saying.

lol you have no argument backing your point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8PQXPOkCc

This game wins overall XD

I like CoD better. Better guns, idk i just like it better lol. I believe more people play it. Also hades... in real life, are you going to be able to switch between like 5 guns in the middle of a battlefield? I dont think so......

Realistically would you be able to actually win a battle fighting alone? Because thats what you do in CoD, Battlefield you play with teamwork to capture objectives, oh, and destroying buildings is a big win

The chances are the Special forces you see in CoD would never fight face to face, the country would deem that too much of a risk to send them against their equals, they would use their more expendable average soldiers, it would never be SAS vs Spetsnaz, it would be the British Army vs Spetsnaz, then again most battles dont use the special forces, they use the average soldier, which is what you use in battlefield

and btw alot of the guns in CoD have been stolen from Battlefield, but if battlefield steals one gun from Cod then it gets deemed a "CoD clone" as you can see all over the internet

DICE have found some lesser known weapons though, such as the AEK101 and the AN94, both used by the Russian army as a replacement for the AK47, then you have the Chinese weapons, which surpass alot of the weapons you see in CoD in stats, and the M416, which is a variant of the M4 you see in CoD, also the M95 is not very well known, the MP115 Grach pistol is not known well, nor the M9-3 burst fire pistol

Ah hades ur first statement is invalid.
CoD has many team games (Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, War, Domination, Ground War, Sabatage, Mercenary Team Deathmatch)
The only one that is without teams is Free-For-All

That is true but to win you dont work as a team as such, you can win, as most players I have encountered, by working alone, very rarely do you see players working together, whereas in bad company it is necessary!

You are correct in some ways.
For example in Team Deathmatch, Mercenary TDM, and Free For All, we dont
But in the others it is 100% necessary to win

Really?

Ground war, capture the flag and Domination it never happens in, sometimes even search and destroy (Although team work seems to fail at that... I always win as lone wolf)

The only mode I genuinly see teamwork used is team tactical!

in Bad Company it is very different, everything is set on lives (Well victory conditions)

In Squad Deathmatch you can cancel an enemies kill by reviving your player (But he gets the XP regardless, it doesnt count towards the points to win in that match)

obviously u play CoD with a bunch of noobs lol jkjk

lol

I still stand by my opinion

These sorts of discussions are really interesting, but in my honest opinion, the two are incomparable.

For starters, CoD is an arcade shooter; that is, it's not aiming for much realism, compared to Battlefield at least. In my eyes, it means they're both in separate classes of their own. However, in terms of judging which one is best due to entertainment value, I think Call of Duty wins this in my opinion. It's much more accessible and easy to pick up and play compared to Battlefield, and there's a fairly low learning curve making it easy for most people to play. It's because of this, which I why I think it's a much more social game. If I have some mates over, we'll be able to do split-screen easily; multiplayer or zombies. Having to worry about complex rules, tactics and gameplay mechanics means that Battlefield can be quite an intimidating game to approach for some, whereas CoD is more user friendly.

Mish mash of opinions - hopefully with some coherence behind them, but clearly, I believe CoD>Battlefield in terms of enjoyment. Comparing the gameplay soley, is silly

Ah but Bad Company 2 has onslaught which is more challenging than Zombies

Zombies sounds cooler - onslaught? Average sounding

One odd thing with Bad company 2 is that Noobs shouldn't always start with normal modes, in my opinion I actually think playing Hardcore is actually better for the noob, it makes all their weapons as good as the weapons that come later (UNLIKE CoD, where if you have someone a higher rank you know your stuffed!) Although the weapons are all pretty balanced anyway (Big balance update came recently, plus the addition of 3D gameplay to PS3) Each weapon has its own use, and weapons that can counter it, but Assault rifles will always lose to Battle Rifles and Snipers at long range, they will lose to Shotguns (With 12g slugs) at medium range and lose to submachine guns and shotguns at short range, Light machine guns will always beat Assault rifles if the user isnt moving (LMGs are alot more accurate if used standing, the F2000 is an assault rifle for on the move and the rest are also better for standing still... but they have their uses on the move, like submachine guns)

Short range Long Range
Shotgun > SMG > SG 12g > Assault Rifle < LMG (Standing) < Battle Rifles < Sniper Rifles

It is all clear and the Assault rifle can win at all ranges, it isnt specifically used for any range and you can beat an enemy with the element of surprise (Well... not so much in the 12v12 matches) However, if you read my signature... you can see my awesome stats... saying that my knife is my best weapon

Isn't the knife/melee always considered nooby in most shooters?

UNLIKE CoD, where if you have someone a higher rank you know your stuffed

I remember playing MW2 as a non prestige level 20-30something. Managed to get a K/D of 3+ in most games :-)

You sir are a paradox!

and btw with the knife when I get the chance I take it... alot of players share the tactics of sneaking round behind them, eliminating the base guard and then end up getting owned from two sides, just they shoot, I stab

They made TF2 free to play a long time ago.

Why you argueing about CoD vs BF?

I don't get it?

Seriously I don't, I thought decent AoM players had some class?

LOL @ this topic

Rofl necro post much?

Anyway, I still stand by that, but I read my old knife post, note that you can stop knife attacks, CoD its faster than bullets but its not in BF3.

You can change your gun mid game in CoD, you just have to die for it to switch over...

HoRH The DwarfMaster wrote:You can change your gun mid game in CoD, you just have to die for it to switch over...

In Battlefield you dont assign classes, everything is changable in game, from attachments and guns to specialisations and camos.