Objectively, what makes BF better than COD?

I usually play a little bit of both, enjoy both in their own ways.....nevertheless the general consensus here is that BF is just way better than COD. The only thing I can think of though is BF is more "sim" than COD. ANythign else?

@uninspiredcup said:

@ps4hasnogames said:

The only thing I can think of though is BF is more "sim" than COD. ANythign else?

you're pathetic.

Vehicles.

Crazy random stuff that can happen during a Battlefield match.

The first Battlefield game had awesome vehicles, the first COD game didn't.

Graphics and destruction. And vehicles, but COD doesn't really need vehicles, that's for Battlefield.

Battlefield

Yes TC, BF is very sim. Very sim like indeed

Both originated on PC but Battlefield has its roots in the multiplayer while CoD was more campaign based originally. BF was always more hardcore than CoD in the early days and that still might carry over to today. dun kno.

I like the larger battlefield of Battlefield myself. I like the squad dynamic vs COD's lone wolf aspect, and the larger amount of players supported in BF over COD. I also like the various vehicles and player classes. I'm also a fan of destructible environments, and the course of the battle drastically altering the landscape to make new shortcuts and blow up defensive cover. And defense has great opportunity to set up ambushes or maybe sneak behind enemy lines to hijack vehicles... good stuff. Squads are useful in spawning squad members further up the battlefield and plays more into creating where the front line of the fight is.

I've never been a fan of the Conquest modes though, where you just control points and the number of points effects the point loss when someone dies. I much more enjoy Rush mode, the offensive/defensive objective style matches where each team takes turns on offense/defense on each map until the offense's spawn points deplete or the defenses defense point is overtaken making them fall back to the next objective.

If I were to pick between Advanced Warfare or the latest two entries in the Battlefield series, I'd definitely go with AW. Battlefield is chaos, but it's not "fun" chaos anymore.

Sound design; almost everyone agrees that sound BF series far better than COD

Who cares which one is better. CoD has sucked since MW3 and BF has sucked since BF3.

EDIT: Also, Battlefield is sim, lolwut?

And Grey Matter (former Treyarch) came and added vehicles to United Offensive, which was awesome, and then Infinity Ward came back and said "nope!" and all went back to shit.

Even UO was nothing compared to the crazy mayhem of BF1942 tho.

more sim than cod.

I don't like the multiplayer in either....so I'll discuss the single player.

As for BF3 and 4.....they sucked. COD isn't far behind.

As for BC2...the characters were interesting....there was comedy.....and since buildings can be destroyed....sitting behind cover when a tank is shooting at you and your cover is blown to bits and you have to flank numerous times....is exciting.

COD single player is not.

Why they don't make another BC2 game is beyond me.

Call of Duty tried to do Battlefield better than Battlefield in Call of Duty: United Offensive.

It couldn't.

Destruction, Big Maps, 64 player multiplayer, Awesome vehicles etc. are some of the reasons I liked BF3. Didn't try the later ones though. As for COD my last multiplayer experience was MW which was awesome but BF3 was superior in every aspects.

vehicles, size of the map, 32+ players, destruction are pretty much my main reasons.

I kind of wish they had some sort of killstreaks in BF. Or a reward for kicking ass.

there are way too many players for this kind of useless mechanics. imagine 64 players getting killstreaks, it wouldn't make sense.

In my opinion it's better balanced and more realistic. It has better multiplayer by having bigger maps, tanks, airplanes, choopers, vehicles, destruction, etc

Neither game is remotely like a sim.

In a broad sense, Battlefield is about playing a role and that role may be not attacking the first thing you see. If you see a tank you wait for an engineer etc And this comes back to a more distinct set of roles than call of duty's freeform selection.

Cally of Duty has this to an extent with kill streaks, but it isn't as integrated into the game.

There are other aspects of Battlefield that include bigger conflict areas, broad skill range for driving and killing various vehicles. Battlefield is often about small conflicts in large areas, so you might spend 5 minutes fighting over a building from one side of the map while most players are oblivious to your peril. Your squad experiences a much different game than other members of your team

Network code (BF has better lag compensation), less mindless at times, server browser (less hacking, pick your map rotation, join community servers, better connection speeds, etc.), better balanced.

So some people would say who cares about that if things happen that you are unaware of? Aside from that feeling of a larger conflict, what I really like about this is that you can join a different fight. If the one you are in is hopeless or going well without you, you can go somewhere else. You have a way out, without giving up on the whole match.

Scale, player count, pacing, destruction, vehicles, gameplay, graphics, sound, etc

Basicaly everything but the singleplayer campaigns.

I find Battlefield deeper with more variety. BF4 went a bit dumb with the hundreds (maybe thousands) of unlocks and BF3 and launch BF4 suffered from some big netcode issues, but generally there is way more depth there.

Battlefield operates on the principle that you're playing a specific role. The weapons and equipment are tailored to that role (though with the shared weapons of BF4 the classes all overlapped more than they should have). This means you aren't the jack of all trades. The inclusion of vehicles and aircraft in the maps absolutely require different roles to be played with these tailored loadouts. The ability to revive teammates also adds a large amount of depth to the infantry play and expands the amount of necessary roles.

All of this provides for a much more dynamic experience than CoD. Map sizes vary depending on the maps and that further changes the relevant roles and loadouts for the current match that you're playing. A more infantry focused map will see shorter range weapons, less emphasis on vehicle killing classes, more anti infantry weaponry, and more medics and heavy weapon guys. A large map with more vehicles is going to shift the meta from infantry killing to controlling and destroying vehicles and feature more engineers and snipers. The game modes also greatly change up which roles and load outs are going to be effective. Furthemore the larger team sizes means the variety of playstyles, teamwork, and skills both teams bring to the fight are going to have a much larger impact in how the game plays out. In short, even if you play the same game mode and map over and over, each match takes on its own personality and stays unique.

It's this depth that CoD really lacks. This variety also brings in it a larger amount of randomness to the fight. The matches are much more chaotic and you'll find yourself getting gunned down from random angles or hit by seemingly random explosions constantly. This can be frustrating for somebody who really likes a tight and controlled environment.

CoD is that tight and controlled environment. The gameplay itself is far less broad and more shallow but the emphasis is much different. However since CoD 4, the game has increasingly reduced its skill ceiling by implementing weapons, perks, and killstreaks that artificially balance the playing field. Good players are still going to have the advantage of course, but their advantage can be taken away by just the right set of perks, weapons, and killstreaks.

That said I still enjoy CoD from time to time. It's quite a different shooter than Battlefield in every single regard. While the shooting in Battlefield has become far more refined and there has been a larger emphasis on personal skill in recent BF titles, the core of the games are still very different. People who dismiss Battlefield for just being a reskinned CoD are ignorant of the subject matter and have a worthless opinion because of that.

what does any of that have to do with the topic?

wtf are you talking about lol. any xbox has better framerate, the only thing that matters in an FPS. X1 is the best selling xbox console so you are wrong. now get back in your hole.

This pretty much sums it up ...

you fucked up...you said objectively....no such thing

Gameplay scope. Battlefield is a sprawling conflict over a large expanse with numerous approaches and options toward victory. CoD, prior to AW, was largely defined by rat-maze maps where whoever saw their opponent first would usually score a kill, followed by an immediate respawn and rinse repeat for 10-15 mins.

FOV is far more important son. I'll take >120 fov over high fps every time.

Of course, on PC, you can have both.