I thought it might be a good idea to do this for my first review back from my week of summer camp in Norwich mainly because I've always taken quite an interest in the differences and heated competition between these two legendarily popular 1st person shooter series'.
On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes. On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome. This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry. What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'. Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell. It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything. Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.
Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright. I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara). After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare. This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series. The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.
Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games. On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem. I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around. I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.
The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience. The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games. I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics. Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types. As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety. I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.
I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips. This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience. In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself. This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.
So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting. Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back
No comments:
Post a Comment