Battlefield vs Call of Duty

[terminator363]

Answer is simple, this includes the series Battlefield and Call of Duty.

 

[The Bman]

Battlefield.

It's dedicated to teamwork.

 

[terminator363]

Battlefield.

It's dedicated to teamwork.

👍

 

[Ibonibo]

Battlefield.

It's requires tactics.

In all honesty, the ongoing battle is good. They will push one another to get better.
But BF had always been my favorite.
I enjoyed Mw2 MP until i was spammed with glitchers and hackers ( 1-2 weeks)
Never came back to MW2 (and it requires Steam, which i don't like (making friends )) or the COD series.

I am still playing BFBC2, and it's a year old now.
BF3 can't be there soon enough.

 

[Pako]

Multiplayer:
Although they both have their strong suits and have many fond memories from both series over the years, I would have to say that I feel more like a real person that is immersed in the battle field when I play, Battlefield. COD is fun, don't get me wrong, but it's all about spawn, sprint, shoot, die, spawn, sprint, shoot die. I do remember doing a lot of that and loving it in Modern Warfare, however. I spent hours, days, months on that game. I do love getting online with my mates, getting on our teamspeak server, and coordinate strategies in Battlefield. You just can't get that kind of squad based interaction with COD. COD moves way to fast and the maps are just too small.

Single Player Campaign:
I will say, I have enjoyed the single player campaigns of the COD series better however.

So, BF gets my vote for multi-player, COD gets my vote for single player. If I consider replay value, BF wins.

 

[DMC_S2000]

Battlefield emphasizes teamwork and really puts you in "battlefield"...large maps, tanks, helicopters, vehicles...

Call of Duty is nothing but a Counter Strike HD on where players are scrambled all over the map killing each other...

oh, Battlefield got good recoil on guns unlike call of duty on where it seems you're using a character with huge muscular shoulders and arms on where it can withstand any of the gun's recoil and thats why you can kill so easily in call of duty games

 

[ShylockHolmes]

CoD because BF controls don't feel smooth.

 

[Pako]

CoD because BF controls don't feel smooth.

What do you mean by smooth? Game play? Moving around the map?

I do have to agree with you that COD does feel smoother. It has always been a smooth running game. No destructible elements, smaller maps, smaller player count. It should run smoother. COD as of late is more of an arcade style of game play and less sim. COD is even smooth when you run, it reminds me of Unreal Tournament, everyone just glides around the map. BF leans more towards the sim based style of game play. It's rough, to crank up the quality and still get some decent frames, you need a decent machine to maintain the holy grail of 60+ FPS.

This is another one of threads where it's not about which game is better as they are both different, but it really should be a poll about video game style preferences. Do you like arcade, fast pasted, solo running game play, or do you like large strategic objectives, running a variety of vehicles, and enjoy more team based interaction with more realistic environments and physics?

 

[ShylockHolmes]

What do you mean by smooth? Game play? Moving around the map?

The aiming is not smooth like CoD, Halo, Crysis. It's more similar to Far Cry 2 or Killzone 2 aiming which really sucks.

 

[Bigbazz]

I played COD MW2 for a bit and it always seemed like a modern adaptation (but not as good) as Counterstrike. After getting bored i saw Battlefield BC 2 on sale on steam gave it a try and i really got on well with it. Single player wise i thought it was far more enjoyable and tactical.

Then it came to multiplayer and it amazed me, properly well integrated vehicles with massive maps, real teamwork and it generally felt more like being in a battlefield with things blowing up and buildings falling down, much more dynamic.

So i have to say, Battlefield is a clear winner for me.

 

[Pako]

The aiming is not smooth like CoD, Halo, Crysis. It's more similar to Far Cry 2 or Killzone 2 aiming which really sucks.

Ahhh.... I haven't played it on the console, only PC.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

Ahhh.... I haven't played it on the console, only PC.

Far Cry 2 controls aren't smooth on the PC either, but I never tried BF on PC after feeling the controls on the 360 demo. I don't know why they don't smooth them out, I had no problems with the BF 1943 controls. CoD runs at 60FPS even on the 360. I've yet to see any FPS that could be termed a "sim". If you want sim you have to go outside and play Airsoft!

 

[Bigbazz]

I thought Far Cry 2 on the pc was smooth, never had any issues with it personally. Could it be down to your mouse? Makes a big difference.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

I thought Far Cry 2 on the pc was smooth, never had any issues with it personally. Could it be down to your mouse? Makes a big difference.

Definitely not my mouse, BOTH the mouse and 360 controller are not smooth in FC2 PC version, but are like butter in Crysis. By smooth I don't mean framerate, I mean "input lag" when aiming.

 

[Bigbazz]

Definitely not my mouse, BOTH the mouse and 360 controller are not smooth in FC2 PC version, but are like butter in Crysis. By smooth I don't mean framerate, I mean "input lag" when aiming.

You turned off V-sync? it is well known to cause input lag or atleast a delayed response in what you see? What i mean is a mouse may work well in 1 game and not in another.

I have a Razer Naga (an MMO mouse essencially) and i found Farcry 2 to be perfectly fine with it, did not have any input lag issues or lack of smoothness with the aiming. Feels no different than Crysis, Crysis 2, COD MW2, BF BC2 etc in terms of quality, though they all feel slightly different.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

You turned off V-sync? it is well known to cause input lag or atleast a delayed response in what you see? What i mean is a mouse may work well in 1 game and not in another.

I have a Razer Naga (an MMO mouse essencially) and i found Farcry 2 to be perfectly fine with it, did not have any input lag issues or lack of smoothness with the aiming. Feels no different than Crysis, Crysis 2, COD MW2, BF BC2 etc in terms of quality, though they all feel slightly different.

It has nothing to do with any of that, it's how the controls were coded. Maybe you didn't notice a difference, but you also posted in another thread that your eyes only can see around 24fps whereas I have 20/10 vision and notice it immediately.

I remember the guys saying KZ2's controls where fine too, lol. If you think FC2 controls feel like CoD or Crysis I'd have to say I don't believe you because I have those games right here and if they did I wouldn't have stopped playing FC2 because of it.

 

[Bigbazz]

It has nothing to do with any of that, it's how the controls were coded. Maybe you didn't notice a difference, but you also posted in another thread that your eyes only can see around 24fps whereas I have 20/10 vision and notice it immediately.

I remember the guys saying KZ2's controls where fine too, lol. If you think FC2 controls feel like CoD or Crysis I'd have to say I don't believe you because I have those games right here and if they did I wouldn't have stopped playing FC2 because of it.

Firstly you're twisting my words, i said that our eyes cannot detect a massive difference between a smooth 30-60fps and that most of the slowness we see is based on the frames dropping far below that causing an average of 30fps rather than steady. A Steady and smooth 30fps is infact fairly smooth and there is only a small difference in the jump to a smooth 60fps.

Secondly, i said that films and movies run at 24fps (not all, but a lot does) and that is near the limit (Near) where our eyes can tell a difference. That is completely different to saying that "my" eyes can "only" see 24fps. Being "near the point of telling the difference" is different to "can only see"

Lets not mince words.


Next up, the mouse makes a big difference and in some games some mice don't work as well, believe it or not. Lastly, you did not take notice of the point about V-sync which as i've stated before causes input delay, or rather more accurate it causes an output delay.

I'm one of the first to moan about input lag in Shift 2, but Farcry 2 does not have that issue, i'm sorry but it just doesnt.


Mouse DPI is a good example here too, how games work with different mice.

Example of the average mouse is running at around 400-800 Dpi. My current Razer mouse i have set at 1500DPI but can be set up to a maximum of 5600DPI at a polling rate of either 125/500/1000hz. In old games a crappy old mouse works fantastic, but it will feel terrible in most newer games.


Edit: Just to be on topic. Battlefield BC 2 is fantasic, not played it on the console at all, but on the PC i don't think any smoothness issue has ever been mentioned by anyone i know, and for me atleast it was a lot better as an online teamplay game.

 

[Pako]

Far Cry 2 controls aren't smooth on the PC either, but I never tried BF on PC after feeling the controls on the 360 demo. I don't know why they don't smooth them out, I had no problems with the BF 1943 controls. CoD runs at 60FPS even on the 360. I've yet to see any FPS that could be termed a "sim". If you want sim you have to go outside and play Airsoft!

Huh, well...there ya go. I would say if you want smooth, you could always stick with the Unreal Tournament, Doom, Quake FPS's. They were always smooth, fantasy shooters.

As far as sim vs. arcade, BF leans more that direction. Leaning towards realistic environments, recoil, bullet projections, impact, ect...., more than than COD. COD is like laser tag with bullets. Ok, not quite that bad, but almost.

The only time I feel input lag is when I run my wireless/blutooth mouse instead of my wired mouse. Actually, my wired mouse just died last week and am using a logitech Gxx wireless gaming mouse now that seems to be just fine. I am running all these games in the 100+ Frames per second (with exception to Crysis 2) at 1920x1080 and in some cases 5760x1080.

BF is a slower paced game than COD for sure, but it's not without action. With everything thing that can be going on at once in BF, I would wager to say there is even more action in BF than COD. But yes, COD is a faster paced game.

 

[DMC_S2000]

What do you mean by smooth? Game play? Moving around the map?

I do have to agree with you that COD does feel smoother. It has always been a smooth running game. No destructible elements, smaller maps, smaller player count. It should run smoother. COD as of late is more of an arcade style of game play and less sim. COD is even smooth when you run, it reminds me of Unreal Tournament, everyone just glides around the map. BF leans more towards the sim based style of game play. It's rough, to crank up the quality and still get some decent frames, you need a decent machine to maintain the holy grail of 60+ FPS.

This is another one of threads where it's not about which game is better as they are both different, but it really should be a poll about video game style preferences. Do you like arcade, fast pasted, solo running game play, or do you like large strategic objectives, running a variety of vehicles, and enjoy more team based interaction with more realistic environments and physics?

I agree, CoD is a total arcade game, walk sideways while aiming+firing...look how accurate your shots are....

 

[ShylockHolmes]

Firstly you're twisting my words, i said that our eyes cannot detect a massive difference between a smooth 30-60fps and that most of the slowness we see is based on the frames dropping far below that causing an average of 30fps rather than steady. A Steady and smooth 30fps is infact fairly smooth and there is only a small difference in the jump to a smooth 60fps.

Secondly, i said that films and movies run at 24fps (not all, but a lot does) and that is near the limit (Near) where our eyes can tell a difference. That is completely different to saying that "my" eyes can "only" see 24fps. Being "near the point of telling the difference" is different to "can only see"

Lets not mince words.


Next up, the mouse makes a big difference and in some games some mice don't work as well, believe it or not. Lastly, you did not take notice of the point about V-sync which as i've stated before causes input delay, or rather more accurate it causes an output delay.

I'm one of the first to moan about input lag in Shift 2, but Farcry 2 does not have that issue, i'm sorry but it just doesnt.


Mouse DPI is a good example here too, how games work with different mice.

Example of the average mouse is running at around 400-800 Dpi. My current Razer mouse i have set at 1500DPI but can be set up to a maximum of 5600DPI at a polling rate of either 125/500/1000hz. In old games a crappy old mouse works fantastic, but it will feel terrible in most newer games.


Edit: Just to be on topic. Battlefield BC 2 is fantasic, not played it on the console at all, but on the PC i don't think any smoothness issue has ever been mentioned by anyone i know, and for me atleast it was a lot better as an online teamplay game.

I didn't twist anything you said, I can go back and quote if you want? My eyes can easily see over 200 frames/sec, I'm sorry about yours. The difference between 30 and 60 is not small. Movies are recorded at 24fps, but are NOT PLAYED BACK AT 24fps, big difference!

All Vsync does is sync the fremerate to your refresh rate and there is nothing to argue, FC2 controls are nowhere near as smooth as CoD, Crysis, Halo etc.

Think whatver you want, you were probaly one of the people who said KZ2 controls are smooth. FACT is I have both games and ANYONE can google KZ2, FC2 controls and see for themselves, or better yet play them.

I'll bet you've never even tried the 360 controller with FC2 to see just how bad the input lag is? Mouse is better, but still nowhere near as smooth as Crysis.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

Huh, well...there ya go. I would say if you want smooth, you could always stick with the Unreal Tournament, Doom, Quake FPS's. They were always smooth, fantasy shooters.

As far as sim vs. arcade, BF leans more that direction. Leaning towards realistic environments, recoil, bullet projections, impact, ect...., more than than COD. COD is like laser tag with bullets. Ok, not quite that bad, but almost.

The only time I feel input lag is when I run my wireless/blutooth mouse instead of my wired mouse. Actually, my wired mouse just died last week and am using a logitech Gxx wireless gaming mouse now that seems to be just fine. I am running all these games in the 100+ Frames per second (with exception to Crysis 2) at 1920x1080 and in some cases 5760x1080.

BF is a slower paced game than COD for sure, but it's not without action. With everything thing that can be going on at once in BF, I would wager to say there is even more action in BF than COD. But yes, COD is a faster paced game.

No FPS is a sim, that's just crazy talk.

 

[bevo]

No FPS is a sim, that's just crazy talk.

I don't know about that. If you want to call GT5, Forza or any racing game a sim, I think that operation flashpoint might be a small scale skirmish sim. Really though, that's the only shooter I would even come close to considering a sim. Come to think of it, the older hunting games are pretty accurate sims. I use to hunt and those games are pretty close to the real thing. I would even say they come closer to being a sim then anything else I have ever played. On some of the older ones you might have to set for hours before you could call in the game you were after, and some times you might never even see anything to shoot. Were they fun, no, but they were pretty accurate as far as simulating hunting, mush closer then the racing sims come.

As far as COD goes, I hate that game. I would chose any game mode over it. I have tried my best to like COD and actually did play COD modern warfare, but haven't been able to like one since, and I have bought all of them. I really want ot like it, because that's what my group of friends play, but I can never make it more than 10 minutes then I'm done.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

CoD2 & 4 were the best. The series went downhill after that.

 

[Joel]

I really enjoy both series, and it really depends on what I'm wanting to do. I've never played them on PC before, but I've played them on PS3 and other consoles. I really enjoy getting in a 4 man squad on Bad Company 2 and playing with a few friends from school, moreso than playing CoD together. I think I've played CoD too much for its own good, I played Call of Duty 4 a ton, I didn't really like WaW that much, so it was more CoD 4. Then MW2 came out, I played it for a little while, and got bored and went back to CoD 4. I really do like Black Ops, but I find it to be somewhat boring. I guess I'm just a little bit bored of FPS games in general, and lately I've been playing NHL 11 more than anything.

In total, I think Battlefield wins in terms of total replay value. Destructible environments, vehicles (nothing more fun than having 4 guys in a Bradley on BF: BC2). Call of Duty is a lot of fun, and I like CoD4 and Black Ops. Call of Duty is great to play split screen with some friends, or to just run and gun when you need to zone out after a tough day. I still play both from time to time, but I enjoy the Battlefield series more. I need to buy the Vietnam DLC for Bad Company 2 at some point.

 

[Scaff]

The difference between 30 and 60 is not small. Movies are recorded at 24fps, but are NOT PLAYED BACK AT 24fps, big difference!

Cinema projectors (as in 35mm and 70mm) and Blu-ray playback in 24fps, so that's not strictly true at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/bdsettings.html#2462

However this needs to get back on topic and it also needs to get a lot less personal as well.


Scaff

 

[Bigbazz]

I didn't twist anything you said, I can go back and quote if you want? My eyes can easily see over 200 frames/sec, I'm sorry about yours. The difference between 30 and 60 is not small. Movies are recorded at 24fps, but are NOT PLAYED BACK AT 24fps, big difference!

All Vsync does is sync the fremerate to your refresh rate and there is nothing to argue, FC2 controls are nowhere near as smooth as CoD, Crysis, Halo etc.

Think whatver you want, you were probaly one of the people who said KZ2 controls are smooth. FACT is I have both games and ANYONE can google KZ2, FC2 controls and see for themselves, or better yet play them.

I'll bet you've never even tried the 360 controller with FC2 to see just how bad the input lag is? Mouse is better, but still nowhere near as smooth as Crysis.

Firstly you're wrong about the movies, and its such a varying subject that there is no wrong or right answer. I am also very happy for you that you have scientifically proven that your eyes can detect images clearly and easily over 200fps.

Secondly you're very wrong about V-sync, it does cause output lag for the very reason that the syncing causes a delay, if you care to research this then you will find this is true, i am not here to do this for you.

Lastly, I have absolutely no desire to play FPS games with a gamepad, let alone buy a gamepad to test out your theories. Farcry 2 with a high quality mouse feels fantastic and has no input lag or lack of smoothness issues. The game does not play or feel the same as Crysis, but that is completely different to it being smooth.

Crysis is probably the FPS that i have played more than any other FPS game, it is my favourite FPS of recent years and if anything i would jump to support it, but there is nothing to support, i found absolutely no issues with Farcry 2 and its controls.

I played top level in World of Warcraft for almost 3 years where having lightning reactions and low latency with smooth frames was of utmost importance and optimising it was done to an obsessive level to be competitive, my character ranked in the top 50 worldwide on a number of occasions. I know when I am getting input/output lag.



On the subject, if you want to believe that Farcry 2 has lag issues (and perhaps it does on consoles? was it released on consoles? i don't even know) then that is your choice but your issues are unfounded without proof. On the subject of Battlefield i feel exactly the same, the only issues online were server latency issues that i did infact find to be slightly worse than when i played COD. Server latency issues online are nothing to do with input lag or gameplay smoothness in offline mode.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

Cinema projectors (as in 35mm and 70mm) and Blu-ray playback in 24fps, so that's not strictly true at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/bdsettings.html#2462

However this needs to get back on topic and it also needs to get a lot less personal as well.


Scaff

No they don't. 3:2 pulldown converts playback to 60fps for Blu ray. 24fps doesn't sync to your TV, think about it? Pro scan? remember that?

To record 24p material onto a 60i format (i.e. any NTSC-based format), pulldown is typically added to 'pad' the 24 frames into 60 fields. This is done by taking every frame and splitting it into two fields. Then, every second frame has one of its fields duplicated, resulting in three fields. The fields are then played back in that pattern – 2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3 … and so on. The resulting video becomes a 60i stream and can be displayed on NTSC monitors. However, the aesthetic of 24p motion is retained and the footage does not have the motion of typical 60i video.

Firstly you're wrong about the movies, and its such a varying subject that there is no wrong or right answer. I am also very happy for you that you have scientifically proven that your eyes can detect images clearly and easily over 200fps.

Secondly you're very wrong about V-sync, it does cause output lag for the very reason that the syncing causes a delay, if you care to research this then you will find this is true, i am not here to do this for you.

Lastly, I have absolutely no desire to play FPS games with a gamepad, let alone buy a gamepad to test out your theories. Farcry 2 with a high quality mouse feels fantastic and has no input lag or lack of smoothness issues. The game does not play or feel the same as Crysis, but that is completely different to it being smooth.

Crysis is probably the FPS that i have played more than any other FPS game, it is my favourite FPS of recent years and if anything i would jump to support it, but there is nothing to support, i found absolutely no issues with Farcry 2 and its controls.

I played top level in World of Warcraft for almost 3 years where having lightning reactions and low latency with smooth frames was of utmost importance and optimising it was done to an obsessive level to be competitive, my character ranked in the top 50 worldwide on a number of occasions. I know when I am getting input/output lag.



On the subject, if you want to believe that Farcry 2 has lag issues (and perhaps it does on consoles? was it released on consoles? i don't even know) then that is your choice but your issues are unfounded without proof. On the subject of Battlefield i feel exactly the same, the only issues online were server latency issues that i did infact find to be slightly worse than when i played COD. Server latency issues online are nothing to do with input lag or gameplay smoothness in offline mode.

Firstly, no I'm not wrong. Secondly I know exactly what Vsync is and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE CONTROLS ARE IN FC2, PERIOD. Output lag? If you say so, lol. Sorry you can only see 24fps with your eyes, maybe glasses would help you out?

Lastly I don't care what you play with and FC2 IS NOT SMOOTH AIMING or I'd still play it. I HAVE FC2 FOR PC, read it FOR PC!!!
You're the same type that said KZ2 had no aiming issues. Haha!

 

[Bigbazz]

Firstly, no I'm not wrong. Secondly I know exactly what Vsync is and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE CONTROLS ARE IN FC2, PERIOD. Output lag? If you say so, lol. Sorry you can only see 24fps with your eyes, maybe glasses would help you out?

Lastly I don't care what you play with and FC2 IS NOT SMOOTH AIMING or I'd still play it. I HAVE FC2 FOR PC, read it FOR PC!!!
You're the same type that said KZ2 had no aiming issues. Haha!

Since you can do nothing but blindly argue with no backing then i'l not bother continuing this pointless discussion.

If you take about 5 seconds to google the V-sync you will find a number of articles and forum subjects from recent to dating back a few years all on the input lag caused by V-Sync, this is a well known issue.



I have never played Kill Zone 2 so it is nothing to do with me, FC2 has no aiming issues, i'm sorry if your mouse is crap, you suck at playing the game or you are experiencing lag based on V-sync issues but typing in caps does not make you right.


I will not waste my time with you anymore.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

Since you can do nothing but blindly argue with no backing then i'l not bother continuing this pointless discussion.

If you take about 5 seconds to google the V-sync you will find a number of articles and forum subjects from recent to dating back a few years all on the input lag caused by V-Sync, this is a well known issue.



I have never played Kill Zone 2 so it is nothing to do with me, FC2 has no aiming issues, i'm sorry if your mouse is crap, you suck at playing the game or you are experiencing lag based on V-sync issues but typing in caps does not make you right.


I will not waste my time with you anymore.

There is no argument, I have FC2 right here. Vsync is NOTHING NEW TO ME and it has nothing to do with how controls are CODED by game developers. My mouse is perfectly fine (logitech), I`m sure I could beat you at any FPS online if you want to talk smack. No point in arguing with someone who`s eyesight only allows them to see around 24fps like you already stated.

 

[Bigbazz]

There is no argument, I have FC2 right here. Vsync is NOTHING NEW TO ME and it has nothing to do with how controls are CODED by game developers. My mouse is perfectly fine (logitech), I`m sure I could beat you at any FPS online if you want to talk smack. No point in arguing with someone who`s eyesight only allows them to see around 24fps like you already stated.

Its like talking to a brick wall. V-sync causes a delay in what you see on screen, so the inputs you make are delayed due to the screen syncing up and thus showing your inputs slightly late. it is not always a problem because the delay is very small but any pro or high level gamer (FPS, Sim Racing, MMO's) will have V-sync turned off.

This isnt something new, or something that I just made up, it is well known and you can easily find it with a quick google, have you been living in a cave or something?.


Really, i must stop allowing you to troll me with your ignorance, lest the thread get locked.