Dark Light

Call of Duty and Battlefield have been going toe to toe with each other to become the most fan favoured first person shooter for about a decade now, and in the long run, Call of Duty has been the winner if sales are to be considered. Both have evolved from world war based games to modern shooters, and COD has gone that extra mile to be futuristic. Here in comes the big difference in both franchises-While COD keeps going forward in the future and takes it into space with Infinite Warfare, Battlefield is going back in time to the World War 1 era, which seems exciting to many players, but while I have preferred Battlefield in the past, this time I will have to for COD and here are my reasons:

Fan Service:

Going back to the World War era has a lot of gamers excited and fans have been demanding for this sort of setting for a very long time, actually since the time of COD BO2 and Ghosts, during which it was apparent COD will be pushing into futuristic warfare territory. Battlefield has never gone futuristic but it has been modern and it seems EA has listened to the fans. And that is a good thing. Or is it not? Battlefield is doing fan service, which is listening to fans and giving them what they want. Though it may seem like a good thing at first, it may very well turn out to be quite the opposite. It’s EA and we have already come to know that there will be microtransactions which is a very ridiculous thing for a full priced game and it is very much possible that EA may not do things right. They may not deliver what the fans are expecting and that may turn out to be a huge buzzkill. While COD may not be doing what fans want, it is building on what had it going previously and the developers are sticking to their guns. Though they knew that people wanted a World War era game, they kept going forward with their own idea, which is a good thing according to me.


Though both these franchises have been duking out for so long a time, we all know that Battlefield gained the most recognition only after Battlefield 3, while Call of Duty had huge hits like Modern Warfare 1, Black Ops and let’s not forget the Modern Warfare 2. Battlefield 3 was the only huge hit in the whole franchise, and it’s sequel Battlefield 4 again went down to the average category. Battlefield Hardline proved to be even more so with it’s unwanted cop system. As a series COD has always been the better and more appealing game, and has always added something that has been fun. All the Battlefield games have been average in general, while COD has quite a few highlights throughout. This may be more of a critic based opinion, but it is also true that COD BO2 and Ghosts were better than Battlefield 4 and Hardline, which is a reason good enough for me rooting for COD.

Adding Something New:

I have mentioned in the History section above that COD has always added something fun, and by that I meant in terms of gameplay. Well here I’m talking about other aspects as well like weapons, player abilities and all such stuff. Future is a very much diverse aspect, each individual may have a different vision of how future looks in his/her/their mind. The past is very much known and is constant (Unless we want to time travel) and in that aspect Battlefield will not be able to add much, unlike COD which has already added Exo-suits and can add other player related abilities. The thing that COD could have going with it is- Imagination, the more they imagine, the more things they could add in the futuristic warfare. All they have to work on then would be balancing. And I have always preferred something creative over something mainstream. Though it may boil down to being an FPS after all, I would like to see what they add.

Added Note: This is the first time in the whole of COD history that a game in the franchise has slipped up.

Even if Battlefield sells more than COD this time around, I would not be surprised if COD would be a better game than BF. These are my reasons for why I’m rooting for COD. What are yours? Will you be buying COD or BF this year? Why not give you opinions in the comments below. Over & Out.

  1. just going to point out a few things, not trying to be an asshole so sorry if it comes out that way, first, there is no fan service in a WW1 game, nobody knew that was an option, it was out of nowhere. Also there was a game called Battlefield 2142 that was futuristic way before BO2. With the microtransactions, its not like they are refusing to give content to the player, the battlefield games give optional packs to buy that get you gear so you dont need to play for as long if you dont have the time, its not money for skins, which is what Cod has done in the past. And about adding something new. The past 2 games have been the same games with small changes to the jump pack, and infinite warfare looks to be something similar, but we dont know that yet, They have done 3 black ops games so far and if you count infinite warfare as an extension of modern warfare and advanced warfare that is 5 games in the same series. The only reason they abandoned ghosts was because it sold the worst out of the new call of duty games. Something new happened in the way of hardline where they revamped the gameplay systems in almost every way. And no im not a Battlefield fanboy, I have played every single COD since COD 3, but since BO1 I have been unimpressed, besides advanced warfare, which did change up the gameplay by being the first one to add the jump pack.

    1. 1. BF fans wanted to go back in history rather than forward to the future. That’s the fan service the writer is talking about.
      2. BF 2142 was never released on any console so it’s understandable that the writer overlooked it.
      3. I hear people say COD games are always the same. But it’s not true. I’ve played them all and they are all different. Each has a completely new campaign with all new characters. Each has new gameplay mechanics like wall running and or jet jumping. Each has new multiplayer maps with new themes and settings. In fact some fans have complained that the latest games have strayed too much from the originals. In response Activision is including MW1 as a bonus with COD IW for people who want the old along with the new.

      1. Most fans were suggesting that they use a Vietnam or WW2 era, I don’t think many were expecting them to make a WW1 game. COD games aren’t literally the same, though before AW they were all drastically similar. COD developers have been know to reuse animations and sound effects over and over again. Look at what IW did with Ghost, they literally took maps from previous games, rotated them around and changed the way it looked, they also reused cut-scenes from past games. And is MW1 remaster really a bonus if you have to pay more to get it?

      2. I don’t think a lot of fans were expecting them to go way back into World War 1. Infact I think I read somewhere a focus group in EA was worried that too many people might not have heard about WW1.
        But the bigger point is, I believe BF 1 is going to be simpler in terms of mechanics than say compared to Infinite Warfare in the way that it will introduce weapons that need no introduction. So you already know what a hand-grenade or a rifle might do before you actually use it, but you would have to learn how the “gravity inverter launcher” will play out.
        And I believe this will make the game more approachable…By the way total conjecture.

    2. Hardline did add something new, but it failed miserably, and you can still find more people playing Battlefield 4 rather than Hardline. COD may not have added much, but at least they didn’t fall flat on their face for trying something new, though I would say, there are more COD fanboys than can be imagined. And I would like to see if they add something new to Infinite Warfare, BF1, we will be knowing most guns, as mentioned in one of the comments below and that I think is a good enough reason why I won’t pick up that game instead of COD.

    3. Dude u for real!? Rofl… Cod been doing same thing since ages, u call that venturing in something different?! Their game mechanics r comparable to 10 years ago, their graphics suck and r outdated, their campaign is repetitive as hell and feela like they worked on copy paste.. I admire dice actually having the ballz to bring smthg different for once, and somthing the “payers” want (from when does a successfull company follow their close minded hunch , shitting on their financial supporters!? Thats pure assholeness, and they full of shit) the average cod fanboy is the 12 yrold that likes to go solo and spam kill ppl, with no real skill or thought behind, its just robotic actions since The first min of gameplay, oh yea and likes gay skins on his future weeapons… If u call that admirable, innovative, right we onviously live on different planet, and its tnx to ppl like these that big company just make a fool pf their supporters, and rips of the market.. Maybe the little thing that slightly saves the game, is zombies, which i need to admit is the only innovative and cool aspect of the game.

  2. There can be imagination and creativity for futuristic titles. You can’t have that when you stick to Boots on the Ground games. It’s even worse when you go back in time with WWI & WWII settings.

    The reason there’s so much hate against CoD is because of XBone fanboys. These salty fucks just hate the marketing deal CoD has with Sony’s PS4.

  3. This post is actually cancer, nobody is rooting for IW because the game is a flop. It is exactly as you said: Fans demanded a product going backwards in time (not forwards).

    Quote from this post: “Though they knew that people wanted a World War era game, they kept going forward with their own idea, which is a good thing according to me.”

    So ‘according to you’ because they looked at the market, which HEAVILY wanted a game to go back in time, not forward: COD devs said: “You know what, nevermind what people want us to develop, and want to buy, we’ll do what we want instead.” and this is a ‘good thing’ according to you? I’m lost.

    EA on the other hand looked at the market, saw what people wanted, and so simply enough; they gave it to them. That’s why IW trailer had humongous dislikes, that’s why BF1 is getting so much love, and that’s why the sales are incomparable.

    All I’m going to say is, this company you’re “rooting for” forced everyone who only wanted remastered MW2, to buy their shitty new futuristic title in which you fight with john snow and connor mcgreggor in an effort to sell copies of the game.

    You couldn’t get the game you wanted, without buying the one you didn’t. They did this on purpose, obviously, because the predicted sales would’ve KILLED COD without it. IMO they need to change their formula, when you make the same game with minor changes 11 times in a row, people naturally want something different, Think about it.

    1. Why do you say no one is rooting? The sales say otherwise. Being a mediocre game it is still a bestseller on platforms other than the PC.

      Yes developers sticking to theirguts is something people should appreciate and going against the market means taking risks and without risks we would not be having a gaming industry which is as huge as it is.

      But it’s Activision, all they did was put older COD in a new skin and same happened with Battlefield 1. It’s Battlefield 4’s reskin. It’s just that Battlefield is just an overall better game.

      I was rooting for COD just as a hypothesis. I am least interested in either shooters, but it’s always good to speculate.

      Also I agree with you on the whole Modern Warfare Remaster BS, that was cheap and dirty by Activision, but people did support them by letting their wallets loose on a game like that, so COD will have a iteration next year and that’s sad, unlike BF1 which has no plans at least till 2018.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts