Coordinated Assault: Why I Pick Battlefield Over Call of Duty

With the announcement of Battlefield 4, I was pleased to know that the Battlefield series was going to continue to develop beyond Battlefield 3.


Battlefield 1942 had some of the best gameplay around, along with easy joining and leaving online matches.


When I was younger, I got my first taste of the Battlefield franchise with Battlefield 1942.  I played that game for hundreds of hours, and even eventually got my dad to play it.  We would play online often, and got to enjoy capturing the flags and taking over regions important in World War II.  Eventually, it got to the point where the game’s graphics and realism were surpassed by other games.

Call of Duty 3 had far surpassed Battlefield 1942 as far as graphics.

Time to Try Call of Duty

The first Call of Duty game I played was Call of Duty 3.  I enjoyed the playstyle, and the graphics were the best I’d seen on a shooter at the time.  I played the first Bad Company game as well, and was impressed, but not enough to spend my sparse allowance on it.

Call of Duty: Black Ops was the pinnacle for me in the Call of Duty franchise.

I then continued to stick with the Call of Duty bandwagon through Modern Warfare, World at War, MW2, and Black Ops.  Then I tried the (then new) Battlefield 3.

I was so happy to have come back home.


Battlefield 3 made Call of Duty seem like child’s play.

Back to Battlefield

I remembered all the reasons I enjoyed Battlefield 1942, and was able to play in the modern environment I had gotten used to in the Call of Duty titles.

The main reasons I enjoyed Battlefield so much more are threefold.

  1. Objective Based – Yes, I know that Call of Duty has objective based gamemodes as well, but it appears that the focus is still on Team Deathmatch.  While I like killing virtual people as much as the next guy, I prefer to  have to use strategy to complete objectives like capturing the flag, or bombing outposts.
  2. Vehicles – I really enjoy the depth and strategy that comes with having to use and counter vehicular combat.  Tanks make a team powerful when used correctly, and the necessity of countering them, and countering the people who are trying to take out the equipment adds some interesting gameplay to the genre.
  3. Community – The people who play the games are two different communities.  On the side of Call of Duty, you have the “pros” who are capable of going 30-2 or better, and enjoy rubbing it in your face every chance they get.  You then have the metaphorical “twelve year olds” who enjoy smack talking you and raging over their microphones while their little sister screams in the background.  On Battlefield, unless forming a strategy with their team, team members are often silent on their microphones.  This is usually because they’re in some form of party chat, to coordinate with their friends.  (I know I’m generalizing.  There are people of all sorts on all games.  This has just been my experience while playing these two franchise games.)

I will still likely try the new Call of Duty games and Battlefield 4 before purchasing either, though I do have a bit of bias based on the above issues.  A great game can sway my choice, but a community that harasses its members can also steer me away.

It’s not good to have a prejudice to a game, but it comes with the territory of releasing a scheduled reboot each year or two.  Some people judge the next game based on the previous ones.

One more thing, as well.  I know that I can buy both.  It’s a matter of balancing time and money.  If I had the time and money to devote to both games, I might consider buying them.  As it stands, I need to pick the one I think I’ll enjoy the most.

There are no comments

Add yours