2

Author Topic: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield  (Read 1623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Agent_Ispep

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 3
  • Global Thirst Moderator
Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« on: March 11, 2010, 02:08:47 PM »
So I've Been Thinking about Buying One of those Fancy new Video Games.. Either,
Call Of Duty- Modern Warfare or Battlefield Bad Company 2.

I would buy both but they both look so similar, but they both look so good too.

So I'm looking for some debate among those who have the games on the pro's and con's of each.


Offline SJP

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2823
  • Liked: 212
  • Worst...avatar...ever!
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2010, 02:25:39 PM »
I like Modern Warfare 2...at least, the general idea of it. The story does reach levels of silliness that would have Jack Bauer saying, "All right, somebody tell me who smoked their brains into oblivion for this one, or I start shooting kneecaps," but Spec Ops is fun.

From what I've been hearing, though, Battlefield is stronger in terms of cooperative team play, but I've only played the demo, and am about on par with that as I am with MW2 (as in, I tend to die before I even see who the crap is shooting at me), so I can't offer too much on that front.  I do know people that have it and seem to enjoy it immensely.
One Man Band Riffs.  18 riffs, over 600 served, since 2009.


Offline jewishcarpenter

  • Climbed El Capitan
  • *******
  • Posts: 5486
  • Liked: 543
  • I grow flowers so pretty they'll make you throw up
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2010, 03:09:45 PM »
I'm boycotting Modern Warfare 2 for many reasons. Bought BFBC2 and it's not bad, haven't played the multiplayer yet but heard it's quite good, very insane to catch on to but fun after you get the hang of it.


Offline RobtheBarbarian

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4049
  • Liked: 8
  • Snarl!
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2010, 09:41:16 PM »
Having played both, single and multiplayer, here's the impression I got.

Singleplayer: MW2's story, as much of a ridiculous cliche storm as it is (each chapter of the game can be easily and concretely matched to the '80s action movie who's plot it copies), is still very coherent and easy to follow. Plot holes are aknowledged and attempts are made to fill them in. It gives you a good justification for why you are where you are killing who you're killing, even if you're taking cover behind the deep fryer in a TGI Friday's shooting Russians AND THIS IS TOTALLY SERIOUS DUDE. Its certainly possible for a shooter to be technically good without a story keeping you informed, but having one lets you say things like "I just defended the Galleria Mall from an attack by the Spetsnaz" instead of "I picked up a machinegun and killed some guys". In the end, its more satisfying.

I've heard the story and game in general praised for being realistic, and that's complete horseshit - its as realistic as an episode of CSI. Among many goofy things you will interact directly with are attachments for your gun that are basically the motion tracker from Aliens and the EMP device from Goldeneye. Double-fisting lever action shotguns like the goddamn terminator is a legitimate and effective weapon loadout, as are dual sawed-off double barrel shotguns. There's nothing especially insane about cool stuff like that, especially in relation to other shooters, but the game's pretense of realism clashes badly with it. Right about the time an EMP bomb goes off and planes and helicopters start falling from the sky on top of the player, the game lurches into oblivious self-parody.

BC2's
story is patchy, disjointed and feels like and afterthought. Everything good I highlighted about MW2's story doesn't apply here. No explanation is made for what happened after the end of BC1, even though it could have been turned into a joke given how funny and parodying the writing tends to be. The characters are still the mouthpieces for some pretty good wisecracks and banter (they make a few jabs at MW2), but they feel out of place in a story that actually copies most of its major plot points from MW2. Invading Russians, EMP device, chasing an informant through South America - its all there in all the same order. WTF?

Multiplayer: I'll make no excuses for the fact that I suck, utterly and irredeemably, at MW2's multiplayer. The reason for this as best I can figure is a combination of twitch reflexes I'll never have and experience I'll never get. However, between playing myself and watching my cousin, I've gotten a pretty thorough picture of the dynamic.

The word that best described MW2's online environment is 'gimmick'. Without the gun attachments, kill streak trees and perks the experience is just Quake with updated graphics played on fast-forward, which isn't necessarily bad, but that's what it is. The pace is blindingly fast - split second decisions over where to stand, when to reload, what cover to stand behind and what approach to cover effect the course of entire matches.

As frantic and visceral as the dynamic is, little things like that are like pebbles in a pond. Stuff like motion sensors and AC-130 attacks are like lobbing an engine block into a pool. Once a team starts winning it pretty much keeps winning because perks and kill streak gimmicks are awarded to the highest performing players. Once 40mm shells start falling from the sky on top of your team, its pretty much time to pack it in and go make a sandwich, because by that point the match is a foregone conclusion. At this happens 2/3rds of the way into a match at the latest.

Perk combination have a similar effect. You may have heard about the 'ninja build' which grants a player horrifying speed, endless stamina and a knife that can kill from beyond arm's reach as if by force of will. Is it any surprise that someone sprinting around like a slasher movie killer might upset the balance of a game most people sign up for expecting to be shooting people? There are other combinations like that, but this one is the most recognizably absurd.

These are the cons. I can see a raucously fun experience inside this nonsense, and some of my friends can find it and show it to me. If you think you're up to it, give it a shot.

BC2's multiplayer could be said to be shallower since there are less unlockables, perks and other bullshit. Its pretty basic stuff - new guns, some gadgets, buffs for various traits like ammo capacity and running speed. This aspect of the mechanic is pretty basic, but the addition of ground and air vehicles and massive nonlinear maps skyrockets the depth and complexity of a single round of gameplay way beyond anything MW2 can dream up.

Squad spawning is a mechanic whereby you can respawn on a member of your squad (arbitrary grouping of players in a round) instead of back at your base. What this ends up creating is something like a front line, where there are sustained attacks against certain areas of your defenses and breaches in your defense can be opened wider by reinforcements. A spontaneous dug-in kind of experience can arise where a member of your squad has taken cover close to the enemy's line and a group of several reapawning players reinforces that position, with medics and soldiers throwing health and ammo down while the entire group makes an organized, consistent push against the other team's position.

The biggest pro of BC2, how it is designed for and rewards team effort, is also a kind of drawback. MW2 sits on its gilded throne laughing while its slack-jawed fans migrate to BC2 and utterly fail to get the point. Take a group of friends with you unless you like being part of the clown parade that is your apathetic, clueless team.

I could go on, but this is stupid long already.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 09:44:54 PM by RobtheBarbärian »


Offline MWolf

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
  • Liked: 3
  • The Super Best Friends! Freedom of Speech
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2010, 09:12:12 AM »
I have both games and only played Battlefield for about 1-2 hours before I realized it wasnt anything in quality like modern warfare2 . WHAT I really hate in battlefield that in the distance everything clips in and out and makes it a bitch to sniper or kill someone from a distance if all the graphics are going wack. Modern Warfare 2 feels alot more cleaner. If I only had time to beat the story on its highest difficulty!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 09:59:24 AM by MWolf »
For All of Humanity


Offline Vent

  • Sparkles in Sunlight
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 0
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2010, 12:20:40 PM »
I don't get the problem you guys have with MW2's plot.  A statue should be erected in honor of Ramirez, the defender of Burger Town from the Russians who screwed up the translation and confused "strategic military target" with "fast food joint".

"Ramirez, use the predator drone to destroy the tanks!"
"Ramirez, use the stinger missiles and take down that heli!"
"Ramirez, AVENGE MEEEEE!!!"


Offline FLOCK of RABID SHEEP?!?!

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Liked: 1
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2010, 06:44:36 PM »
i like cod mw 2 a bit, though i too suck at it.  i mostly play the domination matches (game where you are given 3 places to capture and maintain to earn points) which has a bit more point than team deathmatch in that you are not just  running around killing people :P.  also, i can usually find a good place to camp and just kill people who try to take over my spot :D.


Offline Agent_Ispep

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 3
  • Global Thirst Moderator
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2010, 03:35:42 PM »
Thanks For your input,
I finally made my decision and went for Battlefield.. just cause it was cheaper  :P

Having fun playing through the single player but multiplayer is like getting dropped into a Sniper Nest.


Offline Thrashalla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Liked: 646
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2010, 04:05:46 PM »
In late on this one, but whatever. Having spent some time with each, I prefer Battlefield. The multiplayer aspect is, hands down, the best you're going to find on consoles...MAG may be bigger, MW2 may have more unlockables, but neither has sucked me in with the gameplay as much as BC2. It just clicks - the classes are balanced, the squad rollout actually adds to the game, and it's just plain fun.
Any issues with the RiffTrax main page should be directed to support@rifftrax.com Attempts to engage with me directly about such matters will result in ridicule.


Offline FLOCK of RABID SHEEP?!?!

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Liked: 1
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2010, 06:06:57 PM »
how do you guys like bad company 1 if you've played it? it's at kmart for cheap and i wanted to see how it was before getting it


Offline Thrashalla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Liked: 646
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2010, 04:45:37 PM »
how do you guys like bad company 1 if you've played it? it's at kmart for cheap and i wanted to see how it was before getting it

I liked it well enough, and if you can get it for under $20, go for it. Again: Battlefield is all about the multiplayer - so if you're in for a story, go elsewhere.
Any issues with the RiffTrax main page should be directed to support@rifftrax.com Attempts to engage with me directly about such matters will result in ridicule.


Offline carlobee

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Liked: 1
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2010, 08:26:08 PM »
I got tired of COD already. :) So in that case, it was good you went for Battlefield.



Offline MWolf

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
  • Liked: 3
  • The Super Best Friends! Freedom of Speech
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2010, 07:05:32 AM »
I guess I have had a bad experience with Bad Company 2 and try it again. Still I think for reasons of being "clean" I would prefer MW2. Ofcorse thats being on a xbox360 and if BC2 was on my PC I may be saying otherwise. But until then I still think BC2 looks sloppy in graphical terms.
For All of Humanity


Offline BBQ Platypus

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4201
  • Liked: 59
  • SURF'S UP, SPACE PONIES!
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2010, 12:57:16 PM »
I don't give two-fifths of a month-old dog turd about graphics.
Correction: the coat hanger should be upside down.


Offline FLOCK of RABID SHEEP?!?!

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Liked: 1
Re: Call Of Duty Vs. Battlefield
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2010, 09:44:04 PM »
I don't give two-fifths of a month-old dog turd about graphics.

well if you're a sniper like me (most of the time :P) in those games good graphics are necessary so you wont accidentally shoot a piece of paper that was blowing across the street...though, come to think of it, i probably have anyway ;D