Team Oandlig Spektrum: October 2011

So its technically become the topic that everyone is talking about, whether it is franchise versus franchise or game versus game as in MW3 versus Battlefield 3. With all the trolls online and all the self-opinionated people its hard to find someone who has a neutral stance about these two games or franchises and could give a proper fair opinion in technical aspects. Not that I'm saying that I am the one who is able to do so, but I feel I do take neutral stance between these two franchises. Sure you may argue that I'm more of a COD person with more Black ops content on the channel, but since everyone is in the hype of COD and COD is a easy game to commentate over as a background and really press out some opinion without too extensive gameplay. Not to mention that COD has been the main stage for commentators to showcase their skill and talent at both game and commentary for quite awhile now. Basicly put, most YouTube commentators revolve around COD, however that's starting to change.

Alright enough sidetracking, lets get down to it.

Sales

In terms of sales, it is pretty obvious that COD has indeed racked up tons of money. Setting new records in sales and literately influencing an entire generation of players. This is possible as COD 1, 2 and 3 has long showed that the COD series is a popular one and I used to play COD 2 like crazy, quickscoping with the springfield. Its influence in setting a new high for FPS has gained the reputation and that increases the amount of sales it generates. COD 4 was like adding dope to the already high COD sales, the popularity of game was backed up with its standing reputation and how it appealed to people who loved modern warfare with all its covertness and its sense of suspense that you could rarely get from other games. Then there COD 5 with zombies which also hit the gaming market by storm. Then the return of Modern Warfare with COD 6, again smashing sales. Then there was COD 7, or Black ops, which adored many players looking for a change in the flaws of MW2 and hit the world by storm. This mainly contributes to the fact that the entire franchise has over 7 titles sold over a long period of time and while battlefield has about 4 as of now. So obviously COD wins this round. Battlefield has been the starting game in which FPS really took off, but COD just propelled that and people started switching to the console instead of PC which also took its toll on Battlefield.

Gameplay

Safe to say the gameplay concerning these 2 games were quite major. COD had that badass look in which u go around completing objectives and a few epic cutscenes in which it melts perfectly into the game and scenario you are playing in. Battlefield on the other hand has been more of completing the overall objective rather than running around and kill everyone you see. Although COD has a rather epic gameplay, Battlefield stands out for its objective based gameplay instead of COD's kill everyone type gameplay.

Graphics

Naturally, due to COD's development in the late 2000s and with the graphics improved significantly over time. Its easy to see why COD's graphics heavily outweigh those of Battlefield's.

I've added these 2 pictures to compare between these two games. Above one is MW2 and the left would be Battlefield Bad company 2. Release dates are as close as possible to make the comparison as fair as possible. Just so you should know, Mw2 was released 4 months before BFBC2.

Mutiplayer

Ah so yes, we get to the part where it gets interesting. I shall do my comparison from what I've experienced. Battlefield has a more objective based gameplay as I mentioned earlier while COD is more of the shoot and kill all kind of objective. Though there are playlists in COD that have objective based gameplay, most people just kill all. The guns in COD are alot more comprehensive and attachments thereof are of course also more comprehensive than Battlefield. Unique things like for COD killstreaks and for battlefield, vehicles which you can drive or pilot have all their own advantages and disadvantages. On a general note. Battlefield has more balanced multiplayer than COD and the gap with player skill isn't big on Battlefield, but on COD, the gap is pretty big. Connection wise Battlefield has their own dedicated sever which reduces 90% of the lag regardless of where you are. COD on the other hand does not have such luxury and it is dependent on who is "hosting" the connection. This is good if all players are in the same region, but when you're talking internationally, its disaster. Lets use a real example, I'm from the asia-pacific region and the host is usually someone from the other side of the world. My ping would be at least 400-600 on COD which is means a red bar and between 0.4-0.6 second delays in whatever I do. My internet speed is 300Mpbs and I will still lag if the host is not that of my region. On Battlefield, these is still host, but like a gameroom master sorta and the connection is dependent on the sever, not the player. This reduces lag and the most lag I ever got was about 100 ping which is a 0.1 second delay, equivalent to a 3-4 bar on COD. To sum it up, COD has a more competitive, safe to say even brainless multiplayer and quite rubbish connection, but its is roughly compensated via its multilayer experience when all these are factored out. Battlefield on the other hand excels well in areas COD doesn't and although a bit less comprehensive, still a pretty great multiplayer experience.

Community

The battlefield community is rooted in the PC and just recently that the battlefield console community started forming. PC gamers are usually quite decent. They don't rage as much and although one might say that all gamers come from the PC at first, its mainly the console where all the are born. Trolls? Probably console. Flamers are more of the PC rage people. So generally the Battlefield community is very decent and everyone is generally alright. COD community is like stubborn magnet. Sometimes they stick together for a noble cause, and other times they repel each other. There plenty of "kids" on COD, not only referring to age, but maturity level. Out of my entire gaming life playing COD, I've only met a couple of people, like 3-4 who are mature enough. Who don't rage, understand the problem and act on intelligence rather than emotion, play well as in communication and suggesting strategies and tips to other players in a nice and decent way etc etc. Mainly all the good stuff. The rest? FUCK YOU I YOU PIECE OF SH4T N00B, YOU CANT E3VN A4M FOR SH1T! WAHT DA FUCK MAN, I SH0T YOU ALRDY OMG WTF. And then followed by rage quit or other players joining in. Standard experience in COD. So there you have it. I feel COD has a rather rubbish community and on the other hand Battlefield has still some rubbish people, but compared to COD is much much better. Still COD has a strong community (Generally).

Well that about sums up what I feel of theses two franchises. I'll wait till I get my hands on some BF3 and MW3 experience before I do review on them. Well then then, see you guys.

P.S The above is all my opinion and is judged on reliability based on your own stance, you don't have to agree with me all the time. Its just my opinion. Cheers.