Battlefield 4 Vs Call of Duty Black Ops
The FPS genre is usually dominated by two titles: Call of Duty and Battlefield. Both games have their own target audience and style, but their genre and gameplay structure make comparisons inevitable between the two. After all, both franchises' games are made to rake as many players in and keep them for prolonged periods of multiplayer fragging (and trash-talking).
For some, knowing where to devote their time and skills is important. That's why we're here with the age-old question: Call of Duty or Battlefield? Mustard or ketchup? Anyway, it's high time again to pit the two game franchises against each other. They keep churning out these new titles from time to time so here's some help in picking where to perform some 360-no-scopes.
Updated June 13, 2021 by Sid Natividad:With the new Battlefield 6 looming about on the horizon, we can't help but revisit and discuss some expectations regarding the franchise. Call of Duty isn't backing down from the fight either as it's also handing out its own dose of exciting changes, particularly for Call of Duty: Warzone. Hence, the ongoing war between the two multiplayer-focused FPS franchises rages on.
Battlefield vs Call of Duty is bound to be a more intense conundrum as the latter keeps the pressure. As always, we're just here to help you decide to pick a side by adding more merits to either video game franchises. Since they just keep upping the ante, we can't help but find more to like in either. So again, which is better? Battlefield or Call of Duty? Let us count the ways again.
14 Why Call Of Duty: Better Anti-Cheat Software
Fire up an old Battlefield game (such as Battlefield 1 or even Hardline) and it probably won't take you long to see a shotgun user sniping you from several conquest points away or a floating machine gun. The cheating situation is rampant in Battlefield games.
While something like that is also present in Call of Duty titles, it's not as bad because the developers seem more vigilant on banning users. Their anti-cheat countermeasures also seem more effective. Battlefield 6 will need to cover this weakness and prioritize it.
13 Why Battlefield: Intense Innovation
Battlefield games have always tried to outdo their previous games and as a result, each new tech or mechanic to the game tends to revolutionize the franchise as a whole. The latest in this trend is the more destructible environments in Battlefield 6 along with weather effects that aren't just for show.
It would appear that Battlefield 6 will feature the most fully realized vision of the developers for what they intend in a Battlefield game. It simply makes Call of Duty's environments feel flat or uninspired.
12 Why Call Of Duty: More Accessible
With that said, Call of Duty has its own charm for the general population. There's a reason why a big chunk of its players are kids; it's highly accessible and simple. Whereas Battlefield games require communication, team reliance, and coordination for victories, Call of Duty games are more of an arcade experience.
Each player can become a one-man army if they want and the bullet and gun physics are more streamlined. Battlefield games try to mix in some realism with their arcade aspects and it ends up having a higher learning curve.
11 Why Battlefield: More Immersive Sound Design
Battlefield 1 is the prime example of this franchise strength. Each artillery echo, bellows of pain, and orchestral score during pivotal moments of an Operation or a Conquest is worth more than any single-player campaign from Call of Duty or Battlefield.
It all adds up to make Battlefield a more immersive experience even in a multiplayer aspect. Gun sounds are also more impactful and just the general rattling of weapons-fire in the faraway distance makes the experience more palpable.
10 Why Call Of Duty: Faster-Paced
There's a reason why Mountain Dew and Doritos are almost synonymous with Call of Duty. The game is so fast-paced you'd need as much sugar as you can to cope with the adrenaline rush and Doritos are just there because they're accessible snacks.
Seriously though, Call of Duty's multiplayer is better suited for people looking for quick matches that provide instant gratification. Your team lost? Jump into another match and keep doing that until you win. The recoil-less guns and superhuman player avatars make that possible.
9 Why Battlefield: Realistic Combat
Then again, players might be looking for something more grounded in reality as much as possible. In that field, Battlefield wins due to its adherence to real-world physics which isn't saying much because Battlefield games are actually terrible simulators. Still, they're more realistic compared to Call of Duty.
This is easily seen in the head bobbing animations of the characters and even the recoil of the guns. Sniping and long-range firefights for that matter, are more satisfying in Battlefield games because of all the calculations involved.
8 Why Call Of Duty: Better Storytelling
Call of Duty stories aren't exactly that "good," sometimes they're even worse than B military movies made only with the intent of army recruitment. But compared to what Battlefield has on offer, Call of Duty might as well be the Citizen Kane of military-themed FPS.
Call of Duty's characters are a lot more memorable and they actually have personalities. The Black Ops titles are some of the most riveting ones in the series when it comes to story. Battlefield just can't capture that same level of narrative presentation.
7 Why Battlefield: Better Graphics
Speaking of presentation, this is a tough one as Call of Duty games look like they're catching up but the latest Battlefield titles remain as some of the most graphically impressive FPS games out there. Even Battlefield 1 is difficult to top these days.
The general atmosphere of that game as well as its faithfulness to the setting is quite unparalleled. Some fans even call Battlefield 1 a PTSD simulator given how realistic it is, especially with the HUD off.
6 Why Call Of Duty: More Rewarding Multiplayer
Since Call of Duty's multiplayer is more suited to people looking to frag others and then move one, then it's more emotionally fulfilling. It allows for more wins and more exciting encounters whereas Battlefield games and their large maps compress the combat mostly to the frontlines.
Additionally, the progression tiers or leveling system in Call of Duty games gives more frequent and substantial rewards compared to Battlefield games. If you're impatient or want to win as much as possible, then Call of Duty games are arguably better suited.
5 Why Battlefield: Larger Scale
Then again, nothing quite compares to the spectacle that the large playgrounds of Battlefield give to the players. Seeing an airship crash in a multiplayer match or fighter planes duke it out in the skies while infantrymen suffer in the hell below is just a unique experience.
Even Call of Duty's single-player scripted events don't come close to that. The bigger maps ensure that battles play out like they do in actual warfare as much as possible with an emphasis on taking points and tactical assaults.
4 Why Call Of Duty: Battle Royale
Too bad Battlefield still hasn't adapted or won't adapt to the changing times these days. One of the most popular multiplayer game modes today is still battle royale and Call of Duty caters well to fans of the genre.
It even made a game specifically for battle royale; that one sits at the top spot comfortably right now. The battle royale mode often provides a refreshing break from the fast-paced shooting of the main Call of Duty multiplayer though it's still a different level of mature gameplay compared to Battlefield's.
3 Why Battlefield: Wider Gameplay Variety
Speaking of gameplay, Battlefield games do offer their own unique twist to the FPS genre by allowing players to used combined arms, meaning vehicles aren't off the table. In Call of Duty, multiplayer doesn't allow for such freedom, unless we're talking about the battle royale section but even that's too limited.
Battlefield has always allowed players to use planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, airships, and even horses to turn the tide of war. If players ever get tired of walking and getting shot, then they can try dying in a fiery vehicular explosion instead.
2 Why Call Of Duty: More Games
One obvious victory Call of Duty has in this matchup is that it has way too many games out already. It's a franchise whose legacy dates back to 2003 and currently has dozens of games under its brand.
These games also have their own active multiplayer scenes because no one ever gets tired of Call of Duty, it's a household name by now. Battlefield's a little trickier and has fewer games, meaning if you ever get tired of the latest ones, then there's not much to go back to; the older games are also too far apart with outdated graphics and gameplay.
Call of Duty games do have a reputation for being cesspools of toxicity. The player base is younger than other multiplayer games so expecting some immature behavior is almost a norm there. The Battlefield community, on the other hand, doesn't have that kind of animosity.
The players are notably more mature and patient as the dominant game modes in Battlefield require full teamwork and even coordination. In that regard, it's a better way to be social in video games as not many people will claim to have slept with your parents there.
NEXT: The Call Of Duty Villains Of The Past Decade, Ranked Worst To Best
Sifu Has A Game Over And No Difficulty Options
Remember real game over screens?
Read Next
About The Author 
Sid Natividad (415 Articles Published)
Sid was born, did some stuff, then decided to become a writer. He finds respite in the sweet embrace of mass media escapism after having risked his life too many times as a journalist covering warzones and depressed areas. Nowadays he mostly risks his bladder as he tries to hold his urine waiting for those precious post-credits scenes at the movies or trying to kill Souls-like bosses. So far it's going well. Probably.
More From Sid Natividad
Battlefield 4 Vs Call of Duty Black Ops
Source: https://www.thegamer.com/call-duty-battlefield-franchise-comparison/