First person shooter games are very popular. Whether it be Overwatch, Star Wars Battlefront, Call of Duty, or Battlefield, we really like to shoot digital enemies. But we also have preferences for the games we play. I prefer Battlefield, but some prefer Call of Duty. I’d like to compare Battlefield to Call of Duty, and try to convince you that Battlefield is indeed a superior game. I’m going to focus on two aspects of the game, areas I feel Battlefield nailed better than Call of Duty.
Classes
The class setup in Battlefield is more versatile than COD. In Battlefield 1 in particular, there are about 20 primaries and around 15 secondaries. You can also take two pieces of class-specific equipment, as well as a melee weapon and your choice of eight or so grenades. COD allows you to use a gun from any specialization, like SMGs or LMGs, and even snipers. That may be nice, but Battlefield has around 20 guns specifically for each class, based on the play style expected from that class. Assault is given SMGs for fast movement and higher fire rates, as well as housing a ton of shotguns, which are good for close quarters combat.
The medic class focuses on self-loading rifles with lower fire rates but a little higher damage. A couple full-auto rifles have been introduced, but accuracy and damage are sacrificed for going fully automatic. The support class focuses on light machine guns with modest fire rates and high ammunition capacity. Some LMGs have in excess of 200 rounds of ammunition per “clip”. The scout class works for long range, mostly consisting of snipers. There are different types of snipers, either marksman or infantry, the difference being that marksman snipers have bipods and telescopic sights, while infantry snipers have a palm rest and iron sights.
DLC (Downloadable Content)
A significant difference that makes me love Battlefield is how they handle DLC releases. Every DLC adds new guns and often times a new melee weapon. In COD, new releases would have to be acquired through a “supply drop,” in which your chances of getting something are hilariously low. As an added bummer, they cost real money. In Battlefield, new weapons are earned by completing challenges using weapons and equipment you already have. Battlefield has something called a “battlepack,” but they cannot be bought with real money.
Lastly, my number one favorite thing about Battlefield is the map size and usage of vehicles on said maps. COD has small maps in which you can attain “scorestreaks” if you’re doing well. In Battlefield 1, however, the maps are huge, taking place in real locations throughout WWI. Throughout the game, anyone can gain access to a horse, tank, plane, motorcycle, armored car, or boat. They respawn frequently, and your chances of getting in at least one of those things in a game is very high.
Overall, Battlefield and COD are good games. But in my opinion, Battlefield is better. The realism of Battlefield 1 definitely beats the cartoon fantasy gameplay of some recent Call of Duty games. I personally only play Battlefield, so my opinions could be biased a little, but its a fact that I can go on a five-year-old Battlefield game and still find a 64 player game, when I can go on last years COD and barely find a 12 player game.
