i wish call of duty did this instead of releasing that cancer infinite warshit
Call of Duty can't do ANYTHING as well as battlefield can
Battlefield fanboy detected.
O-T:Played BF3/BF4 bit, didnt really think much of them, but this one looks epic.
Call of Duty is 100% the SAME thing every time, the only difference is how the weapons look, how the maps look, and slight movement differences.
Battlefield at least does something different just about every time... and Battlefield Bad Company 2 was one of the best FPS games yet.
Battlefield 2 is basically same as Battlefield 4. Please, tell me, how they are so diffrent. CoD adds more new stuff. Compare MW with AW. If you cant see that, then you're either blind or i dont know what. And you mentioned Bad Company. Call of Duty has Black Ops. I really cant see how Black Ops is worse than Bad Company.
Comparing 2 similar battlefield games whilst ignoring the fact that there are futuristic and back to the past titles as well isn't very fair.
When you compare both franchises you will come to the conclusion that CoD used to be modern military (MW, MW2 etc.) and it has now shifted to futuristic military (BO, IW etc), not sure if they have past military games as well. Then battlefield has past (1942), modern (2,3,4) and futuristic (2142). SO based on this your argument is invalid. However CoD is known for adding new gimmics with every new title (new killstreaks for example) which might be why you think CoD "adds more new stuff". But from my experience this isn't really innovation, it's the same old conent every year they just changed the packaging.
CoD started with WW2, then moved to modern warfare, and now is in futuristic military like you said. World at War is about WW2. Black Ops 1 is about Cold War special operations. I'd say my argument is not invalid.
"it's the same old conent every year they just changed the packaging." - And back to BF2 being basically same as BF4.
Show Posts
