On any forum, blogs or anywhere else, even saying out loud “There is nothing cooler than KoD’a / Battles!"immediately a massive dispute begins. It is in the last 2 years that CoD and Battlefield have been fighting for the rights to the best modern shooter. I want to express my opinion on this hot topic. I warn you – my opinion may not coincide with yours and in the comments to the post there is no need to start finding out who is right.
Of course, everyone knows that if we compare KoD and Buttfield, then from the KoD series we take the “Modern Warfare” trilogy along with “Black Ops”, and from Battlefield we take “Bad Company 2” and a simple third part. They all came out at almost the same time as their opponent. For what? For the sake of sales, for sure. But we all know that the CoD always collects a record number of “green”.
I have never understood those people who https://tournaversecasino.co.uk/ are even ready to kill people (in words, mostly they write it terribly incorrectly 🙂 ) so that they do not buy Code. Such people, in my opinion, are sick, they like to count other people’s money. Since they are ardent fans of Battlefield, they can simply say that they don’t like CoD, and not rush at every passerby. At the same time, there are KoD fans who, out of resentment, begin to humiliate Buttfield fans. And I don’t agree with them either.
“You, stupid KoD fans, are sold the same thing year after year, and you buy it."- I absolutely disagree with this phrase. They sell us the same engine year after year. For everything else, the developers (and they change) have ideas to support the game. I really liked the Zombies mode in Black Ops, my friends and I played the game for a whopping 280 hours because of it. In “Modern Warfare 2-3” my friend and I played a lot in special operations. KoD’s solo campaigns are not good enough in terms of plot, but in terms of entertainment there is nothing bad to say.
I have always been a supporter of the opinion that CoD is primarily a single-player shooter, a la a Hollywood blockbuster. At the same time, Buttfield is a multiplayer shooter, and quite spectacular. It is clear that I have nothing against these two games, I like each in its own way. Although KoD doesn’t have particularly cool graphics, I like the game only because I just want to shoot. I never started arguing about the engine of this game, even when the teaser for the new CoD "Black Ops II" came out. As for Buttfield, I can say that I am satisfied with almost everything in the game.
Since we’re talking about "almost", I would like to present the pros and cons I found for each game.
Call of Duty (+): excellent single player game; always good co-op mode; optimization; not great, but good multiplayer.
Battlefield (+): wonderful multiplayer; huge maps; interaction with the environment; military equipment; of course, graphics.
Call of Duty (-); outdated (but tolerable) graphics; game price; price of additions to the game; variety of add-ons.
Battlefield (-); multiplayer is difficult for beginners; optimization; system requirements; boring single company.
This is my little list. Why did I write “optimization” in the cons of Battlefield? It’s just that Battlefield 3 crashes for me almost every 10 minutes, and this is on my very good computer (it can handle the game on ultra-graphics.
My post is coming to an end. I thought for a long time about what I would write about, what I would talk about. I am sure that I will receive a sufficient number of minuses for blurting out something wrong for someone. But I don’t care, I just wanted to express my opinion. It’s boiling 🙂
P.S.: I also wanted to know why the “writing” of these two games did not include “Arma” and “Medal of Honor”. Maybe they’re second-rate products?