Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
They pretend to be, but at the core they're very different games.
Battlefield is a military sandbox with a focus on immersion and atmosphere. Lots of vehicles. An actual projectile based bullet system. Large team based gameplay.
COD is an arcade shooter with 'hitscan' weapons, focused on fast paced gameplay on small maps. Actual vehicles weren't even a thing until warzone.
I mean last time I played either series was around the time of battlefield 3, but back then the series were very direct competitors and I played both and they were very similar.
There was always a rivalry between the fans, but it was just because they were the two biggest franchise shooters. I think they fight for new fans and children, but if you've played either properly you know which you prefer. To compare BF3 and MW3 and think they're 'very' similar I think is misled.
To compare BF3 and MW3 and think they're 'very' similar I think is misled.
I disagree, and I played quite a bit of both. They're both fast-paced round-based arcadey competitive shooters with a wide variety of different weapons with which to approach situations in slightly different ways. MW3 is slightly faster paced and more arcadey but I think it's disingenuous to imply that they aren't filling the exact same niche.
BF3 had 64 players on big open maps with vehicles. MW3 had tiny little maps with less than half of BF3s players. They really weren't the same game/niche
I just disagree. I don't like modern COD. I liked old COD but I wasn't very good at it. I have loved and been pretty good every battlefield game apart from the newest one.
There's a milsim community on battlefield. There isn't on COD because it's impossible to bring such an arcadey game to a realistic level by tweaking the settings. (Of course, battlefield milsim isn't actually realistic but it gets a lot closer... Otherwise no one would bother)
Battlefields flagship conquest mode rounds can last at least half an hour. COD's rounds last 1-7 minutes. COD's maps are for the most part classic 3 lane gameplay. Battlefield maps are much more open and the sky is literally the limit. The vehicles alone separate the franchises hard. Battlefield has recoil models, bullet velocity, and suppression mechanics, whereas COD is much more 'quake' style. Even in terms of classes, battlefield is oriented towards team fighting with resupplies, revives, and so on. COD is very solo-skill focused.
Their only real gameplay comparison are their campaign missions, which neither franchises really bother with anymore. If you look at recent game releases, people are hailing DELTA FORCE as the new Battlefield 'killer'. No one's comparing it to COD. They're just different. You could only not spot the differences if you'd only played TDM on Noshahr Canals.
They pretend to be, but at the core they're very different games.
Battlefield is a military sandbox with a focus on immersion and atmosphere. Lots of vehicles. An actual projectile based bullet system. Large team based gameplay.
COD is an arcade shooter with 'hitscan' weapons, focused on fast paced gameplay on small maps. Actual vehicles weren't even a thing until warzone.
I mean last time I played either series was around the time of battlefield 3, but back then the series were very direct competitors and I played both and they were very similar.
There was always a rivalry between the fans, but it was just because they were the two biggest franchise shooters. I think they fight for new fans and children, but if you've played either properly you know which you prefer. To compare BF3 and MW3 and think they're 'very' similar I think is misled.
I disagree, and I played quite a bit of both. They're both fast-paced round-based arcadey competitive shooters with a wide variety of different weapons with which to approach situations in slightly different ways. MW3 is slightly faster paced and more arcadey but I think it's disingenuous to imply that they aren't filling the exact same niche.
BF3 had 64 players on big open maps with vehicles. MW3 had tiny little maps with less than half of BF3s players. They really weren't the same game/niche
I just disagree. I don't like modern COD. I liked old COD but I wasn't very good at it. I have loved and been pretty good every battlefield game apart from the newest one.
There's a milsim community on battlefield. There isn't on COD because it's impossible to bring such an arcadey game to a realistic level by tweaking the settings. (Of course, battlefield milsim isn't actually realistic but it gets a lot closer... Otherwise no one would bother)
Battlefields flagship conquest mode rounds can last at least half an hour. COD's rounds last 1-7 minutes. COD's maps are for the most part classic 3 lane gameplay. Battlefield maps are much more open and the sky is literally the limit. The vehicles alone separate the franchises hard. Battlefield has recoil models, bullet velocity, and suppression mechanics, whereas COD is much more 'quake' style. Even in terms of classes, battlefield is oriented towards team fighting with resupplies, revives, and so on. COD is very solo-skill focused.
Their only real gameplay comparison are their campaign missions, which neither franchises really bother with anymore. If you look at recent game releases, people are hailing DELTA FORCE as the new Battlefield 'killer'. No one's comparing it to COD. They're just different. You could only not spot the differences if you'd only played TDM on Noshahr Canals.