Call of Duty: Ghosts Vs. Battlefield 4

[Destenyofenemy]

I LOL at the people that say "CoD is the same every year"

Call of Duty: 1


Call of Duty: Ghosts


Same every year? Really? :P

Yeah... It's funny, I think that's how everyone is talking 'bout CoD/BF

What is/have changed in BF? Tanks/Airplanes/Maps/Weapons, they looks same? Don't ya' think?

[Coldfrye]

I LOL at the people that say "CoD is the same every year"

Call of Duty: 1


Call of Duty: Ghosts


Same every year? Really? :P

You are comparing a game from 2003 to a game from 2013. They are a decade apart, your argument is invalid.

[ImMalkah]

You are comparing a game from 2003 to a game from 2013. They are a decade apart, your argument is invalid.

I don't like arguing about useless threads like this :P

Plus, people say "EVERY YEAR" therefore it doesn't matter if it's 1000 years apart it's still every year, see what I mean? .

[Coldfrye]

I don't like arguing about useless threads like this :P

Plus, people say "EVERY YEAR" therefore it doesn't matter if it's 1000 years apart it's still every year, see what I mean? .

Yeah I understand but, neither games change very much when it comes to multiplayer. Yeah Dice threw in the Chinese and Activision tossed in the dog. Overall they are still the same from last release. Ghosts is still run & gun shooter, while BF4 is the team based shooter.

[ImMalkah]

Yeah I understand but, neither games change very much when it comes to multiplayer. Yeah Dice threw in the Chinese and Activision tossed in the dog. Overall they are still the same from last release. Ghosts is still run & gun shooter, while BF4 is the team based shooter.

Exactly my point,

but the thing is people think it's possible to change a whole game when it comes to multiplayer.

I'm not sure what people want other than new maps, new mechanics, new engine, new guns, and killstreaks.

What other "new" things do people want? .

[Destenyofenemy]

Yeah I understand but, neither games change very much when it comes to multiplayer. Yeah Dice threw in the Chinese and Activision tossed in the dog. Overall they are still the same from last release. Ghosts is still run & gun shooter, while BF4 is the team based shooter.

Call of Duty is also Team Based, just CoD gamers are just too "Assholes" to make it as Team Game. So if BF pros played BF same as COD players do right now, then BF could've end up as same AS COD.

[Coldfrye]

Call of Duty is also Team Based, just CoD gamers are just too "Assholes" to make it as Team Game. So if BF pros played BF same as COD players do right now, then BF could've end up as same AS COD.

Well it already is sometimes, say when you play by your self, as in no friends w/ you? Yeah COD can be team based but it is quite difficult at times.

[Coldfrye]

Exactly my point,

but the thing is people think it's possible to change a whole game when it comes to multiplayer.

I'm not sure what people want other than new maps, new mechanics, new engine, new guns, and killstreaks.

What other "new" things do people want? .

I never really thought of it this way so I can't really think of anything that I would personally want in the game. COD is COD and we should leave it like that and BF is BF. One is run and gun and the other is large scale warfare. I like both because say I get bored of BF, I got to BO2 to just run and gun and its fun for a while and when I get bored of that I switch back to bf3.

[ImMalkah]

Call of Duty is also Team Based, just CoD gamers are just too "Assholes" to make it as Team Game. So if BF pros played BF same as COD players do right now, then BF could've end up as same AS COD.

Nah man, you don't absolutely need a team to play CoD, as there are different game-modes that are designed for playing by yourself (i.e Free for All)

Also, there are many times I have gone in-game and absolutely destroyed the other 9-man party team. It's possible, even if the team is good. The only reason people can't do good against clans and parties is because they usually spawn trap and they don't know how to escape the spawn trap.

In Battlefield, if you face a team as big as 9 or 10, you're screwed. The people will be helping each other and running classes for each other and making it very hard for the enemy team to control the objective.

Call of Duty: Run & Gun, connection and position based.
Battlefield: Teams & take things slow. (More skill based, you need to be smart).

Thus the reason you CANNOT compare the two.

That's like comparing a phone to a tablet. Same idea, but two completely different things.

[Coldfrye]

Nah man, you don't absolutely need a team to play CoD, as there are different game-modes that are designed for playing by yourself (i.e Free for All)

Also, there are many times I have gone in-game and absolutely destroyed the other 9-man party team. It's possible, even if the team is good. The only reason people can't do good against clans and parties is because they usually spawn trap and they don't know how to escape the spawn trap.

In Battlefield, if you face a team as big as 9 or 10, you're screwed. The people will be helping each other and running classes for each other and making it very hard for the enemy team to control the objective.

Call of Duty: Run & Gun, connection and position based.
Battlefield: Teams & take things slow. (More skill based, you need to be smart).

Thus the reason you CANNOT compare the two.

That's like comparing a phone to a tablet. Same idea, but two completely different things.

I completely agree and this a very good explanation. In short terms you can't compare them because they are two different sub-genre of games.

[ImMalkah]

I completely agree and this a very good explanation. In short terms you can't compare them because they are two different genre of games.

Well no, they're both first-person shooters but you probably mean like different sub-genres :P

And yea I agree. .

[Destenyofenemy]

Nah man, you don't absolutely need a team to play CoD, as there are different game-modes that are designed for playing by yourself (i.e Free for All)

Also, there are many times I have gone in-game and absolutely destroyed the other 9-man party team. It's possible, even if the team is good. The only reason people can't do good against clans and parties is because they usually spawn trap and they don't know how to escape the spawn trap.

In Battlefield, if you face a team as big as 9 or 10, you're screwed. The people will be helping each other and running classes for each other and making it very hard for the enemy team to control the objective.

Call of Duty: Run & Gun, connection and position based.
Battlefield: Teams & take things slow. (More skill based, you need to be smart).

Thus the reason you CANNOT compare the two.

That's like comparing a phone to a tablet. Same idea, but two completely different things.

Yes, I know that, but CoD is kinda stupid, you spawn every where, where is free land.

[ImMalkah]

Yes, I know that, but CoD is kinda stupid, you spawn every where, where is free land.

So you think they should spawn you in one spot and people can keep shooting at that spot and insta-killing you? It doesn't make sense .

[Coldfrye]

Well no, they're both first-person shooters but you probably mean like different sub-genres :P

And yea I agree. .

Yeah Haha I meant that my bad

[Destenyofenemy]

So you think they should spawn you in one spot and people can keep shooting at that spot and insta-killing you? It doesn't make sense .

Yes, that's what I kinda mean... What I did mean was that they should make bigger maps, instead of small maps, how about medium, cause there you have room to spam, and room to move around. Let's take Call of Duty MW3 of london, look how small it is.