5 Reasons Why I Prefer Battlefield to Call of Duty

I’m loving these ‘(enter number) Reasons’, articles at the moment. Whilst I’m on a roll, I figure y’all might like to know why I prefer Battlefield over COD. Now, the battle between COD and Battlefield has been a long standing one. For a while, COD dominated the console scene, and Battlefield was the preferred pastime for PC gamers. But, in recent years, Battlefield has made a foray into COD’s territory, and now the fight is really hotting up.

For a while, I was a COD kid. But, pretty much after Call of Duty: World at War, I slowly began to lose interest in the series. For me, it was because the developers weren’t offering anything new. After World at War, I took the leap over to Battlefield, starting with Bad Company. Since then, I’ve been a Battlefield boy… until Advanced Warfare came out, that is. It looked like the developers, this time round it was Sledgehammer, had finally done something new with the franchise – so I decided to dip my toes. Although, after playing the game online for a month or so, I’m still a Battlefield boy at heart; this COD just isn’t good enough to convince me to switch. Obviously, this is personal to how I like to play my FPS games, but still, here are my reasons why.

5) The games are too short

My smallest qualm with the recent additions to the Call of Duty series is that the games are too short. In most cases, they last about 15 minutes, with a few modes lasting half an hour (I think). For me, 15 minutes isn’t long enough to get into the map or to find a rhythm. By the time I know the map and have decided upon a (what I like to call) ‘running route’, the game seems to be over. Plus, it doesn’t encourage a comeback. Usually, when one team is ahead, that’s pretty much it. Especially because people seem to quit out at the slightest sign of losing. I understand why the games are so short – because the gameplay is so fast paced. Still, I’d rather play fewer for longer rather than more for shorter.

4) The maps are too small

The maps are too small, Godamnit! The game is so highly concentrated that it just feels a little rushed. I like big maps with more players, because it feels more like a battle and less like a clusterfuck of explosions, flashy lights and gunshots. Plus, you get shot in the back, every. Fucking. Time. Just constantly being shot in the back from people sitting in corners, or above doors, or behind doors – it’s infuriating. That doesn’t happen in the bigger maps of Battlefield (at least as much) because there’s no point in camping as it’s less likely for someone to run past you.

3) It lacks variation

I like the fact that you can customise your operative, that’s a nice touch for Advanced Warfare. But, asides from that, there is very little variation in the maps, how you play them or the weapons that you get to play them with. Other than a shotgun, a sniper rifle, a pistol or an automatic rifle, the weapons are very similar. I’m yet to find anything semi-automatic… but I guess there’s probably no point, because COD seems to be more about reaction time spraying and praying than it does aiming. Whilst the maps are designed well, the fact that the game is so quick and the maps are so small makes the games all play out the same. It’s just a mosh pit of shooting – with the occasional secondary objective, like capturing a flag. In Battlefield, though, each map seems to play out differently. You can play it from high-rise buildings as a sniper picking off targets. You can play it from the ground as a medic, healing your team mates and enduring a hail of gunfire in the middle of the battle to revive downed players. You can play it from the sky in a helicopter or a jet, or you can stick to ground vehicles in tanks, trucks, jeeps, motor-bikes or quad bikes. Each class encourages you to play the game a little differently, and each map has their own unique chokepoints, with scripted events that seem to draw people in like moths to a flame (the high-rise building collapsing in Siege of Shanghai, for instance in Battlefield 4). Overall, Battlefield is a franchise that revolves around the players and the field of battle, and how you want to tackle the opposition, which makes it a far more exciting experience (for me, anyway).

2) It doesn’t encourage teamwork

COD does not encourage people to work together – mainly because it’s not really possible. In most cases, no matter what the game-mode, people will just split up and rampage around the map. You’ve no reason to play alongside someone, because they’ll probably be dead by the time you reach them. I prefer the class system of Battlefield, because it encourages you to work together. As a medic, I feel an obligation to heal or revive my team-mates. As an engineer, I feel a duty to take down the tanks or helicopters with my rockets and as the support class, I feel obligated to hand out ammunition. Not only that, but people actively ask you for it – so helping each other is kind of unavoidable.

1) There aren’t many (if any) tactical elements to the game

My final point kind of encapsulates all of my other points – I prefer Battlefield because the size of the maps, the speed of the game, the different ways that you can play it and the elements of teamwork encourage you to play the game with an air of tactics. Whenever I play with my brother and/or girlfriend, we always end up playing it together, as a unit. We support each other with the different classes and we pick and choose where to attack, and how to attack. Sometimes, I’ll give them cover as a sniper, or I will draw the fire of tanks so that my brother can blow them up. I’ve lost count of the number of times that my girlfriend has revived me as a medic, or stood back to back with me as we hold off the enemy and capture an objective. Or the number of times that my brother has picked me up from one objective in a helicopter to drop me in on another. You don’t get that in COD – it’s just too quick and too manic to have any sort of real plan. You don’t have time to take a knee and rethink a strategy, because you’ll be killed… or the game will end before you’ve decided. Battlefield is an ever-changing, ever-evolving game where you have to be aware of how the game is playing out, and change the way that you play the game accordingly – I like that.

Now, I’m not saying that Call of Duty is a bad game franchise. If I didn’t have Battlefield, I would gladly play COD. Not only that, but I do enjoy playing COD online, and I must admit that the campaign is always ten times better than Battlefield’s. Still, I can’t get away from the fact that Battlefield lets me play the game how I like to play it. If I want a manic fire-fight, I’ll just head to one of the chokepoints for some all out, explosive fun. But if I want to play the game tactically and think about how I’m taking on my enemy, I can do that too. So for me personally, you can’t beat everything that Battlefield has to offer. But, maybe you hate the game! Why not let me know your five reasons for preferring COD in the comments section below.