740°

Why Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare will be better than Battlefield 1

Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare will be better than EA’s Battlefield 1. There, I said it...

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com
IndominusRex2803d ago

And both are so different than each other. One has small maps and is fast paced, while the other one has player controlled vehicles and large maps.

UltimateMaster2803d ago

I'll won't be buying either one of them. I have no interest in them.
If I do, it won't be on console. Nobody should have to pay subscription fees to play online... it's starting to add up pretty quick when you add it all up.

mikeslemonade2803d ago

COD is gonna be better in terms of refinement. In terms of playability and polish. It's basically a remaster. COD has had so many iterations that make the game tight. So it will be better in that sense. But if COD gets a lower meta it's gonna be because it's not inventive enough. If BF gets a lower meta, it's gonna be because it's slightly broken.

Kingthrash3602802d ago (Edited 2801d ago )

You haven't played BF huh.^^
What makes you think BF will be broken?
What makes you think cod isnt?
Fact of the matter is this.
Cod is easy...so anyone can play it and feel like they are the best. I know 10 year Olds that are beast in it. Hand them bf and they sit in a corner not knowing what to do.
Cod is a pick up and play game that requires little skill.
BF is a deep fps...realistic in nature. Guns have real recoil, bullets drop to gravity there are no killstreaks getting kills for you there are tanks helicopters armored trucks airplanes jeeps motorcycles that all have their own feel..
I'm not saying one is better than another here....but one requires much more skill than the other.

Not opinion, fact.

You cod fanboys are funny.
I didn't say cod takes no skill I said one takes more skill than the other and it just does. No matter how you spin it

katabomba2802d ago

Exactly, that's why I'm interested in both games, If EA will make Warfighter 2 or an other Medal of Honor game we could compare as similar games and talk witch one will be better, otherwise B1 and Cod is different fps games.

BrettAwesome2802d ago

"It' starting to add up when you add it all up" *clap clap*

abstractel2802d ago

Very different games... I work on one of them, and if you only knew its history you'd be flabbergasted...

sullynathan2802d ago

@king thrash what a load of bs. Battlefield is pick up and play. Are you stupid? Do you think those 10 year olds would immediately adjust to a new game? Give them 2 hours though and they would quickly adjust to battlefield very easily.

Battlefield is not realistic at all. Not in any way. It barely requires more skill than cod. How is battlefield realistic when it has an unrealistic movement system, little weapon recoil, health regen, unrealistic damage model, unrealistic vehicles, and stupid physics that stops you from dying when falling 500 mph from the sky by using a parachute 5 feet from the floor?

You are typing the typical battlefield fanboy bs and praising it's unrealistic bullet drop too.

How can you even claim that battlefield requires skill when it has the same aim assist as cod on consoles and vehicles move much faster and much more efficient than real vehicles? Hell, all the vehicles have splash damage for their weapons so you don't even have to properly aim to hit someone. Apart from tanks and flying vehicles, all the other vehicles control the exact same (which is poorly, even worse than Halo).

BF isn't and has never been deep.

Utalkin2me2802d ago

@Kingthrash360

Far from fact.....Thats a baseless opinion is what that is. They both take skill to be good at them regardless of what your opinion is of either. It just so happens there is less in COD so learning curve is not near as steep. Hence the reasoning why new BF players tend to struggle at first and COD players do not. Just cause something has more doesn't always make it require more skill. I personally find it much easier to be good at BF then COD. I personally feel you have to play smart in BF to be good and not so much skill. But COD is the opposite, requires much more gun skill and less smarts.

And you ask why he thinks BF could possible be broken? Have you played the last 2 games? BF 4 was literally unplayable for like 6 months at launch and 3 wasnt much better.

Goldby2802d ago

@Sully

you need a medic to patch you up in Battlefield, in CoD you just need a box to hide behind for 3 seconds.

and tell me the first time a CoD player goes to snipe someone in Battlefield acrosss the map and realise their bullet drops in game. try figuring out not only bullet drop but also bullet travel time to get those sweet headshots at 1k away

sullynathan2802d ago (Edited 2802d ago )

@Gold you don't even need a med kit to heal in battlefield, you just need to be away from battle to regen health
The only difference is that it takes a few more seconds to regen than cod. Is that all it takes to be skilful or realistic to you fans? Maybe if dice wanted to encourage teamwork or make classes more useful, then they would have removed health regen so people would actually have to drop med kits but they won't do that for their casual game.

How do I still get comments as ridiculous as this? How do you figure out bullet drop? You play the game, realize your bullet drops from afar then you adjust by aiming up. Big deal. It's not complex at all.

Eonjay2802d ago

These truly are two very different games. I will take both.

Gitgud2802d ago (Edited 2802d ago )

@Kingthrash nah mate it isn't a fact that BF takes more skill to play than CoD and vice versa. In both games BF4 and BO3 I have K/D ratios about 1.50-1.60. You mention bullet drop? Honestly, once you understand BF4 and how it works, it becomes well to easy and same applies for CoD's gameplay style. You don't need more skill to play a certain shooter, you just need to be good at shooters and adaptable. You're fucking moronic for taking your opinion for a fact.

If you want btw, you could even check up my PSN : Maddness189 just to let your bullshit sink in.

_-EDMIX-_2802d ago

Agreed.

Both are too just far different than each other to even be compared

jsiddlehfx2802d ago (Edited 2802d ago )

@sullynathan Good try... Depending on what game mode you play, health does not regen.

Let's talk about unrealistic movement... BF you vault over low walls, which slows you down and interrupts targeting... COD you wall run, slide underthings long distances, hover and other bogus crap.

Little weapon recoil? Please show me a 500m full accuracy kill with an AEK-971

Unrealistic Damage Model? You mean how you can unload an entire clip of an SMG into a dude on COD and he lives? Again, this depends on game mode. Hardcore: Sniper Round, 1 shot for body and head, DMRs 2 shots body, 1 head, etc.

Splash Damage? Yeah, thats a real thing... Rockets create explosions, Very large rounds create pretty nasty impacts.

ALL THAT being said. I have played all CODs and all BF (numbered) games. COD is a fast paced arcade shooter, whereas BF is a more of a strategic shooter (my opinions obviously). I am not saying anything about skill, they both require skill, both are adaptable. KingThrash wasn't doing any better making BF sound a ton better than COD, but you did the same thing as a retaliation. Everyone praises their favorite series and that's fine. Just play it!

sullynathan2802d ago (Edited 2802d ago )

@jsiddlehfx you regen health in every game mode except a few hardcore varients that no one plays. Don't play dumb. what is strategic about battlefield? you are not required to work as a team at all. Please play a game that actually has recoil that will force you to learn how to use a weapon in game. I will recommend rainbow six siege, insurgency, SWAT 4 and ARMA.

unrealistic damage model is when you unload a full clip into someone or it takes multiple headshots to kill someone with an assault rifle. Then said person runs away, heals and comes back to take some more damage.

Stop bringing up the shoddy hardcore mode that absolutely no one plays because of how stupid the damage model is. DICE reduces the amount of health you have yet weapons do the exact same damage.

COD is not my favorite series nor did I come here to defend it. You can check my gaming profiles to prove that since they're all linked to my N4G account. I am here to dispel myths that Battlefield fanboys like you and kingthrash push around online.

Don't even get me started on how shitty rockets are in Battlefield. You can point blank shoot someone with an rpg and it won't kill them.

Battlefield is a fast paced arcade shooter set on a larger scale than cod. If you truly believe both games are that different, just play TDM on COD and then BF4 and see how everyone plays the exact same. Exact same twitch shit with fast running, little destruction, non-existent bullet penetration on surfaces.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 2802d ago
PixelOmen2803d ago

When someone is giving an opinion, that's kinda implied lol.

2802d ago
DeadlyOreo2803d ago

Why does this opinion piece have to include a "in my opinion", while with the countless BF1 will be better than Infinite Warfare articles no one says anything.

But i do agree with this. For me, Infinite Warfare is looking good quite decent. Bad Company 2 aside, Battlefield games really dont appeal to me.

nitus102802d ago

I hate to say it again but what you said is your opinion.

Have you played a BF1 or COD-Infinite Warfare? No! you haven't and until you do then it is your opinion although I won't fault you for having an opinion.

Kleptic2802d ago

The relativism of 'opinion' within the comments are ridiculous.

Do you guys know where laws came/come from (in the legal sense, not so much scientific)? They're...opinions...that, well at least with good governments, are put into effect by people voted into position...and the best part;...votes...are...opinions ...

When a certain opinion gains enough support, it's more than a merely subjective statement that holds zero weight...

In the case of BF1 vs. CoD:IW...neither being better is just an off the wall opinion that isn't shared by millions of people...both sides have huge amounts of support and shared views...Most argue BF is a more complete and deep franchise...yet CoD often outsells it (ghosts being an outlier)...Neither view is wrong simply because of it being someone's opinion...

Pedo's are good human beings and don't do anything wrong...that is an uninformed opinion that can be quickly written off...A debate among arguably the two biggest franchises in gaming and which is better overall?...not so easy...

Newmanator2802d ago

Umm I don't believe they have released a single multiplayer video for COD????

Maddens Raiders2802d ago

I know there's a ton of hype for these two games, but honestly, I can't stop playing BF4...

so much for the death of the fps huh? some ppl *cough* casuals *cough* - have been griping about fps' since '07 - claiming omgodzzz fps' are going to be the death of gaming...!!!!! Umm, no.
Get your gear boys, we're Oscar Mike!

showtimefolks2802d ago

Hopefully battlefield 1 won't have as many launch issues as battlefield 4

I do know this when cod was show at Sony e3 until it said cod many thought it was a different game. The hater on YouTube videos was legit from battlefield fanboys. I guess they forgot how bad battlefield 4 was at launch and how little dice delivered on Star Wars battlefront. I guess all is forgiven because world war 1 setting

Cod will outsell battlefield 1 by 8-10 million and in the end that's the most important number to both publishers. EA is trying its best to take the fps crown but it won't happen. I don't play FPS like cod or bf so I call it as I see it

InTheZoneAC2802d ago

isn't that obvious? He's not God...

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2802d ago
DrumBeat2803d ago

I don't think that's possible, imo. I prefer the Battlefield model. Plus, it's WWI. Finally getting a big spot in gaming. It's usually overlooked.

zeuanimals2803d ago

It's more like a WWI themed Battlefield game. The reason WWI is overlooked is because it's not really suitable for a traditional shooter. The war wasn't full of action and the common weapons were mostly bolt-action rifles. Most of the more advanced weapons in the game hardly, if at all, saw any actual use since most of them were first made towards the end of the war. The game is essentially a what if scenario where the war went on longer and tactics changed.

Stereotypical_gamer2802d ago

Have you seen the cover of the new battlefield? Talk about a "what if" scenario, black dude wielding German weapons while wearing a cape. I don't think dice is concerned with authenticity which is good, I doubt they are going to cheat the gameplay just because in real life they were using semi-auto rifles instead of full auto.

PhucSeeker2802d ago

It's possible. Being better is subjective after all.

Eonjay2802d ago

I think it depends on you frame of reference. I tend to like games that aren't based on actual wars. TO ME, there is something a little disrespectful about it. They are not to be glorified in my opinion.

lipton1012802d ago

A great WW1 game called Verdun comes out on psn next Tuesday if that's your thing. Way more realistic than cod or bf

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2802d ago
Intentions2803d ago

CoD will probably sell more, but battlefield has my interest, since there hasn't been a World War game in ages - my opinion.

Offbasic2803d ago

I agree That COD may sell more. But that doesn't mean it's a good game.

destroyerz12802d ago

It's relative. I lot people love COD, especially the zombie mode. For them, COD is a good game. Just because people hate CS, Minecraft or LOL, doesn't mean they are bad games. Activision has a lot of money to put into their franchises. Quality they have to spare.

daBUSHwhaka2802d ago

Will sell more for the wrong reason....COD4

venom062803d ago

Wow... The delusion is strong with this one... More sells doesn't mean better at all.

Aloy-Boyfriend2803d ago (Edited 2803d ago )

Except neither are yearly cash grabs

MagicBeanz2802d ago

No not like that at all.

2803d ago Replies(2)
Newmanator2802d ago

SALES. As in come sale away. As in this house is for sell. As in COD always sails better than Battlefield.

nitus102802d ago (Edited 2802d ago )

All gamers have their own preferences in games and what may be the greatest game in the eyes of many may be rubbish to other people.

For me, my personal preference in games is Action/Adventure and RPG's and pretty much all other games are of no interest to me although I do have to admit that the Doom story mode (well there was a story - sort off) was really great fun to play.

Even within the game genres, I like I can be fairly picky so as far as I am concerned if I like or dislike a game I really don't care what other people think.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2802d ago
Lennoxb632803d ago

I prefer BF but this isn't really a good comparison. They're completely different games. If you want off the wall, twitch fast gameplay, than COD is your game. You want a more paced, realistic, showcase of war, than BF1 will be your game.

TeflonHahn2803d ago (Edited 2803d ago )

"You want a more paced, realistic showcase of war, then BF1 will be your game"

Wouldn't be to sure about that dude
"DICE is focusing on "Fun Over Realism" for Battlefield 1"

http://segmentnext.com/2016...

TeflonHahn2803d ago (Edited 2803d ago )

Downvotes for sharing an article in which the developers made a statement to the contrary. Some people on this site man lol

souldestroyer142803d ago

It may be true but still in comparison the bf series has always been closer to simulation than Cod

morganfell2803d ago

Well I upvoted you. And realism is a relative term. It depends on which elements you are talking about getting close to real. One game also uses predictive estimations of future warfare.

KwietStorm_BLM2803d ago

If you understood what he said, he made a direct comparison to Call of Duty, which is why Battlefield is a *more* realistic showcase of war. He didn't say Battlefield is a realistic showcase of war.

Goldby2803d ago

fun over realism = not dying after 1 shot, not having a gun jam about 30 times over the course of 3 minutes.
fun as in an infantry unit can jumping into a helicopter and fly it.

Realism would be not being able to see anything becuase fo the smoke, dirt, clouds of mustard gas and night.
Realism would be having your gun jam up on you as you are flanking enemies only to have them execute you with 5 bullets before their guns jammed.
Realism would be next to no women on the battlefield, and instead just ahve them piloting the planes as scouts.
Realism would be one life, no respawn and no heals.

Just because EA is focusing on Fun over realism doesn t mean it cant be realistic.
Any day of the week BF is 1000x better than Cod. i want to be able to use skill in an FPS. have to figure how far the enemy is away so i can adjust my scope for the head shot, not how many Vicodin do i need to take to keep up with the 12 year olds.

Vegamyster2802d ago

@souldestroyer14

I'd wouldn't consider either game remotely realistic or simulation, you have to play something like ARMA or Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm ect for that.

souldestroyer142802d ago

I never said either game was realistic or simulation. I said one is closer to it than the other. One has jetpacks wall running and space fights the other does not.

ravinash2802d ago

I do find it funny when people argue over whether COD or battlefield is more real.

If you wanted real, have you site in a muddy ditch for 2 years before walking across a field before you get shot without really seeing the enemy.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2802d ago
sullynathan2802d ago (Edited 2802d ago )

Battlefield is nothing like real war except that it has more than infantry warfare. Compared to cod, Battlefield is not realistic at all and has never been, it's even more of an arcade shooter than cod at times. Both have health regen, both have very little recoil for weapons, battlefield has an unrealistic bullet drop model, vehicles in battlefield are far faster and more efficient than in real life. Hell you can do unrealistic shit like jump out of an exploding helicopter, use a parachute 5 feet from the floor after falling 500 feet and still survive. Pacing in battlefield is messed up on some game modes. Stop spreading this lie about battlefield.

Lennoxb632802d ago

Well you have to look at the fact that its a video game and can't be 100% accurate to what happens in the real world. If it was, you'd no longer have a game. If tanks were too slow, you'd easily get taking out. If bullet drop was as real as it is in real life, than nobody would ever hit anything. Because most people playing these games don't know how to operate any of these guns. Health regen is very slow on Battlefield. But its a video game. It has to take some liberties upon itself so that its more fun than real.

sullynathan2802d ago

You aren't getting what I'm saying. Being a video game is an excuse, battlefield is just unrealistic.

Mehmeh2802d ago

And COD is even more unrealistic - Which makes BF more realistic out of the two.

wonderfulmonkeyman2802d ago

@mehmeh
I dunno, dude: it doesn't take many shots to kill you in CoD almost regardless of the weapon used.
Seems pretty realistic to me, on that point.
Not necessarily more fun, buuuut...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2802d ago
Show all comments (168)
70°

Call of Duty VR Games - Will They Ever Happen?

The VR industry has long awaited sign of true Call of Duty VR games, but will it ever happen? And does it need to happen?

Read Full Story >>
xrsource.net
crazyCoconuts308d ago

I don't think it's in Activision's DNA to stick their neck out on something like this unfortunately. They've got a surefire winner with COD so why risk a winning formula.
fwiw, Firewall Zero Hour was more fun than COD for me, but obviously didn't have the same user base and budget
I wonder hypothetically if a non-VR COD style game were to integrate VR players, could you even balance such a thing out. I'm guessing no.

TheEnigma313308d ago

No it won't. They are lazy and people will buy anyways

ApocalypseShadow307d ago

Highly unlikely at the moment. Executives are more concerned with being bought by Daddy Warbucks and golden parachutes than moving VR forward. They had a chance last gen but released a spaceship, combat demo instead. COD would increase VR awareness but if they were bought, the same thing that happened to other developers under Microsoft would happen to them.

Just consider, before being bought by Microsoft, Bethesda had Skyrim and Wolfenstein Cyber pilot. Ninja Theory had Hell Blade, Dexed and helped with Vader Immortal. Inxile had Mage's Tale. Double Fine had Psychonauts. ID Software had Doom VFR and Doom 3. Compulsion had We Happy Few: Uncle Jack Live.

Ever since the purchase of those developers, zero VR games announced or released. And since Microsoft continues to shun VR, Activision games like COD wouldn't have VR either under them.

Firewall, Crossfire, Pavlov, and whoever else makes an FPS game in VR, will have to do for the time being. Maybe Sony will make one like Killzone or Resistance in VR. Also surprised that Valve didn't put Counterstrike in VR.

poppatron307d ago

I think the experience would be so different to traditional CoD and share so little with it that there would be no point in pinning the CoD label on it. I think Pavlov is about as close as you’ll get

70°

DICE Needs To Recapture The Magic Of Battlefield 1 In The Next Game

For DICE to succeed with its next game, it has to return to the roots of the franchise. Atmospheric map design, clear and defined class-based gameplay, attention to detail, and total chaos. Battlefield 1 feels like every rock, every glint on your sniper rifle, every falling brick from a collapsing church, has been painstakingly considered. So much care went into the design of the game, from its soundtrack to its costume department. To stand a chance alongside the behemoths of Treyarch and Infinity Ward, DICE needs to recapture what made their old games so brilliant, otherwise it’s all over.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
LordoftheCritics529d ago

"DICE Needs To Recapture The Magic Of Battlefield 3 In The Next Game"

/Fixed

...on a serious note, DICE needs to remove the Battlefield name.

isarai529d ago

Eh, bfbc2 was the peak for me, only ad dogfighting and the accommodations that come with it. Every BF after that was such an unsatisfying progression system for weapons and gear for the classes, 90% of the guns feel exactly the same when you unlock them, just felt boring in comparison. Not to mention the gimped destruction as the series progressed

Sciurus_vulgaris529d ago

I found Battlefield 1 to be overrated. The gameplay was simpler and less strategic than its predecessors. Battlefield 1 did have a woo-factor, but the gameplay got repetitive faster than Battlefield 4 in my opinion.

porkChop529d ago

If DICE needs to return to the roots of the franchise then why would they look at Battlefield 1? BF1 is overly simplified and streamlined. What DICE should focus on is Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2. Those two games were the pinnacle of the franchise.

TheEnigma313529d ago

BC2 was the best. they need to get back to that.

Show all comments (7)
150°

Battlefield 1, Hardline, BF4 Servers Are Being Taken Offline by Cheaters; EA Silent on Issue

Cheaters & hackers have been causing grief on Battlefield 1, Hardline & BF4 servers, with nonstop DDoS attacks among other things. Unfortunately, EA has remained silent about it.

-Foxtrot760d ago

Course they are silent, they are hoping people flock to 2042

gamesftw250759d ago

Maybe it was a inside job then haha.

jeromeface758d ago

wouldnt be the first time, titanfall 1+2 anyone?

PapaBop759d ago

Not even if they paid me.. EA always do this with old games with less money potential, if this was Ultimate Team, they'd address and sort it faster than stories could spread. Why invest time in their products when they will just dump it in the following years? Then again EA never could see the forest for the trees.

Inverno759d ago

I imagine after those games were given out for free a couple months back through Amazon, anything that makes people go to 2042 is a plus for them

XiNatsuDragnel760d ago

They want people to go on 2042. My theory

excaliburps759d ago

Nah. I think they can't do anything about it or they want to sink money into fixing it.

Pudge102888759d ago (Edited 759d ago )

EA owns all BF servers so yes, they can do something about it but they refuse to because they dont want ppl playing their old games instead of the new one. Its EA we’re talking about here

pr33k33759d ago

if this happened in 2042, they'd have something to say. which is weird, considering battlefield 1 has more players on steam right now.

Pudge102888759d ago

Its so obvious that EA is doing this or hired ppl to mess up the games so that we’d be forced to have just 1 Battlefield working.

FPS_D3TH759d ago

Honestly it’s probably the devs themselves. They did an update to bf4 way back that kinda made assault rifles doo doo in hopes that people would flock to BF1 cuz BF4 was too perfect

Show all comments (15)