NOTE: As far as gameplay goes...I haven't played the most recent Call of Duty to be able to accurately compare the two games. So be cautious when taking my word. This post mostly takes a look at Battlefield 3 versus Call of Duty 4-Black Ops as well as a shortened history of modern FPS titles.
I really love first person shooters and I have been active on both Call of Duty and Battlefield as well as Halo and some other highly popular FPSes. Halo isn't on top anymore because it's all about modern combat. Most people want to play as a current, modern soldier or at least one that still uses some of the familiar weapons used by militaries around the globe.
I will only be discussing how each game compares in terms of online multiplayer and I am speaking from playing on an Xbox 360...not that there is a huge difference between these and the PS3 and PC editions but I thought I'd throw that out there. Also, I have been more active on Call of Duty than Battlefield except this generation. I have owned and played Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty World at War, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, and Call of Duty Black Ops. I have not owned nor played Modern Warfare 3 and I will explain why. I have not played Battlefield Bad Company although I did play the demo a few times through, I did not play nor own Battlefield Bad Company 2, but I have owned and play Battlefield 3 often.
I really enjoyed playing CoD 4 MW, not so much CoD WaW online but offline was okay, CoD MW2 was fun, CoD BO was also great, but CoD MW3 was...eh.
4 was a great title because it was new and exciting. It was fun playing as a modern soldier in areas that are seen frequently on the news. WaW was a bit different because it went back to World War II's universe but with an improved engine but it still felt outdated because of the guns and scenery. However, Zombies was a great addition to the franchise as it allowed people to play side-by-side online or offline and was a much different experience. MW2 was even better because it took us back to the elements of the first highly popular title of the series with an even more improved engine and improved graphics. BO was cool but it still had an outdated feeling...not as bad as WaW did but it still wasn't modern enough for our taste. MW3...I saw the trailers, graphics, and engine and was not impressed at all. To me, it felt like Infinity Ward or whoever is taking care of the series just threw together a game with the Black Ops engine because they were tired of doing the Modern Warfare Call of Duty's.
The consumers keep crying out for more Modern Warfare games and less of these outdated war games. It seems that the majority of gamers don't want to play in World War II or Vietnam/Cold War eras but instead in the 21st century with guns used today. Infinity Ward doesn't seem to want to keep making those games. So, to me, Modern Warfare 3 felt like a cheap remake to appease the people and generate some easy money without spending too much and use that to buy some time for the next game in the franchise. I didn't want to spend $65 on a game that felt the same as the last one that I bought, so instead...I switched sides and tried out a few competitors.
EA always jumps on the popular bandwagon, trying to make the best in each genre of video games. EA did the same to the Tony Hawk series when they released Skate and were very good at meeting consumers' wishes in just about every way imaginable. It seemed that EA would now be most likely setting their sights on the Call of Duty franchise. They have had a few very popular FPSes under their belt over the years making them a true veteran in the genre.
Back in 1999, EA published a game entitled Medal of Honor that was highly popular for many years in the World War II "genre" of video gaming. It wasn't until 2003 when Activision decided to make a comeback and come out with the first Call of Duty game that started the war. In 2010, EA tried to put more than one of their games up against the highly popular Call of Duty games with not only Battlefield, which had been silently competing since 2008 with Bad Company, but also reboot one of their older titles with a restart which was simply titled Medal of Honor. This game didn't do as well and I did play it. What I did not like were many different things which most of which I can't remember. Upon buying the game, about a day later, I took the game right back. I got pass the first couple of levels but the game seemed to be trying way too hard to compete with competitors *cough*CallOfDuty*cough* and the interface and gameplay was a bit tricky and didn't handle things well. One example of this were variants of guns. If you were carrying an AK-47 completely stock with no attachments and you ran over an AK-47 with some attachments, the game would not pick up this gun as ammo but instead offer you to pick it up as if it were a completely different weapon and vice-versa.
When Modern Warfare 3 was announced, news about the new Battlefield was also surfacing. Gameplay, trailers, and the demo all got me excited for the game. New improvements were made to the game and the game was expected to be like no other in its class with innovations such as a large majority of the maps being fully destructible. This was awesome as this would mean that there would be less of a chance for people to camp behind some wall and be protected the entire time. Vehicles would be added as well as much more. To me, my choice was simple.
Pay $65 for a game with the same stuff as before or pay the same for a game with something new and different? I went with the new and different and have not yet regretted my decision. Another thing that bothered me about the differences were how many games there were and how popular each game is/was. Battlefield Bad Company 2 lasted for a good two years before its sequel came. I felt like I was buying way too many Call of Duty's in too short amount of time because in those two years, 3 Call of Duty's had come around and the sequel to Modern Warfare 3 was announced very shortly after its release. If you go into a store, look at the difference between the Call of Duty titles versus the Battlefield titles. One thing that I do regret about not getting MW3 is that none of my friends have Battlefield 3 but all of them have MW3. I am contemplating on whether to get Black Ops 2 or not. I suppose it all rests of how different it is from its previous title.
Again, as far as gameplay goes...I haven't played the most recent Call of Duty to be able to accurately compare the two games.
I am very happy with Battlefield...well...when I win that is. What disappoints me most about Battlefield 3 are these:
-When I ask to join a server (Team Deathmatch), most of the time, it will put me with a team that is losing by a large amount such as 187-295 and the score is at 300.
-A few glitches here and there but every game has that
-The game has terrible load times but loading is uncommon unless you jump from server to server or back to the main menu
-I don't really like having 2 discs to carry
-Camping can get pretty bad such as one map, people have been able to get atop a crane and have a clear view of anyone and everyone in an unfair advantage. But having a destructible world allows for less camping than competitors.
-Less popular than other games, so not recommended for people that want to play with friends they personally know
What I love that is different:
-Able to choose precisely what details about the match I want to play on within choose server
-Almost fully destructible map
-More attachments to weapons than other titles
-More individual to your character in terms of customization
-Gadgets are a great use and not just something like an RC car but also things like RC choppers, sensors that will pick up all enemy locations nearby (great for the camper), as well as some other great gadgets
What are some of the things that you like about each game or hate about each game?