Thursday, October 20, 2011

Call Of Duty V.S Battlefield

Before I
get to the main subject, I just want to apologize for not posting in the past few days, I wasn't feeling well and I am still a bit ill.

People keep asking themselves "Whats that great about CoD? Why is it the top selling game? Whats so special about it?" Well, nothing really. Just a good combination in an even better timing.What makes the past 4 and the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 CoD's so successful is the multiplayer mode(s). The arcade-ish like system and the FPS elements make for a fun and long yet simple experience. You can go solo and rack up kills, or go tactical and play as a team. Simple right? So why isn't Battlefield this successful? Its a lot more realistic, and you have to play as a team or take control and be a leader in order to win.
Unlike CoD, a squad of 8 bad players playing together and defending tactically have a better chance against a squad of 8 egoistic A players. In CoD, you can be the only good player and win the game on your own while your squad has a Kill-Death ratio of -5.0. Some people- MOST people see this as a good thing. "I'm good, all my other players are bad why should I lose because of them?" BECAUSE YOU ARE A TEAM. Help you teammates get better ratio rather than going for the objective, talk to them, guide them. When you see they are aiming for the objective, not for cover you can win the game.

That's what I fell when I play, if I win with an awful ratio I don't give a damn about the victory, I care about how well I played the game and how I helped my team. That's why I'm buying Battlefield 3 and not another Call Of Duty. I want to play as team not as an egoistic individual.
And just for the record, I enjoy more arcade like gaming than realistic. I play NBA Jam, I don't ust the super advanced defending in FIFA 12, and I'm super hyped about SSX and FIFA Street, so the only exception is Battlefield, a real FPS for a change.

No comments:

Post a Comment