COD Ghosts Multiplayer Reveal

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

I hear what youre saying, I've got a few friends who are BF fans too. It's just a matter of preference, I'd enjoy either game as long as I'm playing with my friends, but I'll explain why COD Ghosts is more fun to me.

Alright, fair enough.

For me BF is too slow. I know that's a personal thing, but I enjoy the intensity of a face paced arcade style FPS. Having an amazing graphics engine is cool, but only necessary if I'm watching a movie and not playing a game, especially in an online environment. Realism isn't absolutely necessary to me, it's just window dressing.

I have to disagree here. It is expected of a triple A title to use a graphics engine that is less than 7 years old. I expect game developers to at least use some recent tech if they refuse to bring some new development to the table. Both Treyarc and Infinity Ward strutted about for as long as they could with poorly-updated Unreal-based engines. The improvements throughout the different builds consisted of primarily texture rendering updates and not much else.

To be honest, the innovations seem more like tweaks. They've made the graphics engine smoother, and more realistic, they've made the maps' dynamics change by player action, they now have massive "wars" allowing up to 64 players on the field at the same time. Those are all really cool, but those kind of additions are expected of a game with multiple sequels.

Battlefield has made massive technological leaps. Let's just forget about their Destruction engine tech and simply look at their sound design alone. Their environment is fully interactive with sound. As opposed to the static sound found in Call of Duty, Battlefield implemented a generation system in which objects generate their own sound and, in turn, interact with the environment. That is innovative. Their animation program implements technology from FIFA games called "ANT", creating extremely fluid transitions in animations (such as walking, running, reloading, etc.). With Frostbite 3, they have rebuilt the ANT system from the ground up to accommodate even more movements. Those are hardly "tweaks", they are genuine innovations that will keep the immersion consistent and the gameplay enjoyable. They are literally creating new graphics technology, which EA is starting to use for their other titles as well.

Cod has tweaked their game too, the graphics are crisper (though nowhere near the level of the Frostebite engine), they've enhanced the sound, to make it more "enveloping" (again probably nowhere near the power of BF), they've also added dynamic maps (and yes I'm aware that BF announced them first, but the gap between the two announcements aren't large enough to suggest that Activision is "copying" EA). And BlOps 2 had massive server issues also, with so many different kinds of lag "balancing" the skill between good and bad players. The Lag was just more prevalent in BlOps 2 because of how fast paced the game was. Hopefully that changes with the new dedicated or cloud servers the systems will be using and that goes for both games.

COD has implemented antialiasing to cut down on screen tearing (something that nearly every other title has had for years) and they are still using static sound. Their technology department is not only lacking. It is non-existent. After the boys over at Unreal showcased their forth engine, I actually considered taking a look at Call of Duty's new engine. After I saw some footage from a few T.V spots, I was saddened. I fear for dedicated servers because they will have to make up they money they spend hosting them somewhere (which means more expensive DLC content or subscription-based play).

But COD has also added a ton of new things, things that feel more like new additions for an FPS than simply tweaking. They've replaced the dolphin dive with the knee slide, making it have more of a tactical use. They've also added a lean function, where you hide behind the edge of a wall, and then when you Aim down sights you lean out to take a shot. They've added 7 new game modes, changed create a class to create a soldier, adding character customization (which in turn supposedly alters the way the AI uses your soldier), as well as adding an ability to use the soldiers you've created in multiplayer modes alongside of you. Adding 1V1 possibilities while still running a full "squad".

They tweaked the animation of the dolphin dive to a knee slide. They have the same relative functions: To make a quick, sporadic dart to cover. Ah, the lean function. Brings back memories of Medal of Honor. Can you describe the game modes that they are adding? How are they entirely different from anything we have ever seen in an arcade shooter? The AI uses your soldier? So every player be running with a fully-manned AI squad or is that exclusive to the private matches they offer (essentially adding additional AI commands to weapons so that the bots from Black Ops will finally do their job for once).

Those are tweaks.

When it comes down to it though, I don't like to compare the two. BF is a Tactical Sim, it's like Zero Dark Thirty, the reality is what captivates you. COD is more arcade style, like a Michael Bay Film or any other cheesy action movie. I don't really care which one I play as long as I'm playing with my friends, thats what makes the games, both of them, fun to me.

I just want to say that BF is not a simulator. ARMA is a simulator. Battlefield simply places more emphasis on teamwork and objectives than Call of Duty... in which, despite its claimed team-based play, the community cohesion is transparently futile.