Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Battlefield 4 or C.O.D Ghosts? Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I've not played CoD in a few years but after watching the multi-player reveal i see they are bringing Bolt-action rifles and iron site single shots back. This is a playstyle i adored in CoD2 ( my favorite game of all time in fact!) + the fast paced action of it, i think i'm sure to pick it up. If i'm honest i've not looked into BF4 too much but i've been playing BF3 for a while now so maybe a change is needed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    They made the new game engine for BF4 from the ground up? If not then it's not new. Game engines take a very long time to make and it's very common for games to use other people's game engines. Medal of Honor used Unreal's engine, for example.
    Oh I thought Frostbite was brand new. What games used it or a variation of it before Battlefield?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peter12345)
    Oh I thought Frostbite was brand new. What games used it or a variation of it before Battlefield?
    Looks like Frostbite 3 is actually built from the ground up, which I wasn't expecting so I stand corrected. However, COD might not need a new game engine. The main issue I've had with the game is headglitching (BO2 has so many of them it's shocking) but if it can be removed or severely pruned without resorting to a new game engine then that's fine by me. COD has some destruction with Ghosts from what I saw in the multiplayer reveal trailer.

    I'm looking forward to seeing what both games have to offer mainly in terms of game modes and weapons. I like to use all weapon types and heard BF3 made semi-automatic sniper rifles useless. I mean there's enough of a duopoly of ARs and SMGs in COD and I value weapon variety. While I've operated tanks in WaW, and aircraft in Ace Combat with jets and choppers, they aren't as a thing for me as it may be to others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This sums it up.
    Name:  51d6ca323ec64.jpeg
Views: 111
Size:  137.1 KB
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Probably BF4. I hated BF when I first played it, but now that I'm used to it I prefer it to COD. I doubt Ghosts will be much different from any other COD game.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be getting both. BF3 was okay, but trash compared to BF2142, 2, Vietnam and 1942. Not expecting much from BF4, but still hoping it's better than 3. CoD because it's an arena shooter of sorts.

    (Original post by sevchenko)
    This sums it up.
    Name:  51d6ca323ec64.jpeg
Views: 111
Size:  137.1 KB
    One gimmick designed to enthral 13-year-olds is better than another gimmick designed to enthrall 14-year-olds?

    Okay. I remember when the Battlefield community valued stuff like gunplay, weapon balance, vehicle balance, map design and other things relating to how the game plays 99% of the time rather than a gimmick that lasts about 20 seconds of the time you're playing and is only good as a bit of eye candy. Nor did people who liked Battlefield need to constantly compare itself to another franchise to show how much better or "mature" they are. Hell, I don't think you can even discuss Battlefield these days without some fanboy bringing up destruction and comparing it to CoD :rolleyes:

    Shame the BF community is not like it was in 2006 and earlier (not that it was great, but a far sight better than nowadays).

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    They made the new game engine for BF4 from the ground up? If not then it's not new. Game engines take a very long time to make and it's very common for games to use other people's game engines. Medal of Honor used Unreal's engine, for example.
    Depends, really. DICE don't license out Frostbite to companies outside of EA's umbrella. It's not like the Unreal or Quake Engines which are readily available to anybody who is willing to pay a licensing fee. So it's not exactly the same sort of thing.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say that FB3.0 is a completely new engine, they're still using a lot of elements It's more like recoding FB2.0 than writing something completely new from the ground up, like say, from the jump from the older Battlefield games' Refractor engine to FB1.0. Despite the advertising spiel, it isn't going to be that different from FB2.0.

    Also, it depends on which Medal of Honor game you talk about. Older Medal of Honor games used the Q3 engine.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Okay. I remember when the Battlefield community valued stuff like gunplay, weapon balance, vehicle balance, map design and other things relating to how the game plays 99% of the time rather than a gimmick that lasts about 20 seconds of the time you're playing and is only good as a bit of eye candy. Nor did people who liked Battlefield need to constantly compare itself to another franchise to show how much better or "mature" they are. Hell, I don't think you can even discuss Battlefield these days without some fanboy bringing up destruction and comparing it to CoD :rolleyes:

    Shame the BF community is not like it was in 2006 and earlier (not that it was great, but a far sight better than nowadays).
    It was a joke mate, not a serious contribution to the discussion.

    I agree with everything you said completely. Battlefield 2142 was the end of an era after that DICE had to alter components of the game to cater for console users. Smaller maps, less players etc DICE has put in a lot more "flash" into battlefield to make it more appealing to console users. The game's realism mechanic's have been simplified. As the more console users joined the community the more the community got worst, most people under the age of 16 can't afford a PC good enough to run BF3 and to be honest most trolls are younger gamers.

    There still alot more DICE has to sort out for the PC version.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevchenko)
    It was a joke mate, not a serious contribution to the discussion.

    I agree with everything you said completely. Battlefield 2142 was the end of an era after that DICE had to alter components of the game to cater for console users. Smaller maps, less players etc DICE has put in a lot more "flash" into battlefield to make it more appealing to console users. The game's realism mechanic's have been simplified. As the more console users joined the community the more the community got worst, most people under the age of 16 can't afford a PC good enough to run BF3 and to be honest most trolls are younger gamers.

    There still alot more DICE has to sort out for the PC version.
    Would rep, but out of reps for today.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Depends, really. DICE don't license out Frostbite to companies outside of EA's umbrella. It's not like the Unreal or Quake Engines which are readily available to anybody who is willing to pay a licensing fee. So it's not exactly the same sort of thing.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say that FB3.0 is a completely new engine, they're still using a lot of elements It's more like recoding FB2.0 than writing something completely new from the ground up, like say, from the jump from the older Battlefield games' Refractor engine to FB1.0. Despite the advertising spiel, it isn't going to be that different from FB2.0.

    Also, it depends on which Medal of Honor game you talk about. Older Medal of Honor games used the Q3 engine.
    I was thinking of Medal of Honor (2010) as the single player used Unreal Engine 3, while the multiplayer used Frostbite 1.5. And Medal of Honor: Airborne used Unreal Engine 3 completely. I wondered how much a change Frostbite 3 is from 2 though.

    It's interesting you label COD as an arena shooter because the maps are becoming smaller to be the same size as some of the maps in arena shooters like in Unreal Tournament and arena shooters focus a lot on reaction times, rather than tactical play and it uses the game engine that was used in Quake 3 Arena albeit modified over time.

    If Ghosts came with a map editor and made a prize for the best maps created to be part of DLC that would tempt me into making maps. I can only think of Trials and Unreal Tournament 3 that have done this. Now that would be something to advertise for me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I was thinking of Medal of Honor (2010) as the single player used Unreal Engine 3, while the multiplayer used Frostbite 1.5. And Medal of Honor: Airborne used Unreal Engine 3 completely. I wondered how much a change Frostbite 3 is from 2 though.
    It isn't as big as people like to think it is, that's for sure. It's things like improved destruction, improve tesselation, character animation, etc. Similar to the jump from 1.5 to 2.0. A lot of it, as with 2.0, is marketing buzzwords that excites all of the 13-year-old fans (who do make up the majority). At the end of the day, it's still Frostbite and like I said, it's nowhere near as big a jump as Refractor -> Frostbite or anything of the sort. Anytime I ever see someone boast about Frostbite as a major selling point for Battlefield 3, and now 4, I can only cringe out how effective marketing really is (and EA are obviously fantastic at it) or how people misconstrue the marketing on a massive scale. One example of the latter is when they mention things like realistic movement, physics, etc. for Frostbite and misconstrue that to mean that Battlefield is supposed to be a hyper realistic shooter when it's still nowhere close to shooters that genuinely aim for realism like Armed Assault or Red Orchestra.

    It's interesting you label COD as an arena shooter because the maps are becoming smaller to be the same size as some of the maps in arena shooters like in Unreal Tournament and arena shooters focus a lot on reaction times, rather than tactical play and it uses the game engine that was used in Quake 3 Arena albeit modified over time.
    Well, at the end of the day the focus of the game is on deathmatch. I think it's a point that a lot of fanboys seem to ignore when they pipe on about things like destruction and vehicles being a selling point of Battlefield and how it is superior to CoD because CoD doesn't really have either. Vehicles and destruction don't suit arena style shooters like CoD because the maps are relatively small and it'd end up as an absolute mess/cluster**** if you could knock down all of the buildings or drive about. Start adding things like that and it takes away from the core design of the game. At the end of the day, the thing most fanboys ignore is that Battlefield and CoD fill similar, but different niches. CoD is a pseudo arena shooter and Battlefield is a pseudo tactical shooter with combined arms. It is comparing apples and oranges, yet you will always see snooty fanboys (usually newer Battlefield ones) harp on about this and that.

    Honestly though, I think older arena shooters have a lot more tactical play than modern 'tactical' shooters ('tactical' because they don't compare to the likes of OFP, PR, ArmA, etc.). Take Quake 3 Arena for example, not only would you need fast reactions, you'd also need good and consistent aim due to that there high health and it'd be kinda like a fast paced game of chess where you need to be aware of all the weapon/power-up spawns and be able to navigate through the map effectively and efficiently while still romping on other people. I think if there's any franchise of games that gives 'skills' that carry over to another, it's old school arena shooters like Quake. Simple as it is, it's more complete than many other FPS of today.

    If Ghosts came with a map editor and made a prize for the best maps created to be part of DLC that would tempt me into making maps. I can only think of Trials and Unreal Tournament 3 that have done this. Now that would be something to advertise for me.
    It would be absolutely amazing if they did, user made content can spawn some of the best things, like Counter-Strike from Half-Life or Desert Combat from Battlefield 1942.

    Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening in the age of DLC.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is like comparing Bale and Heskey. CoD has been **** since MW2.

    BF4 all day and also PC so it actually looks good.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Are you kidding?! BF4. I can't wait.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Anytime I ever see someone boast about Frostbite as a major selling point for Battlefield 3, and now 4, I can only cringe out how effective marketing really is (and EA are obviously fantastic at it) or how people misconstrue the marketing on a massive scale.
    Yeah I've seen this with MW3 when Underground and Resistance were dubbed as real life locations by Infinity Ward. They don't exist. Resistance has made up streets with the Eiffel Tower superimposed in the background, while Underground appears to be King's Cross railway station but the street immediately outside it places it in central London going by the buildings. I used to live in London so if it was based on a real location I'd be able to tell where it is if I've been there but I can't.

    I've come across the realism discourse with BF. But if they ever have the KSG in their games I'll expect to it to have range up to 150m because that is its real life performance as it shoots slugs. If it doesn't then it's not realistic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the audience. I'm a fan of both games, typically with COD I expect pace driven gameplay all about reflexes while maintaining the core gameplay thats existed since Modern Warfare 1. For the most part thats been retained since that game and I don't care much for the graphics so long as its clear enough I can see and shoot. Too much stuff happening it gets in the way. Call of Duty has first and foremost been about being the lone wolf. Plain and simple, too much change is bad for the series so they do better sticking to what there fans like.

    The "new" engine. Engines are interesting, they have to suit the purpose of the game. Call of Duty multiplayer on the engine side has always emphasized one thing and that is 60fps. Great leaps couldn't be made on the PS3/360 without compromising that aspect. So upgrading the engine they already have actually suits there overall purpose. A new engine is nice, but its also an incredible investment, trust me it is much easier to upgrade an existing engine if you can get it to meet purpose quickly. Call of Duty is still a cross-generation title, it would be a waste of money to have two separate engine versions for two separate generations. Its wastes development time. Will there be a real new engine in the future? Maybe when the PS3/360 ports die and they have no reason to maintain the status quo and might build one. But its a huge investment.

    So what about Battlefield? Battlefield arguably is a team-based game where a team working together wins and also gets a higher personal point score...that went out of the windows with Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 was far more a push towards that lone wolf style, and in my opinion at least changed too much it retained a certain level of teamwork but not enough really. Teamwork just...isn't rewarding in Battlefield 3 at least not as rewarding as it has been in previous games. I hope Battlefield 4 retains it but truth be told I'm not optomisitic.

    In regards to Frostbite 4, like Ghosts another upgraded engine fit for purpose. Not a grand rebuilding. Frostbite 3 was brilliant engine, a great step up from its predecessors but not an entirely new engine either. Dice unlike IW or Treyarch push for more style over the grand FPS count. But like those developers they are constrained by the fact Battlefield is a cross-generational title as well. So 30FPS on 360/PS3, while 60FPS on the PS4/XB1. We might see a new engine likewise when the PS3/360 are finally dropped.

    For the moment though, I'm not interested in either. I'll see how both turn out but hopefully they pull it off.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I've come across the realism discourse with BF.
    It's one of my biggest gripes about modern Battlefield fans. Battlefield has always favoured fun balance and arcade-style gameplay before realism. Things have changed somewhat in recent years, but it's still far from realistic. The only 'realistic' thing about it is how the game looks (skin-deep).

    brb, ejecting from my jet, sniping a pilot out of theirs and taking his jet
    brb, destroying a tank with a blow torch
    brb, fixing GSWs with defibrillators and medibags
    brb, Battlefield fanboys will neg and insult you if you dare speak against the realism of the game
    brb, been a fan for much longer than they have

    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    So what about Battlefield? Battlefield arguably is a team-based game where a team working together wins and also gets a higher personal point score...that went out of the windows with Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 was far more a push towards that lone wolf style, and in my opinion at least changed too much it retained a certain level of teamwork but not enough really. Teamwork just...isn't rewarding in Battlefield 3 at least not as rewarding as it has been in previous games. I hope Battlefield 4 retains it but truth be told I'm not optomisitic.
    I always laugh when people talk about BF3 being a team game. It's quite easy to win games single-handedly if you're somewhat decent because half of every team spends the entire game trying to get 1KM sniper headshots or whatever else so that they can film it for their stupid montage videos on YouTube. The meatgrinder maps don't really help to promote teamwork besides the bare minimum either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    It's one of my biggest gripes about modern Battlefield fans. Battlefield has always favoured fun balance and arcade-style gameplay before realism. Things have changed somewhat in recent years, but it's still far from realistic. The only 'realistic' thing about it is how the game looks (skin-deep).

    brb, ejecting from my jet, sniping a pilot out of theirs and taking his jet
    brb, destroying a tank with a blow torch
    brb, fixing GSWs with defibrillators and medibags
    brb, Battlefield fanboys will neg and insult you if you dare speak against the realism of the game
    brb, been a fan for much longer than they have


    I always laugh when people talk about BF3 being a team game. It's quite easy to win games single-handedly if you're somewhat decent because half of every team spends the entire game trying to get 1KM sniper headshots or whatever else so that they can film it for their stupid montage videos on YouTube. The meatgrinder maps don't really help to promote teamwork besides the bare minimum either.
    True, it's irritating when you're the sole player around at the objective and everyone else has buggered off somewhere else and an enemy tank is near and all you have are rocket launchers. While on console.

    As for meatgrinding, Operation Metro is grr......it's essentially first to capture B wins the entire match, which sucks if it's a 1250 tickets on both sides.

    Although, despite that, still getting BF 4....I prefer using tanks and other armored vehicles to slaughter the team.
    I might get Ghosts when the price goes down as I'm only really looking for Safeguard mode. I never did have twitchy reactions
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DDT10)
    Although, despite that, still getting BF 4....I prefer using tanks and other armored vehicles to slaughter the team.
    I might get Ghosts when the price goes down as I'm only really looking for Safeguard mode. I never did have twitchy reactions
    Same here, I don't have high expectations of either. I've become massively disenchanted with Battlefield and its fanbase since just before Battlefield 3 (don't regard Bad Company as true BF) and BF3 was proof that I was right. Like I've said, I'll be getting both, but with CoD I know exactly what is being delivered and it doesn't have anywhere near as much buzzwords and gimmicks in its marketing. It's a simple point and shoot FPS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Same here, I don't have high expectations of either. I've become massively disenchanted with Battlefield and its fanbase since just before Battlefield 3 (don't regard Bad Company as true BF) and BF3 was proof that I was right. Like I've said, I'll be getting both, but with CoD I know exactly what is being delivered and it doesn't have anywhere near as much buzzwords and gimmicks in its marketing. It's a simple point and shoot FPS.
    What happened to the series? I started with Modern Combat on the PS2 and the only other one I've played a lot was BF3 which I liked, but it seems that I got an a product that was inferior compared to previous offerings based on opinions here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Neither, ArmA 3
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I want to get both, probably on my 360 as I have the previous games of both series on that as well.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Quick link:

    Unanswered gaming threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.