What's the difference between battlefield 4 and CoD:Ghosts?

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
I'm talking purely about multiplayer. I don't care about single player. I need a new FPS to play . The last Battlefield i played was battlefield bad compagny 2. So i have no idea what the newer games feel like . The last coD game i played was black ops 2. So i'm basically , asking what's the main differences and which you find more fun.

Capcha: points don't matter
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,618
0
0
CoD Ghosts is strictly infantry-only with moderately sized maps. There's not many grand objectives, other than kill everyone or cap this flag then kill everyone.

Battlefield is a mix up of infantry and vehicle combat in rather large maps, generally with some sort of objective beside kill everyone. (Though admittedly most of the gamemodes are won and revolve around killing dudes. Obliteration is a fresh breath of air in that respect.) The game plays out that teamwork is encouraged, such as reviving teammates and spotting enemies, but on the PC version it's pretty scarce because of how hard DICE shit the bed in not including voice communication. Bullets also are projectiles liable to bullet velocity and bullet drop, instead of being set hitscan weapons like most FPSs.

I've not played CoD since World at War, have hardly played multiplayer. Battlefield 4 certainly has those moments of... run ten minutes, get one-shotted by a tank, and that absolutely pisses me off. Both games probably suffer from the problem that you'll likely spend your first 40 hours sucking dirt, then you get game sense and have fun.
 

windlenot

Archeoastronomist
Mar 27, 2011
329
0
0
I haven't played either, but to my knowledge, Battlefield is more team-based coordination based matches, while Call of Duty has always been kinda solo-ish, you-don't-need-the-help-of-your-team-and-they'd-probably-make-most-encounters-worse kinda game. I can run around in Call of Duty and shoot people where they don't expect me to me. I'll run a couple of minutes in Battlefield and get wrecked by a tank.

So, you know, if you want the "smarter" gameplay with teamwork and coordination and helping others out, Battlefield. But if you're like me and hate my teammates all the time because they always suck, Call of Duty is A-OK. But with that, I'm not actually planning on getting Ghosts. I got CoD4 a couple weeks ago for $5 on PC, so that'll keep me satisfied for the time being.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Call of Duty is mostly infantry, one-on-one deals in small/medium maps and relatively small teams of players on each faction. Depending on the mode, there could be some objectives, but the most popular mode, by far, is deathmatch and team deathmatch.

Battlefield has infantry too, but the distinctive difference is the inclusion of several vehicles, which are a must because the maps and teams in BF tend to be a lot bigger. The most popular mode is domination, which is a control points mode. Also, people in BF are organized in squads, which are smaller teams of players within overall factions and teamwork is heavily encouraged. DICE included level destruction in the game, which is a nice feature but not necessarily game changing. Because of this and the abundance of several kind of vehicles, Battlefied multiplayer is more prone to emergent gameplay.

Personally, I find BF more fun. Because of the larger maps, it could be rather lonely at times, but the randomness of the games adds a lot to the experience.

 

Clowndoe

New member
Aug 6, 2012
395
0
0
Since both series are very iterative, the difference between BF4 and Ghosts is the same as Bad Company 2 and Blops 2, so you're good to go really. If you want something that feels different from either of those you've already played, you're going to have to look somewhere else.
 

daveman247

New member
Jan 20, 2012
1,366
0
0
To be honest both havn't really changed a whole lot since those two games you have played. So it depends if you want arcadey responsive infantry combat with a modern military skin (cod) Or a slightly more realistic (at least the guns have a bit of recoil) modern war game that spreads the focus between infantry and vehicles.

I havn't played either of the newer games but I enjoyed Battlefield more. The vehicles and more open maps increased the scope/ chaos of the game. Also earning LOTS of points for helping the team instead of just killing was great for me since my fps skills are fairly average :p I was better at healing people or keeping vehicles repaired and generally being the "support" since lone-wolfing could only get you so far. Never figured out how to fly a damn helicopter though. That said the sometimes long stretches of silence and having to sprint for five minutes to the battle can sometimes get tiresome. Thats why i liked the rush mode they brought in with bad company, focuses everybody in one part of the map.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
I'm mainly a CoD guy but I played a bit of battlefield 3 on both PC and PS3 (from what I gathered, PC was superior due to more people in battles)
Battlefield was played on bigger maps with a bigger scale. Most of the time spent is running around doing jack shit- when you shoot at people you do it from a distance, but most of the time you don't shoot people if you don't think you can kill them as they're too far away. The gameplay is quite buggy and floaty, frustratingly so sometimes. This is really the reason I don't play.
CoD is the opposite, it's played on smaller maps and most people play with a run and gun style. It's more shoot on sight as it's closer quarters. Also the game play is much more fluid and concise. Compared to most online shooters that I've played it's probably the most arcade-y as it's just a group of people running around in a maze shooting each other.
 

Thedutchjelle

New member
Mar 31, 2009
785
0
0
TheYellowCellPhone said:
CoD Ghosts is strictly infantry-only with moderately sized maps. There's not many grand objectives, other than kill everyone or cap this flag then kill everyone.

Battlefield is a mix up of infantry and vehicle combat in rather large maps, generally with some sort of objective beside kill everyone. (Though admittedly most of the gamemodes are won and revolve around killing dudes. Obliteration is a fresh breath of air in that respect.) The game plays out that teamwork is encouraged, such as reviving teammates and spotting enemies, but on the PC version it's pretty scarce because of how hard DICE shit the bed in not including voice communication. Bullets also are projectiles liable to bullet velocity and bullet drop, instead of being set hitscan weapons like most FPSs.

I've not played CoD since World at War, have hardly played multiplayer. Battlefield 4 certainly has those moments of... run ten minutes, get one-shotted by a tank, and that absolutely pisses me off. Both games probably suffer from the problem that you'll likely spend your first 40 hours sucking dirt, then you get game sense and have fun.
Battlefield 4 included VoIP in the PC release.

HOWEVER, currently BF4 is a buggy mess due to DICE trying to get BF4 out before COD:GHOST. It's a fun game when it works, but a lot of servers randomly crash atm.

BF3/BF4 maps are usually a lot larger than any of the COD Maps and can feature up to 64 players. Teamplay is encouraged and most modes have some sort of objective like "cap control points" or "bring bomb to bomb site".
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Thedutchjelle said:
BF3/BF4 maps are usually a lot larger than any of the COD Maps and can feature up to 64 players. Teamplay is encouraged and most modes have some sort of objective like "cap control points" or "bring bomb to bomb site".
The teamplay being encouraged is actually something that pushes me away from the series. In my experience with multiplayer games, 8 out of 10 times your teammates are more of a hinderance than a help, if they're relevant at all. Though, the last Battlefield game I played was Battlefield 1942.
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,618
0
0
Thedutchjelle said:
TheYellowCellPhone said:
CoD Ghosts is strictly infantry-only with moderately sized maps. There's not many grand objectives, other than kill everyone or cap this flag then kill everyone.

Battlefield is a mix up of infantry and vehicle combat in rather large maps, generally with some sort of objective beside kill everyone. (Though admittedly most of the gamemodes are won and revolve around killing dudes. Obliteration is a fresh breath of air in that respect.) The game plays out that teamwork is encouraged, such as reviving teammates and spotting enemies, but on the PC version it's pretty scarce because of how hard DICE shit the bed in not including voice communication. Bullets also are projectiles liable to bullet velocity and bullet drop, instead of being set hitscan weapons like most FPSs.

I've not played CoD since World at War, have hardly played multiplayer. Battlefield 4 certainly has those moments of... run ten minutes, get one-shotted by a tank, and that absolutely pisses me off. Both games probably suffer from the problem that you'll likely spend your first 40 hours sucking dirt, then you get game sense and have fun.
Battlefield 4 included VoIP in the PC release.
It counts, but it's squad only and nobody uses it. I think I've had one squad that legitimately used that, in my first two hours of the beta.

An all team chat, like I hear consoles have, would be all I want.
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
daveman247 said:
To be honest both havn't really changed a whole lot since those two games you have played. So it depends if you want arcadey responsive infantry combat with a modern military skin (cod) Or a slightly more realistic (at least the guns have a bit of recoil) modern war game that spreads the focus between infantry and vehicles.

I havn't played either of the newer games but I enjoyed Battlefield more. The vehicles and more open maps increased the scope/ chaos of the game. Also earning LOTS of points for helping the team instead of just killing was great for me since my fps skills are fairly average :p I was better at healing people or keeping vehicles repaired and generally being the "support" since lone-wolfing could only get you so far. Never figured out how to fly a damn helicopter though. That said the sometimes long stretches of silence and having to sprint for five minutes to the battle can sometimes get tiresome. Thats why i liked the rush mode they brought in with bad company, focuses everybody in one part of the map.
Rush mode was by far my favorite mode for that very reason. Anything else just seem to big. Runing from point A to B took a long time if you didn't have a teamate in the same area the conflict was going on .
 

metaphyzxx

New member
Feb 2, 2011
16
0
0
The same difference between basketball and Football. One is more about a group of individuals pulling together a game, and one requires a team effort to accomplish a 'mission'.
 

bioject

New member
Aug 12, 2010
59
0
0
Call of Duty Ghosts is a generic FPS shooter multiplayer game with simplistic selfish free for all gameplay. It's also developed by Activision. An evil company that only thinks about maximum profits while exploiting people who are too stupid to realize the game is exactly like the other COD games except with more DLC that you have to pay extra for.

Battlefield 4 is an overly complicated wannabe battlefield simulator with vehicles that are so realistic that pretty much all aircraft are useless unless you're a sperglorg who plays flight simulator 12 hours a day. It's also ultra frustrating to boot since there are a million ways to randomly die. If you're not exploding from a random explosion caused by a grenade, RPG, missile, C4, landmine, etc. you're probably dying from a sniper from across the map or a random dude from behind. Want to try out one of those cool jets they advertise on the commercials? You'll be better off crashing it into your enemy or do what I do and use it as a quick transportation vehicle to get to somewhere on the map quickly.

BF4 is also published by a scum company EA where you basically have to spend $100+ dollars to pay for all the DLC and maps.

Play Team Fortress 2. It's free. It's balanced. It's backed by a company that doesn't milk franchises dry and it's not frustrating either.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
Battlefield is bigger scale than Call of Duty. It's up to whether you prefer long-range battles on huge empty maps with vehicles (Battlefield) or more close-quarters running round in maze-like maps (CoD)
I prefer CoD but it's really just up to whatever you prefer.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
Ghosts has tried to steal Black Ops II's pick 10 system but does not make it work... at all. The create a class's interface is a mess and there are just far too many weapons which all do the same thing. Seen one underpowered marksman rifle? Seen 'em all. People die way too fast even on Core. The colour palette is worse than Black Ops II. The maps are larger but here's the thing, Ghosts manages to have worse spawns than Modern Warfare 3. I did not think that could even happen but expect for people to spawn in front of you, right behind your back, to your side or just around the corner. Perks have been changed into less effects for more perks in a new tier system, but I don't think it holds together. Specialist has been ruined because you can only take a limited amount of perks (most of which are useless). Ghosts is incredibly fast, though, if that's your sort of thing. The game modes are unchanged, or just nothing special.

BF4 is much like BF3 in that it's a slow, team-based game which can be unforgiving but also rewarding depending on how cautiously you use tactics with your team mates. The maps are well designed but the whole "destructible building" thing is nearly as common as it was hyped up to be. Unfortunately it's buggy as hell and randomly dying is still as common as it ever was (if not more so).
 

Thedutchjelle

New member
Mar 31, 2009
785
0
0
Holy crap that thread revive.

After having played Bf4 and Bf3 since november, I think Bf3 is the superior game. Maybe BF4 will be better once it's two years old as well, who knows. But right now I'm enjoying the vehicle gameplay and the map layout in BF3 so much more that I'm often finding myself back in that game.