Battlefield was always the war-shooter number two market-wise on the console space because it was trying to be like COD. Now that Battlefield was literally number 1 (see what i did there?) COD is gonna be the me too title this time. I don't think a WW game is gonna feel the same after the avarege gamer has already gotten used to the massive, opened and varied arenas of BF1, when they are back to the corridors of COD with a WWII theme around it. Looking better is the least it can do given how more restrained COD is. Unless of course, COD suddenly has huge maps 10x the size of its past interations with fully modeled interiors for every building, destructible environments, deformable terrain, driveable jeeps, tanks and planes etc. I'm interesting to see this play out. Did dice and EA, through sheer persistence, manage to snag the COD throne?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Hmmm? At least in the US Battlefield still hasn't manage to sell better than COD. COD: IW has sold better every single month in the US since its release. The only month that BF 1 won was Oct. and that's because there was no COD release. And despite being on sale for longer than COD: IW, it still came in 2nd for 2016.
Battlefield has certainly closed the gap, but they offer 2 completely different gameplay experiences. COD focuses more on arena style FPS combat while Battlefield focuses more on larger scale capture and hold style of FPS.
For those that are into SP, COD still offers a generally much superior SP experience. COD: IW's SP campaign was absolutely head and shoulders above the crap that was the BF 1 SP campaign.
As well, COD (when they were still doing WW2 based games) offered something closer to an authentic if game-ified WW2 experience. Battlefield 1's WW1 experience has almost zero authenticity. An almost invulnerable armored mech suit for one of its missions? Seriously? I had high hopes for something that would offer players an experience of the horrors and tragedy of WW1 combat, but what was on offer was laughable and only very superficially related to WW1.
COD 1 and 2 as well as the first couple of Medal of Honor games (COD's competition back then) and another series that I can't remember the name of (you commanded a squad of soldiers and could give them orders in order to flank enemy positions) are still the best and most historically accurate mainstream FPS games. There are some much smaller niche FPS games that were more authentic, but weren't much fun to play.
COD Modern Warfare deviated from their WW2 games in that it didn't try to recreate historical battles as there was no history to recreate. So it went for a sort of alt-history style of storytelling. But at least up until then, their game was modeled on actual historical battles for their SP missions.
Battlefield since its inception with BF: 1942 has tended towards the more fantasy side of things. Flying your plane kamikaze style into the enemy and jumping out before you crash so you can then parachute down and continue fighting for example. Battlefield 2: Modern Combat went a little more towards realism but Battlefield 1 swung way back to fantasy style combat with little to no basis in reality other than a surface veneer. BF1 had great graphics and presentation, however.
Regards,
SB
literally. The campaign trailer looked amazing especially promising the storming of Normandy Beach, the graphics wowed me more than even BF1 (Frostbite who?) and much more so considering they're the actual in game graphics
!
