Battlefield and Call of Duty are the biggest first-person shooter (FPS) franchises and, for at least a decade, have been the protagonists of one of the greatest rivalries in the gaming universe. Despite good and bad moments, the two franchises have retained huge fan bases. And after 20 years in the market, they are still up for a fight.
There are 19 Call of Duty games already released, with one more yet to come in 2022. On the other hand, Battlefield has reached the number of 11 games, but there are also 12 expansion packs on their account. That said, both franchises have become huge AAA games in the first-person shooter (FPS) genre. Today, they are industry giants, having a constant impact on other future brands in the niche.
With huge sequences and amazing games released through many years (e.g. Modern Warfare, Black Ops, Bad Company, and Battlefield V), it gets hard to tell which is truly the best. However, we are your special force when it comes to mission impossible. Without further ado, let’s get this franchise comparison started!
CoD Games x Battlefield Games: Main Difference
Even though all FPS games share the most basic attributes, many things can be and generally are very different. With Call of Duty and Battlefield games, this happens as well. The Call of Duty games brings more frenetic, fast-paced gameplay, with less time to kill and smaller maps. Battlefield games do things differently, as you will see large maps, much time to kill, and a slow-paced game focused on realistic combat and teamwork.
Single Player Campaign
Both titles began creating their storylines from critical historical moments, such as World War II or the Cold War. Afterwards, they transitioned to the near future, and then, migrated to the distant future, with lots of technology. Nowadays, the games come and go from distant futuristic sets to the more traditional WWII-like setting.
Call of Duty titles has not always had great single-player campaigns, but there are some incredible stories. How to forget Shepard’s betrayal, Makarov’s hunt, or Reznov’s appearances? Each game has a single-player mission that players won’t forget..
Apart from one or other games, CoD stories are known for being engaging and immersive. Characters have reasonable personalities, emotions, and convictions, a thing that video game addicts are demanding more and more.
On the other hand, Battlefield also has interesting campaigns but for most gamers, they still don’t have that memorable video game story. Battlefield also “fails” when it comes to developing that memorable character. Even though some CoD games have terrible campaigns, the Battlefield franchise still needs to catch up when bringing the fun with single-player.
We don’t want to say which multiplayer mode is the best, as it depends on players’ playstyle. If you give value to things like realism, teamwork, and being a patient player, Battlefield multiplayer, called All-Out Warfare, is perfect. If you like dynamic experience, with more frenetic gunplay, kills coming and going everywhere, and you like to be a solo soldier, go for Call of Duty multiplayer.
Frenetic and Progressive
Call of Duty has a more rewarding progression system, giving you weapons and other substantial rewards. Its faster pace also brings more emotion and gives the sensation of really making the difference (positively or negatively) in each match.
Battlefield realistic experience “relegates” the combat to the front lines, giving players time to position themselves, plan what to do, and work together. The best multiplayer depends on what you like most. Personally, the advantage here is from Call of Duty.
Gameplay Variety and Innovation
These two are things that a video game needs most. If games don’t bring anything new, they will soon become repetitive and be abandoned by most players, and even the biggest games like Call of Duty and Battlefield series must be aware of it.
This is one of the points where Battlefield truly stands out, presenting far more mature gameplay. The game does quite well in bringing new mechanics and features release after release. The last great thing to point out is the far more destructible environments, from the New battlefield, showing that not is there only to complete the scenario.
The game gives you the freedom to plan and choose how you want to play. It also gives you the tools for that. It's far more than just your guns and perks. Battlefield grants you large maps full of vehicles, such as airplanes, cars, tanks, and even horses. This allows you to create your style and makes every single match far less repetitive. CoD stays completely behind at this.
Graphics, Atmosphere, and Soundtrack
Sometimes being the second is also a victory, even more, when we consider that CoD does well in terms of graphic quality, atmosphere, and soundtrack. Everything is immersive and impressive. For instance, that can be said for the famous Modern Warfare and the titles with a mixed response, such as Infinite Warfare and Advanced Warfare.
The Bigger, The Better
That said, Battlefield is the winner here. Mainly for the atmosphere that the large-scale maps of Battlefield games provide. A thing that Cod’s smaller maps just can’t. Explosions everywhere, air fights, big crafts falling. There is also the soundtrack work and all the emotional load it can bring. Everything gets more immersive, heroic, and amazing with the right song (or noise) behind it. Battlefield games do this work better than Call of Duty.
When it comes to the visual quality, it is hard to say which is the best but, generally, for most fan bases playing the games, Battlefield has better graphics. Even though it wouldn’t be absurd to say both are on the same level since the New Call of Duty games are catching up. Anyway, Battlefield takes the win.
Alternative Game Modes
A first-person shooter is not all about the single-player campaign and multiplayer gameplay. Extra game modes have to keep the interest of a gamer. Call of Duty has the well-known and fan-favorite zombies mode, which has become the third mode present in almost all the titles for a long time.
BF developers, EA/DICE took a different approach, and, recently, on Battlefield 2042, the leading digital publisher released the Battlefield Portal mode. It’s a place for players to use all the Battlefield titles' resources while creating their own game modes and mods. For many who have played the game, the portal is the only thing that saves Battlefield 2042 from being a complete failure.
Analyzing only the Portal mode itself, EA was successful, especially when compared to the last zombie's mode poor reception in Call of Duty Vanguard. Even though the recent news shows that portal is “better” than zombies, it is impossible not to give the point to Call of Duty. That’s because Zombies have become a true phenomenon throughout the years.
The Battle Royale Mode
Activation took a ride on all the hype around Battle Royale games and created the Call of Duty Warzone, with all the traditional gameplay brought to a Call of Duty setting and style. Even though it is not that innovative, Call of Duty Warzone received good reviews and has a strong player base. Thus, it can be considered a success for the franchise.
Hazard Zone: A Great Alternative
On the other hand, a Battle Royale is a thing that Battlefield still needs to develop. Not having it yet is problematic since the mode has so much hype. Well, but it is not like EA and Dice left their players empty-handed, as Battlefield 2042 also features the Hazard Zone Mode.
It is not a battle royale, as it brings many features that pull the game far from the genre, such as the objectives and weapon purchase system. For all the FPS players, it is a very interesting entry and deserves a try. Still, it’s a fact that Battle Royale lovers will be better suited with Call of Duty.
Since multiplayer is the most anticipated gaming mode in both games, it is important to talk about both communities, as it is an integral part of every multiplayer. Here, Battlefield does perform better. Mostly for the slow pace and team progression, which demands patience. These characteristics will generally bring older gamers, as CoD has a relatively younger player base. But, with youth comes a lack of maturity, which you will see constantly reflected in your team.
The Last Releases: Call of Duty Vanguard vs. Battlefield 2042
The fans of both games are not that happy, even though it seems, through audience insights, that Battlefield players have more reason to complain. Once again, the developers kept the tradition. Call of Duty Vanguard always aims for a dynamic experience, and Battlefield 2042 will focus on a realistic experience. But both games don’t have just a single issue; there are dozens.
Call of Duty Vanguard
Call of Duty Vanguard went a little better than its competitor. Which doesn’t mean it is that masterpiece of a game. The general sensation is that there isn’t anything new, with this being just another CoD Game with the same good and bad aspects. No innovation means no fun. The Zombie mode was strongly criticized, being considered a step back for the mode that blow out with Black Ops. Fans reviews are 3.3 for Call of Duty Vanguard.
Battlefield 2042 has a different (and bigger) problem. For those who are playing the game, it lost some of that Battlefield feeling. To replace it, they just appeal to more explosions, vehicles, tornados, and wingsuits Many consider it an incomplete game, and the fans' review on the Metacritic website is 2.1.
Both series have awesome strong points and some important things to improve but, with more than a decade of releases (and war), there is no way to say which game is ahead with an article, no matter how big your comparison may be. The best game depends, of course, on what you value most in an FPS game. Personally, I believe Call of Duty is the winner.