So as many of you may know, the Call of Duty series has entered a slump and possibly its end. "Call of Duty: Black Ops," as well as "Modern Warfare 2" failed to deliver the action and multiplayer experience to many fans (me included), unlike "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" did in 2007. "Modern Warfare 2's" singleplayer campaign was pretty good, I'll admit that, but all together it was lack luster. Recently most of Infinity Ward's original staff either resigned or were fired by Activision. Now Activision has bought Infinity Ward and has taken over the process of making CoD games. And personally, Activision doesn't cut it. The release of "Call of Duty 4" was probably the highest point in the "Call of Duty" series' history and it will most likely remain that way. Now that "Call of Duty" has started to suck so much, "Battlefield" has stepped up to take take "Call of Duty"s place as the best FPS. When you look at the facts, you have to admit, EA and "Battlefield" have some huge advantages over "Call of Duty."
- First off, you have the Frostbite 2.0 engine running the current "Battlefield" games.
- Second, there's the destructible environment. Destruction of buildings and terrain changes how the gaming experience plays out.
- Then you have the vehicle aspect. "Battlefield" includes tanks, APCs, helicopters, jets, UAVs, HMMVWS, Vodniks, etc, etc all controllable by the player and all featured in the online multiplayer. "Call of Duty" has at most featured tanks, tank destroyers, jeeps and kubulwagens on the same map. "Battlefield" can feature all the vehicles mentioned previously on one map.
I'm not trying to plug "Battlefield" and slam on "Call of Duty," it's just that lately "Call of DutY" games have been getting worse, and "Battlefield" games are getting better. Now, before you start flaming me Anons, watch this trailer for "Battlefield 3."
Now was that awesome, or was that awesome? You may commence flaming.