Should I get Call of Duty Ghosts or Battlefield 4?

In what is undoubtedly a tentative subject amongst most gamers, we’re going to build a portfolio of Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty Ghosts so that you can make the comparisons yourself and decide which one is for you. Having played Call of Duty and Battlefield extensively over the current generation, we think its time to lay out the facts of fun and leave the bickering to the fan-boys.

Question One: To next-gen or not next-gen?

Both Battlefield and Call of Duty have cross-gen stat tracking which means that should you choose to play either game on your Xbox 360/PS3 and then buy the game later on your Xbox One/PS4, your stats will carry over (just not your disc!). Sony and Microsoft have confirmed that this will come with a fee however, roughly £10/$10

If you are going next gen from the word go, this isn’t a problem for you. Naturally there will be pretty large differences between systems graphically speaking but the differences will be more obvious in Battlefield 4. Call of Duty will supposedly have all the same game play features regardless of what generation console you’re playing on and as a result won’t notice big changes aside from peripheral support and graphics. Call of Duty will basically run and function much the same on all systems.

Battlefield 4 on the other hand will show significant changes depending on the system you are playing on. Its already been confirmed that the player count on current gen is still 24 as opposed to 64 on next gen systems. Similarly, it is likely that given the much larger scale of the warfare, destruction and elemental effects will be toned down in order to function on current system hardware. We should expect the differences between BF4 on current and next gen systems to be greater than the obvious gap between the console and PC versions of BF3. Fundamentally speaking, BF4 is extending beyond the reach of the PS3/Xbox360 hardware and it’ll be obvious.

While from a game play perspective, BF4 will naturally be streamlined regardless of system, you’re likely to be choosing between silk or hemp.

Question Two: What about Cooperative game modes?

Call of Duty has always been as much about playing online as getting a friend round and going split screen. Call of Duty Ghosts does support split-screen and sports a robust Coop game mode called Squads. Within Squads you have a selection of game modes which pitch you and your squad against other players and/or AI opponents. From the early sounds of things, it sounds a lot like a mix of Spec-Ops and Combat Training from previous titles. You’ll be able to play with friends against AI through all available multiplayer game types as well as survival modes on and offline against AI. Call of Duty Ghosts does also have Extinction Mode, which allows up to 4 players to hold off against waves of aliens!

Battlefield 4 doesn’t have coop or split-screen (the former being confirmed and the latter assumed). Split-screen has never been a part of Battlefield in the past and it is unlikely they’ll start now. The game has always put a strong focus on team play in the multiplayer and essentially considers squadding up online as Coop. At present, you won’t be able to play the maps against AI or offline and there is no indication of a survival mode. Previous BF titles have included AI game modes (Bad Company 2: Onslaught) as DLC.

BF4: time to adapt

Question Three: Play alone or play with friends? 

Some of us game with friends, others alone and when it comes down the Call of Duty or Battlefield, I genuinely think this makes a difference.

Call of Duty has small to medium sized maps which tend to be easily memorised and combined with a semi-random spawn system mean that you can find yourself at any point on the map and be able to quickly get where you want to be. The downside to this system (in the past) has been that despite moving around with a group of friends, when one of you dies (without a revive option) they respawn somewhere else and are separated from your group. In my experience, its harder to move and function as a team when half the match is spent trying to re-group. Thats not to say playing with a team of friends doesn’t dominate, its that the game isn’t designed specifically with that in mind.

A game mode that includes a ‘revive’ mechanic has been mentioned, although its unclear at this stage whether it carries into the overall game. Generally speaking, Call of Duty is about fast paced, reflexive combat that is better suited to a lone-wolf play style that gets better with friends, but doesn’t effect your game-style.

Battlefield 4 is all about teamwork and playing with friends. There are big differences between playing with a squad of friends and jumping in with a group of randoms. The first point is the spawn system which allows you to spawn on any member of your squad after you’ve died. This means that as long as one of your squad is still standing, your team can regroup as quickly as they were dispatched. The game also focuses heavily on communication, rewarding extra experience points for working as a team. You get more points if you revive, heal, resupply, capture an objective, repair etc if you do with with a squad mate than you do by yourself or with a normal team-mate. Combine this with a huge variety of infantry and vehicle support mechanics and the game is fundamentally designed as a cooperative Battlefield, not a team based free-for-all.

Playing by yourself on Battlefield is of course still and option, but generally speaking lone-wolves with an impressive K.D sit lower down the scoreboard than team players with a worse one.

Ghosts

Question Four: Whats new, and whats the same?

Some of you might be thinking that you’re bored of one type of shooter and want to move to the other. Generally speaking, neither CoD: Ghosts nor BF4 are really changing up the formula from the success of the previous title in the series. If you didn’t like one in the past, you’re unlikely to be moved with the next-gen versions. Both games are making changes, but they are more like tweaks to the system that works.

Both games will be running on new engines at 60 frames per second, which is nothing new for CoD, but it is to Battlefield.

Call of Duty is keeping the same game style but adding in more coop features, a plethora of customisation options (including the ability to play as a female) and reworking the class, perk, and unlock system. Nothing here is revolutionary aside from a new and improved games engine that makes the maps more dynamic. This is the most noticeable change in that maps will change according to what areas have been opened or closed according to what the player has done. While this isn’t a new feature in games (comparable to Gears of War’s changing maps), it’ll add spice to the levels and make them a little harder to memorise. We have yet to see how these dynamic events change up the game play, but so far it looks as though they are pre-set events that can be triggered at any time but not representative of a robust destruction system.

Battlefield is also taking customisation to the next level with an even bigger range of weapons and vehicles and associated unlocks. BF4 is also introducing ‘Battlepacks’ which can be unlocked through progression and allow the customisation of your soldier’s appearance and weapon skins. The game also features new assignments and challenges as well as the ability to set squad challenges for your friends to accomplish for xp boosts. Battlefield is continuing to build upon the ways you can support your group and reward the team while Call of Duty wants your soldier to be unique specifically to you.

While Call of Duty is running on a new engine, aside from a few tweaks, it looks to be maintaining the same formula but just making it look better. BF4 on the other hand is taking its destruction element to greater levels, also adding dynamic water and weather. The level of possible map alteration/destruction in BF4 is substantially higher than that seen in any previous game and it is also introducing water based combat, complete with stormy seas and underwater combat.

While its difficult to say in the early days, it looks like the new engine for BF4 has much bigger game play implications than the new engine for COD: Ghosts.

Question Five: Which has better long term support?

In terms of DLC, Call of Duty developers have always supported their games with regular updates and frequent map drops. Battlefield doesn’t have quite so clear a track record, but arguably has bigger content when it drops.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 had a Season Pass for £35 approx which covered the cost of all four map packs.

Battlefield 3 Premium cost £35 approx and covered the cost of 4/5 maps (depending on whether your preorder gave you the first dlc or not).

While CoD has always been a lot clearer in terms of its DLC package and keeping its fans in the loop about what was coming, when and why, Battlefield undoubtedly had better value for money.

CoD DLC cost individually approximately £10 and added at least 3 new maps, 1 re-imagined, and or zombie map. One DLC added a new weapon.

By comparison, BF4 DLC added 4 brand new maps with each DLC and all with a unique theme and game play difference. Each pack also included a unique set/combination of weapons, vehicles, and assignments, unlocks and game modes for the same price.

DICE have announced that Premium for Battlefield 4 will be available from day one and will include weekly content drops as well as weapons, vehicles, and of course, map packs.

Obviously Value for Money depends on your alignment, but in terms of content, Battlefield had better content but worse PR and patching record. CoD has better PR but arguably shallower content.

 

Question Six: Whats the difference? 

This the question which usually provokes a ‘flame’ war and the subject which people are most volatile about. Ultimately, its about which game and play style you prefer. I would not argue that one game is better than the other, only that they cater to different audiences. You wouldn’t shout at the guy in a fish restaurant because he ordered sea bass when you prefer cod (pun intended), you’d appreciate them both independently.

Call of Duty is an arcade shooter that focuses heavily on tight maps and quick reflexes. The game relies as heavily on muscle memory as it does on concentration and determination. Generally speaking, Call of Duty is about mastering weapons, maps, and game modes through repetition and dominating anyone who’s not as quick and nimble as you. Your play style can vary and naturally your skill will change with it. Mastering a bolt-shot sniper rifle is very different from a grenade launcher or personnel mine.

Black Ops 2

Call of Duty tends to cater towards people that are good at mastering a specific style that suits them. People that like to customise their weapons and tailor their load-out exactly to their liking (down to weapon skin and sight-customisation) adding a layer of personalisation that makes the player feel better as an individual for doing well. This mastery applies to maps and game modes in which players need to learn the every nook, cranny, choke point and sniper hole in order to be successful. Good Call of Duty players build a strong sense of map awareness that means they can track and close in on other players quickly through fast reflexes and map knowledge. The player’s skill in these areas are rewarded with kill-streaks and exp boosts which satisfyingly lead you to get better and achieve more. Take too long to think about anything and you’ll pay for it.

Battlefield appeals to a very different type of play style. Battlefield is less about achieving as an individual and more about getting your team to the end. You can go an entire match using only the support options, never kill an enemy player, and land comfortably in the middle to top of the scoreboard. Generally speaking, the game appeals to players with a wide play style and tactical awareness. The size and destructibility of the maps as well presence of light and heavily armoured vehicles requires flexibility. Players do not always have to think fast, but they do need to be adaptable to a wide range of play styles as the game unfolds. It is not possible to play the same map several times and apply the same strategy every time since maps change and the players with it. A sniper point you found one match might be completely destroyed the next. This sort of game requires a slower, more methodical play style, but ultimately more adaptable one.

BF3

At its core, Battlefield is a team game in which players need to work to the strength of the individual classes and adapt as the map and enemy team change. Its about thinking as a team and slotting into whatever role may be required in the given moment of the match. Given the variety of classes and possible vehicles, you have to adapt! Call of Duty takes a more individual approach, rewarding specific play styles and quick thinking when you move faster and out-react your opponents. Its about proving your prowess as a individual, whether you play as a team or not. Given the pace of the matches, you have to be fast! If you’re bad at first person shooters, you’ll be destroyed in Call of Duty where as you’ll still find a place in Battlefield as vehicle pilot or medic. If you’re good at shooters but can’t adapt, you’ll get destroyed in Battlefield but do very well in Call of Duty.

Question Five: Whats about Singleplayer?

Given the trend of interest between single and multiplayer in both titles, suffice it to say most people don’t even touch the singleplayer portion of the game. That being said however, Call of Duty have a good track record for stellar, albeit linear, campaigns. Call of Duty has had a short but well constructed singleplayer with every single game it has released and only supported that with a strong multiplayer component. Call of Duty games are extremely well made and done well on everything from game play to story telling. Call of Duty singleplayer campaigns are reliably good, regardless of whether its your thing or not.

Battlefield on the other hand has a somewhat more turbulent history. Although originally a multiplayer only series, Battlefield: Bad Company 1 introduced the first story driven campaign through open level design and destructibility. The series then attempted (and failed) to compete with CoD’s more linear and action packed formula with Bad Company 2 and the floppy, bug ridden BF3. The last two Battlefield campaigns have looked great, but hardly impressed in terms of game play, engagement or indeed satisfaction. Call of Duty by comparison, has used the same engine many times over to create a strong and bug free experience time and again.

Battlefield 4

What does this mean for the next gen games? Well Call of Duty is bringing a new story to the table, but doesn’t look like its changing up the formula that made its previous campaigns such a rollercoaster. There has been a lot of talk about ‘feeling emotion’ for the characters as well as creating an imaginative and fresh scenario from which to build a story. Its likely to contain the same thrilling set pieces and ‘wow’ moments we’ve come to expect. I think its safe to say you know what you’re getting.

In Call of Duty: Ghosts, players will take control of a member of the Ghost military unit in the years following a catastrophic attack on US soil. In the year 2023 the South American Federation of Countries (SAFC) take control of the U.S space weapons known as ‘The Rods of God” and obliterate the States primary financial and military power. The SAFC then invade in the states, which sets the stage for the game. You can view the first campaign trailer here:

Battlefield 4 is taking a more militaristic approach to its story, sticking rigidly to present day scenarios in a fictional conflict between China, Russia and America. Its hard to know the direction DICE will take the new campaign as all information so far has been somewhat contradictory. We know the publishers (EA) are fighting hard to match CoD sales and are driving for a more focused and story driven campaign that will get players the same rollercoaster experience they’re after. Does this mean that the BF4 campaign will be linear, scripted and as story driven as previous titles? Game-play videos so far suggest so, but that also leaves us to expect it’ll flop as Bad Company 2 and BF3’s storylines did. The flip side is the hints at taking cues from the multiplayer with the addition of squad mechanics and whats been teased as ‘open’ level design. We have yet to see any of this ‘open’ approach design so we’re left to assume the story is still playing catch up. Open levels in line with Bad Company 1 would be set BF4 and CoD in two very different leagues.

In Battlefield 4, the world is on the brink of war as your squad (Tombstone) becomes embroiled in a politically charged, international incident. You are discovered during an intelligence operation on a defecting Russian general in Baku and your team is forced to break cover and fight their way out. Once getting back aboard the USS Valkyrie, your intelligence confirms plans of a Russian backed coup in China and your squad is deployed to Shanghai to extract a group of VIPs. The situation quickly gets out of control as the US is implicated in the coup, Russia moves troops into Chinese waters, and China’s government is overruled by martial law. It all goes downhill from there. . .

Call of Duty Ghosts

Question Seven: Which is for me?

Its entirely up to you. I won’t suggest for a minute one is better than the other because as far as quality is concerned, they are both well crafted and supported series. The best thing to do is work out which play style you like best and get the game that suits it. If you want a game to play with friends where you can communicate and stretch your tactical skills, get Battlefield. If you play by yourself, rarely use your mic and want a rewarding single player experience, Call of Duty is undoubtedly the right choice.  Thats not to say you can’t play BF4 solo or CoD with a team, of course you can. The difference is CoD rewards individual play, regardless of how you play in a team and BF4 rewards team play, regardless of how you play as an individual.

At the end of the day, many people get both. . . .

 Trailers for your comparison: