Stay-At-Home Gaming

Video Game News, Reviews and Reflection! New Articles Released Randomly Every Week!

Young Men Dying and Old Men Talking: Battlefield vs Call of Duty

Last year, my friends and I were busily anticipating two games in separate camps: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. Personally, I had not enjoyed Bad Company or its sequel enough to think BF3 would change my opinion on console, while the long-awaited closing installment of the record breaking Modern Warfare series by Infinity Ward was the only thing on my mind.

After more than a year of reflection, I have analyzed and acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses of each series. But as the old movie said, there can be only one. This edition of Contradistinction is the battle of the FPS giants, a metaphorical Chuck Norris vs himself: Battlefield vs Call of Duty



Make every soldier a rifleman, pilot, driver, paratrooper; basically Keanu Reeves in The Matrix, with a focus on warfare and without the religious symbolism. So better than The Matrix. Oh, and gigantic maps to play with all those wonderful toys.

Call of Duty

Take the FPS genre and conquer it. Great action movie-quality set pieces, addictive multiplayer and breaking the entertainment sales records with each new installment since the original Modern Warfare (not counting World at War, of course. No one broke records with that one…)

Bottom Line

Numbers win this one by a nose. Both concepts are great, but the greatest in the one that sells the most copies from game to game. Call of Duty wins this round.

CoD Concept

Friends to the bitter end



Likable characters, good framework and solid plotlines. Usually confined to one or two general countries or regions, Battlefield develops those plot lines through the eyes of a single soldier, usually to the effect that you connect more with him.

Call of Duty

Multiple characters across multiple theaters of war take away from strong player connections in a single game, and some of those characters end up dead, but with CoD’s lineage of story through the series, surviving characters usually come back for the sequel.

Bottom Line

In a single game, Battlefield tells a decent story, but at least CoD keeps the stories we love going over multiple installments and always surprises us in a good way. Let’s put it another way, who would you rather have with you in war; the silent but intimidating Ghost from MW2 or Bad Company’s Private “Truck-a-saurus” Haggard? A huge win for Call of Duty.

CoD Soap

Friends are lost along the way…



Slower but more deliberate than CoD, Battlefield focuses on more realism in its games. And vehicles. By realism, I mean as close as you can get to war without getting trenchfoot and spending three months of gametime recovering and hitting on nurses (wait, I may be onto something here…) It’s almost justified to call it a simulation instead of an FPS. What gives Battlefield a unique advantage is its truly team-oriented multiplayer. And it has vehicles. Every class has its own item made for assisting others (ammo packs, medkits, etc) and allows squads to form within teams, giving you more reasons to not lone wolf the whole thing. And did I mention the vehicles?

Call of Duty

The fast-paced CoD delivers what most people want out of their shooters; story-driven or reaction-based, in-your-face action. You can’t spend a minute in a full room without seeing opponents to confront, which can be better than huge maps you might not be able to even approach on foot without three snipers taking you out, or worse, not finding anyone. Kill- or Score-Streaks, more soldier customization and choices, and the new BO2’s balanced and fun Pick 10 system make this series the seller it has been. But no vehicles.

Bottom Line

CoD’s awesome action or BF’s more realistic take? I love teamplay, (and vehicles), but I also need to feel the tension of turning a corner and finding something there. Too close for me to call. This one’s a tie. Vehicles.

BF Vehicles

Told ya



Bad Company was flat out ugly, and Bad Company 2 was a decent improvement but Battlefield 3’s Frostbite 2 engine is one of the finest engines ever made. Like Wonder Bread to Potato Bread, but for graphics.

Call of Duty

Infinity Ward’s in-house IW engine has been a gold standard for great engines since Modern Warfare’s version 3 to the self-titled engines of BO2 and MW3. Unique and powerful, like Chuck Norris. But not as much as the man himself.

Bottom Line

Call of Duty is the standard of FPS graphics, but it still has to catch up to BF3’s incredible graphics before being the best as well. Battlefield takes it for now, but strongly.

BF Graphics

The obvious winner



The classic Battlefield Theme is an iconic song, but the rest don’t seem to stand on their own. Gun sounds are great, reflecting the power behind the guns being fired. Voice acting is standard, great quality, though Haggard was bad move in dialogue choice. I really hate that guy.

Call of Duty

The CoD soundtrack is subtle, which is both a flaw and a strength at the right moments. The voice acting is always well cast, though the dialogue tends to be cliched military jargon.

Bottom Line

Unfortunately, compared to other games of similar sales numbers (Assassin’s Creed, The Elder Scrolls, any Bioware game), the sound of these two games just doesn’t measure up. No points awarded to either game. I’m not even putting the pictures up. I love sound too much.

Fun Factor


Truly an exercised dichotomy. When you play with random players without voicecom, you feel like you’re playing any other FPS with a mobile, uncontrollable extra spawn point. When you get it to really work, with friends who take to their roles in a squad and communicate well with each other, you feel like you’re part of an unstoppable powerhouse, and that feeling has only gotten better with each (numbered) version of the series.

Call of Duty

Again, CoD is the gold standard. You can play with groups in a variety of game modes, or free-for-all just as easy. The matches are shorter than BF, but it always feels like the perfect length, not over quickly, but also not dragging on outstaying its welcome. It is a consistently fun time, though with more players come glitch exploiters (MW2 Javelin Glitch, anyone?), and immature children (and adults) can ruin a good time if you decide that game chat might be fun.

Bottom Line

For anyone who has read the Death of Competitive Gaming article, this one will be no surprise. Battlefield may be a little more uneven with its experience, but it manages to reach greater heights than CoD does, and that counts for a lot. Battlefield wins this round.

BF Fun

With great teammates comes great experiences



There is not a singleplayer campaign or even level I have ever felt the need to replay in Battlefield, but multiplayer has always been the core of this long-running series. Battlefield 2 was a particular high point, with modifiable map sizes, high player counts and Commander Mode, which sadly did not make its way to consoles. Who didn’t want to command the entire team, seeing things the other players didn’t and dropping bombs on them? Battlefield 3 stands strong on its own merits, but unfortunately omitted the series’ best replay feature from seven years before.

Call of Duty

Almost every mission was filled with explosive setpieces, and though most of them lose their charm with multiple playthroughs, who didn’t replay CoD 4’s Nuke sequence? The Vorkuta breakout in Black Ops? The Juggernaut finale of Modern Warfare 3? Let alone the multiple endings of its new Black Ops 2. And I don’t need to go over its multiplayer; look at the XBox Live game traffic stats and CoD will be on the first page, if not the top of it.

Bottom Line

Call of Duty. Obviously.

CoD Nuke

There’s no escape from that kind of shockwave…

Moment of Truth

For those counting, Call of Duty beats Battlefield, 4-3. Although it was a close victory, I doubt it was a surprising one. Call of Duty does not sell so many copies for no reason. Compelling storylines, characters you grow to love and some of the best competitive multiplayer in modern gaming. Sure, it doesn’t stand up to Battlefield’s graphics, but they are still great. And Battlefield may be a better team game, but CoD has better game types for the teamplay it has. And Battlefield may have more mature and fun-to-talk-to players, but I don’t have a counter for that one.

CoD Win

Metaphorically, Soap stands for CoD

Call of Duty outshines Battlefield on replayability, concept and storyline much more than Battlefield takes the advantage on any category. Battlefield 4 may force a new conclusion to an update of this article, but until then, Call of Duty is the winning FPS.


About RedGuinness

Andrew Shortall (RedGuinness) is the Writer, Editor, Administrator and founder of Stay-At-Home Gaming. He also suffers from sleepless nights, summer new release withdrawals and trying to behave himself in front of his new nephew.

Got an opinion? Let it be heard!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Follow us on Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: