I much prefer Call of Duty Ghosts over Battlefield four. I think that the game is more interesting and fun for me to play overall. I do think that both games are very similar in enjoyment level for me, but I tend to enjoy playing Call of Duty Ghosts more often.
The Call of Duty game has long been one one of the best first person shooting games for the console generation. Call of Duty Ghosts has better graphics, a better story, and a better intuitive interface. I think that the multiplayer is better in COD Ghosts as well, in my opinion. Everything's better than in Call of Dirty "ghosts" I like bf4 much more than this. Cod is such like these games made in or less. So in my opinion Bf4 is alot better than call of dirty. Ps: Everybody is hacking in COD so there's no fun in that game.
Bf4 looks and performs much netter on next gen consoles and cod ghost is overall better on current gen consoles. But overall I think bf4 is the better game. Battlefield incorporates distuction that changes maps and I feel that it also needs teamwork. Unloose that of call of duty ghost. I own battlefield 4 and call of duty ghosts both for the xbox one. I have seen both with my eyes and played them.
Cod ghosts has the same partical destruction graphics and light engineering graphics. Battlefield 4 on the other hand uses anew game engine new particle destruction and a variety realistic weaponry. Call of duty has guns semi realistic but the only thing is that the guns they do have that are real aren't similar to the guns they use.
Bf4 game producers went through weapons training to create a realistic feel for the game. Also the story in cod is a stock storyline. Guy gets attacked, guy fights back, guy almost loses, guy wins. The game has quite some good looking, ass-kicking looking textures but it lacks in terms of story and yes, it also lacks in terms of gameplay.
Because over the past few years, DICE got us accustomed with the amazing possibility of driving several different vehicles from usual cars, to big-ass airplanes. This wonderful feature was missing in almost the whole game. This is only possible because of the endless waves of enemies that will make your life horrible if you are playing on the highest difficulty available.
We need something new and fresh in games, something to make the experience less boring. It seems like the greatness of Bad Company 2 has faded in time, a lot of the features that I liked in that game got lost on the way. So, in big lines, Battlefield 4 has the graphics and Call of Duty: Ghosts has the story and the gameplay. A game made out of both would really satisfy most of my needs when it comes to gaming.
Well, because it simply is a far more enjoyable and interesting experience. Also, if we look back at the beginning of the gaming, most of the best-selled games were not based on graphics, they were based on original and attractive story. So, what are you waiting for developers? We are all waiting for a game to amaze us, stop delivering mediocre games.
But I still want an epic story that is longer than 5hrs for my hard earned cash. I guess the single player base is a dying breed. God ghosts has a wayyyyy better and more distructive single player more new machines but battlefield has multiplayer because is team work and more distructive things….
I thinck but it seems boring but cod seems more strickt and modern. I find the review a Bit lacking in some detaisl in BF4, like the poor character development, the whining Irish, the bad campaign conclusion. In Ghosts You miss the glitchs in cutscenes, who ruining the imerse in the history and the waste of Riley use, only 1 Fase. Ah and the thing with a mute protagonist, I dont see how this increase imersion.
I dont see me As Recker or Logan, I enjoy Beeing Prophet and Booker because they have a personality, About the graphics of COD its not a negative note, I give a 7 out of 10, The lightining is good, the character models too, the level design is more fun. No one can deny the number and depth of skills there are to master on the series. But Call of Duty brought us Perks. Combinations of attributes, such as faster reloads, longer sprinting, and silenced movement to name a fraction, that distinguish your own solider in a multitude of ways.
Your creation becomes a mirror of your own style of play, able to adapt to all sorts of environments by switching to other custom load outs mid-game. The concept has since been quietly imitated by other games. If not that, then a branch that could grow in parallel with the market for traditional shooters. People want a fresh and more dynamic experience. Can Hardline keep up the pace?
Either side of the divide vehemently defends what they love. Neither can provide what the other offers. HQ Support Command. Battlefield and its Conquest game mode was a triumph. The ability to make mods, which was unfavourably removed from subsequent titles, led to the hugely popular Desert Combat. Today, Call of Duty casts an overwhelming shadow.
Ghosts took a slight step back, but Black Ops 2 introduced several new features, including a league system, to bolster an already generous selection of online modes and private lobby options that has been expanded annually. On BF4, you have to rent a server to customise settings and play anywhere near how you want to play.
Ranking does unlock new equipment and attributes, but the opportunity for individualism lacks scale and appeal; a huge pulling factor on Call of Duty. Battlefield 4 is also inundated with bugs and glitches that have stagnated and begun to destroy its community. Activision, and their in-house developers of CoD, put EA to shame here. Feedback is everything and despite a few hiccups, you have to award them the highest honour for effort. Battlefield fans know that the raw material is there to make their beloved franchise great again.
All the more infuriating, then, that resolving game-breaking issues and fine-tuning a few details has been a bridge too far in recent years.
0コメント