First person shooters, or FPS for short are some of the most popular games of the last few years. The ease in which they are to pick up and play appeals to a wide audience. As a result of this the Call of Duty franchise has become the widest selling game franchise in history. The amount of people that play these games is staggering and everyone migrates to the newest game after just one year.
Along with the Call of Duty franchise there is Battlefield and Halo. These three make up for the vast majority of all FPS gamers across the four major systems. (Xbox, PS3, Wii, PC) Personally I started with Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and have been a fan of the franchise ever since. I think the appeal of FPS besides being so easy to pick up and play is how fast paced it can be. This is where the top few FPS can differ in play styles. Having not played much of Halo I will focus mainly on the Battlefield vs COD (Call of Duty) debate. While there are extremists on either side of this debate who absolutely loathe and despise the other franchise I believe both have their strengths and weaknesses. For fairness sake I will be comparing the two most recent from each franchise Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3.
The most recent Battlefield I have about 100 hours of game time logged personally. The strengths of Battlefield are that skill level does matter as does how cautious you are. Those people that tend to disregard their life and just rush in over and over again often don't do too well in Battlefield. Due to the structure of the game it requires a sneakier approach and you have to really take advantage of the map layout and cover to plan flank routes and assault routes. While this is the case in many FPS Battlefield is made much easier when playing with a squad of friends to coordinate movements and play the objective. Battlefield focuses more on points and objective based game play over kills so you get more people tying to win than just sitting around trying to get a ton of kills. The most points can be acquired usually by helping your team either by healing or supplying them with ammo so it doesn't benefit players that are selfish.
Due to the structure of the game usually players who see the enemy first are going to get the kill, this is true to real life as you hardly ever see the person that killed you. Disadvantages I see are subjective, it is based on my play style and could be looked at as advantages if you prefer to play differently. First off my major complaint has always been the map size of most Battlefield maps. I like being in the middle of the action and in large maps I often run a long ways just to get shot as soon as I get to the objective so its all for naught. As I said this is subjective for those players who like to take their time and move slowly this map size is ideal. Even saying this there are some maps I prefer to snipe on because then I can be effective from much farther away. The major difference that battlefield has between COD is the use of vehicles. Battlefield allows players the use of Jets (as of the last one) as well as helicopters, tanks, and all manner of vehicles. This is both a strength and a weakness. It adds to the diversity of the game so that's good however the vehicles can be overpowered when upgraded and under control of an experienced player. There is nothing more frustrating than getting killed over and over again by the same guy sitting in a tank all game. Overall I enjoy the Battlefield franchise and own both COD and battlefield.
Moving on to the elephant in the room we have Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3. While there are competitors to this franchise no one has been able to match their numbers for games sold. Call of Duty is better known for fast paced action and smaller maps that is often more reaction and luck based. Skill level has a lot to do with this game don't get me wrong but even the best players are unlucky at times and will die to something that is unforeseeable such as a random grenade thrown across the map. Decision making is the most important factor in Call of Duty, I would say the vast majority of players that are just average could be good if their decision making was better. You have to know exactly when to run when to crouch and when to lie down as at any moment its possible you come across an enemy and you have to be ready. The biggest mistake players make in my opinion is rushing in to dangerous areas without realizing the danger there. If three of your teammates just died running through a doorway or around a corner don't try and be a hero and rush after them, chances are you wont be lucky and you will just be another victim. The smart thing would be to take another route to the location you are trying to go and if you can come up behind the area your teammates died you will most likely surprise whoever is laying in wait.
People are much more concerned with kills compared to deaths aka kill death ratio or K:D. This stems from kill-streaks rewarding players for getting a streak of kills without dying. As a result in COD players are less likely to rush into dangerous objective zones for the purpose of winning the game. They would often times rather take a loss than take a bunch of deaths trying to win. For those players that do play the objective this is rather frustrating, as COD is a team based game most average players are unable to do most of the work alone. It is often just a matter of time until sheer numbers will overtake them and they cant hold off the enemy team at the objective any longer. In older COD's however not as much any more it was famous for whiny little kids that apparently just learned swearwords yesterday and couldn't wait to try them out every other word. As many people are in party chat now this isn't as much of an issue. Another disadvantage of COD is how often the player who should have gotten the kill doesn't. It isn't that hard to turn around and get the kill on someone who caught you by surprise. This is unrealistic as I highly doubt someone would be able to take a couple bullets and be as agile as ever.
The major difference that COD has to battlefield is the perk system. Perks allow you certain advantages and different setups can vastly improve your odds depending on your situation. This invariably leads to a more dominant setup highly used and people end up complaining. I don't think FPS developers can win though because no matter what they do people will be frustrated and complain about something. Overall it is a good game yet sometimes certain weapons are dominant and I enjoy both COD and Battlefield. For my play style COD fits it better as I like to rush and catch enemies by surprise, I enjoy being in the middle of the battle relying on reaction time even if it does end up costing me more deaths in the long run. Also mentioned earlier was kill-streaks, these reward players for doing well and cause average players to camp in hopes of getting a high enough kill-streak. Kill-streaks can be overpowered at times and perhaps are a good answer to the vehicles that BF offers.
This blog has gone on longer than I intended but I wanted to make one last point before I conclude. Having not been playing either Battlefield or COD much in recent weeks constant players have really passed me up. This leads to the experience not being as fun if your the one doing poorly in every game. The fun people have in FPS is directly correlated with how well your doing. I and I am sure most among us if they cant do anything in games they will turn it off relatively quickly. I think it is best to have fun while your playing and play casually. Makes the games much more enjoyable and then your not frustrated as much while playing. Happy gaming everyone and comment which you prefer and why COD or BF.