Topic: Call Of Duty: Ghosts Vs Battlefield 4 - page 3. (Read 2870 times)

For some reason I like all battlefield sequels more, I was never a fan of COD :/

since the BFBC2 I dumped COD

I have not played Battlefield but I do play COD Ghosts frequently and I love it.  It can be a stressful game on many occasions but once you finally get the hang of the game it is quite satisfying.  I've seen video others playing B4 on YT and it is a sharp looking game but that is really all I can say bout it. 

I hated multiplayer. Having the guard dog was neat but it's the same old stuff were people run around like headless chickens. Although, I enjoyed the campaign. I like black ops campaign the most out of recent years but I must say I enjoyed this one better than mw3, black ops 2 and mw2. But, like I said multiplayer is the biggest pile of shit ever.

Battlefield I normally enjoy more. But, I'm still waiting for them to fix all these stupid bugs which should of been fixed eariler on. It's past christmas now and we are nearly in the new year and they haven't even fixed half of the problems.

Ghost has some new developments which I think are quite interesting, especially the dog part )

If anyone is interested, I have a BF4 download code for sale for $20. PM me if you are interested.

What it is, the major games developers are doing exactly what I feared years ago and they're developing games purely for high end systems and just pouring as many resources as they can into them while not quietly not giving a fuck about low end systems. While I can appreciate there are some things you can only do with a high end PC because of the resources required it makes me more and more paranoid/pissed off when I see them claiming it will run on high end systems with a completely straight face while you can clearly see they have thousands of polygons and ridiculous volumetric effects everywhere that are bound to break my PC.

In case you were wondering about what I've been ranting about guys, the reason I know about all this stuff is because I've been wanting to develop games since I was about 10, I learned how to use Maya but realised that I needed other skills to compliment it so I've been learning artwork for the ultimate goal of texturing etc. as well as looking at programming in my free time so I can hopefully get some kind of 3D game created so yeah, I know all the shitty moves these guys pull especially since I've been on the receiving end of them before .

that's true. My computer info said that I could play AC3 smooth, but it lag all the time

I guess that's true. Doesn't mean it's playable just means it can launch and crash immediately. 

Minimum requirements mean the game run, nothing more, just run. 

Quite possible. When me and my friends are getting a new game to play on. Some struggle to run it. Even though they have leaps and bounds beyond the minimum requirements. I think they state lower requirements to get others to purchase their game to increase profit. Although, it's very difficult to play when it's stuttering. I haven't got a powerful computer and I struggle to run some games with meeting the recommended requirements. It's something which needs to be looked into I think. It's misleading the customer.

Battlefield 4!!!! Call of duty isnt worth buying i just wait for an online crack 

I'm not a fan of the first person view kind of game but I think I'd pick Ghost ) it's looks good and I have never played Battlefield be4 )

I think they have potentially lied about the minimum requirements as well because a lot of games do that lately, they claim such and such processor and graphics card will run it but when you actually load up the game you'll find it's only barely playable on the lowest settings and lol, don't mind it, it doesn't take much to set me off on a rant when it comes to the games industry.

I see the point. EA's optimisation may not be the greatest. I've taken a quick look at the official forums and I must say there is a lot of people discussing that their computer is struggling to process the game. Also, people are reporting a lot of freezing even on i7 processors. As a gaming fan I expect bugs, crashes and late releases but it seems Battlefield hasn't even tested their product before releasing. So many quick fixes which they stated like the campaign saving issues. Instead of rushing the game in order to complete it before christmas they should have took the time in developing and testing it further. Maybe working out the bugs and making it more stable. Older computers would struggle because of the requirements of the game. However, they haven't helped themselves they could indeed optimise the game and improve. Most people can't afford the new hardware. So optimising it and making sure there are no game breaking issues they would increase their customers and profit.  Following some of the development updates I always thought they were rushing the game, even though EA are not the most 'loved' company in the world they have brought out some very nice games which run well and have become a success. Do you think Battlefield 4 has been a unsuccessful game and may destroy the battlefield franchise?

Sorry, for getting you started! 

What's interesting as well is I've discovered thanks to a thread someone posted on the official forums with people posting working computer specifications that realistically if you want to play Battlefield 4 properly and smoothly you need a bloody i7 processor lol I'm planning on getting one anyway because I'm sick of having a slow PC but that's how bad the optomisation is right now. The best part is when you look at the official forums and seeing morons calling everybody whiners and you just know the reason they can't tell anything is wrong is because they all have pricey high end PCs that can run anything but part of the problem with Battlefield 4 isn't having a low end PC it's that they threw in as many polygons and particles as their own computers would run but neglected to check whether it would run on anybody elses PC's.

Yeah, you've set me off now, I've been dealing with a lot of Battlefield bullshit lately .

I'm glad you pointed out DLC. I disagree with the whole point of dlc. If you have already purchased the game then you should be able to have whatever comes with it in the future. These days when you have a game you don't actually have the full game. IN reality you have already purchased half of it. If I went to purchase a car and I found out later I would need to buy wheels, brakes and a new engine later on. I wouldn't buy it because it's incomplete. Most games don't advertise that there will be extra content released at a later date which you will be charged for. Even free to play games seem to like to charge for dlc to make their money worth. I haven't come across a developer that isn't greedy and doesn't release dlc just for extra money.

I heard EA did rush to release in order to compete with Call of duty. That’s one of the main reasons I have held out playing. I did start to play battlefield campaign but had issues with saving. At that point I decided for all the patches to be confirmed working and the game playable at least. I tried a little bit of Call Of Duty playing with the AI. But, didn't get the feel you would if online against others.

But, at the moment I'm thinking they both aren't worth it.

They both sucks.

If I absolutely had to pick, Battlefield 4, otherwise I wouldn't buy either of them, it's true that Battlefield 4 is fun definitely more so than Call of Duty which is just a glorified campaign and team deathmatch with powerup abilities, but the problem with Battlefield 4 isn't just the bugs and glitches which would be bearable, it's the stability. Game developers just don't test their own games any more especially on low end PC's or they rush them and don't put out enough content to make it worth the price, the pricing in particular on Battlefield 4 is outrageous and you know Call of Duty is just going to release another round of DLCs that should have been put in the full game and charge you more money.

I would like to know peoples input. Due to the amount of bugs that Battlefield has had upon launch and the huge success Call of duty has had upon launch. Which one do you prefer? It's a common question which normally gets a few debates going.


Over recent years I have preferred Battlefield. Even though with it's glitches, bugs and other sorts which spoilt some aspects of the game. It just felt more relaxed and more mature than Call of duty. But, because of the recent launch problems I have held back from playing either one. Just to give both a fair chance to work out any bugs. I'm going to be playing both games this weekend on the Playstation 4. I will complete bith campaigns before moving onto multiplayer.

I would like to hear others ideas and opinions on both games and which you prefer.