Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty Ghosts?
Why is this a question...Honestly if you want a new game shouldn't it be Battlefield 4 or Ghosts, and my answer is it depends on what you like because COD is focusing all there games on multiplayer now a days and Battlefield is all about the story so it all depends on what game you like and if your going to buy Battlefield 3 it is a waste of money because of the server thing they put in the game its pretty much a waste of money and if they do that again the whole game might as well be a waste of money and if you want to hear annoying 12 year olds on the multiplayer then get COD because COD is mostly fast run and gun gameplay with a lot of trash talking rather then Battlefield playing the objective and vehicles like jets and all that crap, but the next game isnt by treyarch so the multiplayer supposedly not going to make you smash your head at the wall when you die by a 6 year old german so this is a question that is going to bring a war so good luck picking im just getting both so i dont have to deal with this sh!t
Battlefield 4 or call of duty ghost?
Personally, I love both(Do tend to play COD a little more, as it's better for quick casual 'fragging') and plan on getting both. However, story wise it's too soon to say as more has been revealed about Ghosts than BF4. But you have to keep in mind the majority of COD and BF players do not buy for the campaign, and many do not even play it. Granted, COD has been known for having the better campaigns in most public opinion, but then again it's the multiplayer that most people buy for. Multiplayer wise, both will be good. Of course, graphic wise Battlefield will win as they have been making major improvements all the time whereas COD is just now stepping it up. Then you have Battlefield actually having player destructible environments, while COD Ghosts will only have dynamic pre programmed destruction. Hope that helps.
Call of Duty:Ghost or Battlefield 4?
For your Arcade Shooter, Fast Paced Games go with Call of Duty Ghosts. If you like realism in games go with Battlefield 4. It depends on what kind of games you like, if you like both get them both. Let's say if you want Battlefield 4 when it comes out, then get it, then when you're bored of the game get Call of Duty Ghosts to try the game and try something new.
Battlefield 4 vs Call of Duty: Ghost?
As a player of both, I'm going say to Battlefield 4. Call of Duty has been getting a little repetitive, the next games only offering some new guns, kill streaks and maps, without changing how the game feels. They don't have anything that makes them really stand out, other than the amount of players. If Call of Duty: Ghosts continues this trend, I'm just going to wait until the game feel changes, whenever that may be. As for Battlefield, what's not to like? There's a great emphasis on teamwork and helping the team instead of the individual. It rewards you more for helping out your team, whether that's reviving, PTO, resupplying, designating targets, repairing etc, and not solely on the amount of kills you get in a game. There's vehicular warfare. The guns are almost all unique in feel and proficiency. There's the map variety (BF3 as an example), you have absolutely massive maps like Armored Shield, and smaller maps for Deathmatch games. It's realistic.
Are games like Battlefield 4 and CoD, Ghosts/Black Ops 2, 3, worth playing if I'm aiming for PVP, or are games like AVA/Soldier Front/2/CS, or GO, and other FPS games better suited for this?
It really depends on what you're looking for. I've never played CS:GO so I can't speak about that, but I have experience in COD and some Battlefield. If you're looking for more of a battle format with larger armies and vehicles to use, go with Battlefield. If you're interested in smaller teams and firefights, CoD is probably better. Ghosts gets a lot of hate, but I personally think it is a better game than BO 2. So if it comes down to a decision between those two I would pick Ghosts.
ArmA vs Battlefield vs COD. Which is more fun to play?
It really depends on what you’re looking for in a shooter. Personally, I’d say my favourite is Arma III.Arma 3 is a great game if you’re looking for a game where you have to be strategic and tactical. Arma 3 is incredibly versatile when it comes to strategies. Playing with small team against a much larger force? You can fight as guerillas, going into an enemy zone that's heavily fortified? Get some tanks, or call in some artillery. You can also call in air support, artillery strikes and so on. Arma also has the benefit of an incredibly versatile editor, that can be used for creating virtually infinite scenarios. The game has a very large mod community, so there is no shortage of new content for you to try, some adding new maps, or armies and with the right mods, the game can actually become quite a realistic game. Arma III also has units that you can join. Units are groups of players who come together to do events. I’d recommend joining one, as they add a lot more options for things to do. Arma III has a lot more depth than the other games, teamwork, strategy and tactics are all important to your team being an effective fighting force. Arma also has a very unique feature, called Zeus, which is an in-game mission maker, that allows the person controlling it to make a mission on the spot.However, Arma 3 is not with cons; it doesn't come with many pre-made single player scenarios outside of its campaign. If you’re coming from more casual shooters like Call of Duty or Battlefield, you will find it has a very steep learning curve. Combat in the game, while fun, might not feel as action packed as Battlefield or Call of Duty. The game also has a lot of controls. Like an obscene amount of controls. I’ve been playing the game for a long time and I still don't know all of the controls to the game. The game also is very demanding in terms of processing power, so the game naturally requires a powerful PC for it to be playable. This alone is reason enough to not get Arma.Overall, I’d say that Arma III is an incredibly fun game if you’re looking for a fun, challenging experience.
Which one is better: Call of Duty Ghost Protocol or Battlefield 4?
Battlefield 4! Do you know why? Cause it's ain't the same sh*t which COD releases every year. Why BF4 is much better over COD :Frostbite 34 DLCs Hundreds of weapons and equipments This isn't just TDM! It's a large scale multiplayer war with tanks and jets 4 different classes Big maps.. (Big is better. Isn't it?) Millions of playersCommander mode ( play on the go) Battle events
Why do you prefer COD over Battlefield and vice versa?
Look no offense but no matter how many times I hear this question the more I despise it. Both are great games but drastically different. Call of Duty and Battlefield cannot be compared. Now you’re probably thinking “James why can’t these two awesome titles be compared?”Well I’ll tell you. Lets start with Call of Duty.Call of Duty to me is a simple FPS that really anyone with no experience in gaming can easily get into while I view Battlefield as a battle simulator with intense moments.Call of Duty to me is a really fun game that is near and dear to my heart. My first Call of Duty I ever got was CoD Ghosts (Eww) but I went back and replayed all the Call of Duty titles before that (this was about 2014).Battlefield is more realistic with intense gunfights that rely on skill and accuracy, not who has the better loadout.Now what I like about Battlefield is that it has actual weapons, unlike the later CoDs which have knockoff weapons.versusThough I love call of Duty because of it’s amazing campaign, realistic sounds and not to mention zombies and survival mode.But there one thing that I love about Battlefield and that’s the vehicles. I know CoD experimented with vehicles back in CoD 3 but there’s something awesome about driving A FUCKING TANK around the map and crushing people.But everyone knows that Minecraft is the superior FPS of our generation.