Battlefield: Bad Company vs Call Of Duty 4
Which game will get your hard earned cash this year?
I couldn’t find a decent article on the comparison between BC and COD4, so here it goes.
A new competitor in the console shooter franchise, battlefield:bad company makes its mark with the brand new frostbite engine developed by EA and swedish company DICE. Â To start this off, let me just mention possibly the coolest feature this game has.
Destructible environments
Never before done on a console, Bad Company gives the player the ability to blow up anything and everything in a beautifully designed sandbox environment. Everything from trees to even the ground can be destroyed and damaged. Obviously there are some small limitations like the frames of some building are unable to be destroyed but neverthless. No more going around and inside door to kill an enemy, just blow the back wall down and engage in your assault.
Storyline
Yes! thats right the battlefield series now has a fully developed storyline. No more bots on multiplayer maps. Bad company follows a four man squad of rebellious soldiers that are placed in the army’s ‘useless’ pile. After a series of events the soldiers featuring; Marlowe, Haggard, Stillwater and Redford decide to go AWOL in the search of mercenary gold. The player is given 8 missions to play with difficulties ranging from easy to veteran. Surprisingly each mission took an hour or two to finish and they consist of checkpoints where the players game is saved.
Multiplayer
The flagship of all the battlefield games has been the multiplayer and bad company sure doesn’t disappoint. Apart from the voip issues on the ps3 (mic problems) which DICE are working on fixing. The multiplayer is pretty flawless. Battlefield online combines tactical and strategic elements with squad/team play. Battlefield Bad Company features two game modes.
Gold rush - a basic attack and defend type game, where attackers have to destroy the opposing teams ‘gold crates’ and vice versa.
Conquest - the original game mode from the battlefield games. Conquest is a ticket based game, where the tickets are the amount of lives a team has. When all the tickets are gone that team loses, similar to a team deathmatch mode apart from the fact that tickets can be reduced quicker if bases/flags are captured.
Conclusion:
Apart from some minor set backs with the mic issues on the ps3 and a slight grain effect in the graphics. Battlefield:Bad Company makes up for any of its mishaps with the outstanding online gameplay which incorporates team work and strategic gameplay with some beautifully rendered destructible environments.
9/10
Winning the award of game of the year in 2007 Call of Duty 4 does bring a truely innovative approach to shooters. With its class based system (which I find very cool by the way ) and a plethora of game modes COD4 really does redefine the genre of ’shooter’.
Singleplayer
Unfortunately, unlike Bad Company the singeplayer is very short. The game can be completed within a maximum of day or so however it is an intense day of gameplay. Â The story centres are the theme of terrorists helbent on destroying the world with stolen russian nukes. Â It doesn’t sound all that exciting but the missions are quite enjoyable, there are a number of shocking moments during the game but it is something you can get aquainted to rather fast. The AI is much stronger and smarter in this version of COD making the gameplay all the more compelling. Â You are equipped with an arsenal of deadly weapons and class based system which lets you create your own weapons by modifying, adding, subtracting existing weapons and kits.
The only major flaw that I see with COD4 and it is something that will start to bother you if had played Bad Company earlier is the lack of freedom you have within the game and obviously the non destructible environments. Especially in the singeplayer the missions all seem to constrict you and the barriers that the game gives you such as a plank of wood as a barricade making it impossible for you to look around and go further then required. The game is very linear in the fact that the mission can only be played a certain way, you don’t have the freedom you do in BC where you are able to finish a mission the way you want to finish it.
Whether it be by land, by air, in a vehicle or from hundreds of metres away.
Multiplayer
The multiplayer in COD4 is truely one of the most exciting and gripping I have ever played. The fast paced action, the UAI strikes, etc makes the online gameplay a captivating experience. Especially if you are a fan of a predominantly deathmatch based game. The online gameplay truely feels like a multiplayer experience with no voip issues at this point in time and clan support. COD4 really gives it the online a team sort of feel.
There are a quite a few game modes available, seek and destroy being the second most played and really the more strategic and tactical one. Seek and destroy is really similar to battlefields gold rush mode where its based on the theme of attacking and defending.
Conclusion:
A great game with stunning visuals and although the singleplayer is short and the sandbox environment is non existant the game definately makes up for what it lacks. Â With a sequel coming out shortly ‘world at war’ it’s hard to say whether as many people will still be playing this but nevertheless it is definately worth your money.
8.5/10
The verdict
Personally I am a fan of both games and think that you probably purchase both at one time or another, however Battlefield: Bad Company would have to take the cake. Although battlefield has some mic issues and doesn’t have clan support as of yet it definately has the potential to be updated (which it will) making it win over the competition. The freedom of the sandbox environment in BC, decent singleplayer and superb strategic multiplayer is simply put, better than COD4. Call of Duty 4 has reached it’s peak where BC can still grow for atleast another year until the sequel comes out, where COD has a new sequel releasing in a couple of months. I’m starting to not make sense anymore, haha.
In conclusion:
At this point in time.
Battlefield: Bad Company > Call of Duty 4
Related Posts: Check these out!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed to be notified of future updates.
Comments
i agree with #1 red faction did have alot better surrounding damage for the ps2 console. although i’m sure you are refuring to the ps3 system no their hasn’t been a game like it but their are mic issue’s and lag issues as well COD:4 beats Battle field:Bad company though as far as being an enjoyable game hands down sorry
The reason I said the battlefield wins is because call of duty 4 has already reached it’s peak. With call of duty 5 coming out soon there really isn’t going to be as much people playing call of duty 4 anymore.
Also your forgetting that call of duty 4 took four patches to ‘fix up’. It wasn’t perfect out of the box and neither is battlefield. However as I said earlier battlefield bad company is still in its early stages as a game its only been out for a couple of months. There is still lots of room for improvement.
I have to agree though that call of duty is also a brilliant game and it is hard to determine which game is better hands down. As there are plenty opinions and thoughts on the subject. For example call of duty 4 is predominantly a deathmatch game where as battlefield is a more strategically based game. So it comes down to player preferance, one may like run and gun while the other might like team work based gameplay.
Either way, they are both great games.
Battle Field Bad Company: VEHICULES + some Strategy,veru large maps
COD4: Pure deathmatch action
Simple ;)Both are veru good on any console
i agree that call of duty 4 is one of the best games of all time it ranks in the same shooter leagues as metal gear solid 4 doom 3 and resistance 2. however the game is too short anyhoo does anyone know any good shooters outhere one of the same calibre as COD4 of metal gear solid? drop me an email at ndionemaluwa@yahoo.co.uk
Having played BF on xbox then xbox 360 and seeing the improvements on BF.BC then having compared COD2 3 4 and now 5 I can only say BF has been better developed.
All the COD games are good, if you like shoot run die respawn and repeat. The hardcore COD players don’t like battlefield because its very difficult to get a huge number of “Kills”, BF players cant stand getting killed constantly. Like I said 2 great game styles but for player-ability and for change BF:BC is very hard to beat, each map has to be played differently, you cant camp as your camping spot will be blown away, you have to think about weapon selection to combat your enemies tactics etc etc . BF:BC Thinking Gamers Game COD4 and 5 Drinking Gamers Game
BFBC has more than just mic issues, what do you mean destructible environments has never been done before on consoles? RED FACTION 1 and 2 had destructible environments on PS2 about 7 years ago!! and it did destructible environments better than frost bite.
BFBC = EPIC FAIL!! it shouldn’t be compared with COD4, they’re not even in the same class!