What you are about to read, is a conversation between two passionate gamers and long time friends (has it really been 7 years already?) about the state of modern first person shooters. It’s a battle of minds, about the age long war between Battlefield, and Call of Duty. This is a conversation between Jae_Blaze06 and BauerKillz, and Mr_Yarger. Enjoy!

BauerKillz: Exactly why I stayed as far away from Call of Duty Ghosts as possible. I HIGHLY respect Gametrailers as an independent reviewer (a rarity these days) and I am glad I took a stand against this run of the mill release.

One of the commenters sums it up perfectly in his comment that “Battlefield 4 Introduces Levolution, Made itself 60FPS and 64 players online with all the settings at the max, using a brand new engine…added more features, more weapons, and more variety in the gameplay. It moved forward in the series and actually took risks. COD has not taken any risks which ultimately was a risk in itself that has obviously failed to deliver.”

November 15th evening can’t get here soon enough!

 

Jae_Blaze06: You shit on COD alot bro, lmao

Mr_Yarger: All were legit points though Will. CoD has been using the same essential formula since CoD4 and has varied only slightly per every yearly installment. That’s why I quit playing back whenever B.ops 1 was released.
BF4 at least mixes it up a bit and tests the boundaries of not only hardware but innovation of in-game play. If I were to pick up an FPS game, BF4 would be my choice by a long shot.

Jae_Blaze06: So has battlefield  though obviously, they don’t release battlefield every year. I’m not defending it, I’m just saying it goes both ways. Yes bf4 has more than twice the number of players, and they have set pieces called levolution, and destructible environments. But does that make it more fun? That’s a question that’s more subjective than objective. Obviously I didn’t play either of the games, but from what I’m seeing and hearing, bf4 isn’t that much different gameplay mechanically than its predecessor. (at least that’s what the pc gamers are saying)

Mr_Yarger: Honestly; I think I would have more fun flying a jet in BF4 as opposed to having someone Carpet Bomb me because they killed 5 newbz on my team

Jae_Blaze06: To each their own. I’d rather them have earned the killstreak than just waited for the jet to spawn and hopped in, and stayed in the jet all game. Each game has things to like and dislike. I’m just one of those people who don’t really look for vehicular combat. I like more intimate experiences. It’s the same argument you can make about God of War Ascension and Batman Arkham Origins. Yes they’re sequels to already well established games with refinements in each. New environments, new characters, but very similar gameplay mechanics. Why does that have to be a bad thing all the time? Would it have made you feel better if people could just get in vehicles whenever they wanted in COD? Or destroyed everything within the environment so that it’s just a flat surface so that there’s no cover at all? Or how about if they made the maps much larger, and gave you more people to shoot at? Oh wait… that’s Battlefield! My point is, different games for different audiences. I don’t think every game should strive to be like the other, but franchises that are set a certain way should continue refining. I agree, COD should take a freaking break. We don’t need one every year. But complaining about not enough changing is a double edged sword. People were PISSED that DMC even existed, and you’d be the first to tell me how great of a game it was. But people didn’t want that drastic of a change for a series they felt was beloved, even if flawed. Like Dave says, what happened to just playing nice?

Mr_Yarger: First of all; DMC was awesome
Secondly; just read that CoD Servers are already down, lol
Thirdly; You’re right, to each their own
Fourthly; Lost my train of thought, lol

BauerKillz: I love you bro but you are dead wrong and completely off when you say Battlefield doesn’t change much (like COD). I’ll respond in detail tomorrow to your posts, but that’s just simply off. Call of Duty gives Madden’s roster update a run for it’s money. It’s the same damn game since Call of Duty 4!!!!

Jae_Blaze06: Wasn’t it you who said black Ops 1 felt completely different than the others? How is it, if they’re the same thing, could you like modern warfare, and Black Ops as opposed to the other entries? I thought they were the same?

BauerKillz: Black Ops 1 was a great online game, but it was the SAME ENGINE. The online was smoother and more reactive, but it was the SAME GAME.

Jae_Blaze06: I understand that they made a new engine for Battlefield, but it’s the same argument you can say about Battlefield man. If you’ve been playing on PC, it’s the same game they were playing before with new improvements. The argument doesn’t hold up as well when it comes to consoles, because the number of players allowed in a match was far less. But I’ve been doing my homework man. I’m not trying to say you’re wrong for being excited about Battlefield, but to say COD is the same every time isn’t fair to what makes each iteration different. Just because a game has the same engine doesn’t mean it isn’t different, or feels different. Or is more or less smooth

BauerKillz: Adding 32 players and locking in 60 FPS, not to mention adding an ENTIRE new destruction engine and Levolution (which is a LOT more than just “set pieces”)…yeah, that’s a pretty great indication of trying to move a series forward rather than “Oh look, some new maps, same engine, same old same old”. And don’t even get me started on DLC. COD charging $15 for maps we’ve seen over and over while Battlefield adds entirely new content, regularly, with more challenges, unlocks, FRESH maps, game modes, vehicles, weapons…the works. Way better supported title that doesn’t rob you of your money.

Jae_Blaze06: Levolution has been around for a long time, it’s just being called something different. It’s an enviroment being triggered to changed when a certain action takes place. Not downplaying how cool it is, but it’s not necessarily new. 32 Players have been around for ages, and Resistance has been pushing far more players than. Look at Planetside 2, or even MAG. More players doesn’t always equal more fun.

BauerKillz: No but, it is completely more effort for Battlefield than COD! It’s well documented! It is completely fair to call out lazy developers who pump out the same damn game every year and take our money and rob us blind. All the new COD’s are typically are glorified map packs! At least Battlefield puts genuine effort into moving the series forward, and the evidence is there with the entirely new engine and their dedication to upping the player count by 32 to 64 and having an experience LOCKED at 60 FPS. That’s an incredible leap from one title to the next! Resistance was players against AI, so that’s a different story entirely.

Jae_Blaze06: I’m not talking about the AI, I’m talking about the competitive multiplayer in Resistance 2. Dude, they both are doing the same thing. If you showed someone who hadn’t played either game two videos of Battlefield 3, vs battlefield 4, they’d be convinced they were playing the same game. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that

BauerKillz: I agree more doesn’t always equal more fun, but it absolutely does in Battlefield. There are so many different ways to contribute in Battlefield and it doesn’t revolve around simple K/D ratio. You don’t like vehicles, then DON’T USE THEM! You can be a Battlefield vet and never enter a vehicle and have an amazing gaming experience. In fact I know plenty of people that do.

Jae_Blaze06: Each COD has different weapons, different kill streaks, different ways to use perks and attachments, different maps. I don’t really know what more you want from the series before it becomes something else entirely?

BauerKillz: That’s not true at all. Battlefield 4 looks and handles differently, I’ve played it on PS3. I’m not talking about reinventing the wheel completely, but seeing some effort is nice, and that’s something that COD never does.

Jae_Blaze06: The thing about battlefield, is if you don’t use vehicles, and don’t have someone who puts down spawn beacons or isn’t constantly dying, you’ll respawn on the far side of a large map and have to figure out how to get to the other side

BauerKillz: It’s the same concept as Madden releases. The VAST majority of them are nothing more than roster updates. Call of Duty is the same thing. It doesn’t push itself, it doesn’t try to push the series forward but it uses the same things over and over and over and takes the quick buck over legitimate quality.

Jae_Blaze06: And I totally get that you don’t like COD anymore. Like, I get it. I’m personally fatigued by modern shooters in general.So how would it push itself further, in your opinion?

BauerKillz: And no, not with 64 players. If you die in Battlefield like you mentioned and you are playing Conquest with 64 players, you will always have action. But if you don’t like that, change the game mode! They have a dozen modes or more that are tailored to infantry and smaller scaled maps SPECIFICALLY to address that.

Jae_Blaze06: Same argument can be made about the things you complain about in COD. There are different modes, and even modes that don’t have killstreaks at all

BauerKillz: Black Ops II was a start in pushing it further, but in the single player campaign. Giving the player tangible choice and multiple endings, etc. It was the farthest I’ve seen the series pushed in a long time, but multiplayer was the same thing I’ve been playing since 4. No, it can’t. Call of Duty = same game, year after year with minor “tweaks”

Jae_Blaze06: How was it the same? COD4 didn’t have slide, or several killstreak loadouts, the perks all did something different, attachments were different, amount of attachments have been different, triggering environmental hazards became an option, and player controlled streaks came into the fray. Different equipment

BauerKillz: Battlefield trys new things and takes risks. COD plays it safe and doesn’t put in real effort to push the series forward, and that’s what pisses me the hell off. They take a quick buck and pump out the same thing with new maps and that’s IT. Especially with the Modern Warfare series. I was highly appreciative of Black Ops II’s attempt to push the series forward, but no others since 4

Jae_Blaze06: How is Battlefield taking any risks with this game? It’s the same formula

BauerKillz: Lol, slide. Come on, man.

Jae_Blze06: Dive, slide. If you watch the gameplay, your movement is different for each action. The dive has you vunerable while you are airborn, with no way to actually shoot while doing it. The slide allows you to continue shooting.

BauerKillz: I’m sorry man, but you’re delusional if you think that’s worth 60 dollars a year. To add a slide.

Jae_Blaze06: Like I mentioned, that’s not the only thing they added. And the same argument can be made for Battlefield 3 vs 4 man. You’ve yet to tell me how they should push it forward, and what Battlefield has done to push themselves in terms of differentiating itself more so than COD has. The difference is battlefield doesn’t come out as often. And again, I totally get that fatigue. Like, I’m already considering getting neither game because It’s a tired genre

BauerKillz: Battlefield clearly demonstrates improvement with each and every entry. Not gimmick improvements either, but REAL tangible improvements. I’m not saying reinvent the wheel entirely, but try, damnit! Call of Duty pumps out the same game with the same engine year in and year out and we all deserve better than that, especially with their limited map designs and overpriced DLC for recycled maps from the past.

Jae_Blaze06: Please, tell me how battlefield demonstrated clear improvement?

BauerKillz: Call of Duty can push itself forward in a number of ways, but the one BIG ONE IS ALLOW THE DAMN PLAYER TO CHANGE AND TWEAK LOADOUTS IN GAME. It’s been a complain for multiple entries and still, can’t do it.

Jae_Blaze06: And as for DLC, didn’t Battlefield offer old maps as well in their package? To get those new modes, did you not have to get premium? I’ve never been so bothered by that that it made me not want to play it

BauerKillz: No, you didn’t have to get premium. You could by them stand alone if you wished. They did ONE dlc of old maps, but they weren’t recycled pieces of garbage, they were completely re-imagined using new mechanics and redone from SCRATCH.

Jae_Blaze06:  I wouldn’t call that pushing itself. That sounds like a minor tweak to me. Lmao, dude, it’s the same argument. The maps they re introduced all got re skinned and were given new hazard enviroments. Studio for example is firing range, but made to look completely different

BauerKillz: That’s not my argument for pushing it, it’s my response to you talking about the DLC and Premium.

Jae_Blaze06:  So, both games have dlc that have new versions of old maps. I don’t see how that’s a strike against COD?

BauerKillz: Allow me to quote from IGN in discussing endgame. “Such lengthy post-release support is uncommon for the industry and the shooter genre, but with Battlefield 4 possibly more than another year away, EA has successfully limited the gap. And more importantly, it’s done so with substantive multiplayer expansions that not only reinforced the core product, but expanded the game thematically, mechanically, and experientially.”

Jae_Blaze06:  ” Call of Duty can push itself forward in a number of ways, but the one BIG ONE IS ALLOW THE DAMN PLAYER TO CHANGE AND TWEAK LOADOUTS IN GAME. ”

BauerKillz: Key words “expansions that not only REINFORCED The core product, but expanded the game thematially, mechanically, and experientially”

Jae_Blaze06: Dude, you hate IGN. When did you start trusting their opinions on games? How is it they can say something good about COD, and say something good about Battlefield, but they’re wrong when they do it for COD?

BauerKillz: I hate their reviews, but I LOVE their previews. This was a preview, and is spot on. “Battlefield has always been synonymous with large-scale combat that blends infantry and vehicular combat, but with Close Quarters, DICE proved that it can also compete and expand upon the visceral, tight-quarters gunplay offered by competing shooters. It packed players into small interiors with extensive destructibility, drastically shifting the landscape as explosives and bullets tore walls apart.”

Jae_Blaze06: Lawlz, okay

BauerKillz:  “But even though EA and DICE are ending their DLC support, the cumulative collection of content it’s leaving the community with is substantial. On the disc, Battlefield 3 players had access to 9 maps and 4 game modes, but with all five downloadable expansions, the game now offers a total of 29 maps and 11 game modes.” I’ve always stated that about IGN. I HATE THEIR REVIEWS but their preview work and coverage is second to none.

Jae_Blaze06: Okay, and how many game modes does COD implement in black ops 2?

BauerKillz: But they get paid to give good reviews.

Jae_Blaze06: How many maps do you get with COD premium equivelant?

BauerKillz:  They went from 9 maps and 4 modes to 29 maps and 11 modes! That’s ridiculous support that COD can’t even come close to touching. How many modes?

Jae_Blaze06: COD shiped with 15 maps

BauerKillz: You can argue with me all you want, but it’s a FACT that COD pumps out the same game pretty much every year and has gotten lazy as hell. Just look at the Metacritic scores for the new game, it’s biggest issue against it is that it’s MORE OF THE SAME. And they didn’t do anything new or substantial. Where is the incentive to spend another $60 bucks for what is more or less the same game as last year and the year before, and the year before and the year before?

Jae_Blaze06: Each new DLC has 4 maps. Same can be said about BF4 man

BauerKillz: No, it can’t

Jae_Blaze06: LMao. You’ve yet to tell me how Battlefield 4 is different than 3

BauerKillz: Not when it’s inventing entirely new engines and dynamically changing the way the game is being played, both with Levolution and gameplay mechanics themselves. It’s EFFORT and it’s SUBSTANTIAL effort. Sure it might look the same on some fronts, but it handles entirely differently and it offers much more than the previous entry.

Jae_Blaze06: Every review I’ve read has stated that it’s the same game, but more refined. A new engine doesn’t make the game different

BauerKillz: LOL! YES IT DOES

Jae_Blaze06: Assassins creed made a new engine, but that didn’t make the game fundamentally different

BauerKillz: That comment is a strike against you…developing an entirely new engine in an effort to push the game forward ABSOLUTELY makes the game different, both inherently and externally. Especially with the level of destruction and events that make each and every match completely different. COD is the same map, same design, same everything, over and over and over again. Nothing changes. Battlefield offers a different experience EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU PLAY, which can’t be said for it when it began as a series, but now can. Because it has evolved and changed along the way. COD remains stubborn and stuck in it’s ways, being lazy because they can. That’s inexcusable, and the overall reviews for the new Ghosts title prove it by calling it out directly.

Jae_Blaze06: Obviously COD’s equivalent of levolution doesn’t reach the scale that battlefield does, but does it honestly need to? The gameplay mechanics are unchanged. It’s obviously an attempt to make the game different, but it still functions the same, albeit with bigger changes to the environment. COD uses new maps with every game man

BauerKillz: It needs to do something different and try to push the series forward in a meaningful way. I will never accept a developer doing minimal work and pumping out essentially the same game year in and year out. Again, Black Ops II was great effort in the single player and also the Pick 10 for online, best in YEARS. But those are singlehandedly the biggest changes since COD 4, which is how many years old now?

Jae_Blaze06:  You’ve still, yet to explain how it should do something substantially different. You mentioned wanting to change classes while in game

BauerKillz: Half of them are the same maps, and the ones that aren’t are recycled! And don’t even get me started on map design and how limited they are! That would be nice, but it wouldn’t be the say all end all to the enhancement.

Jae_Blaze06: What else?

BauerKillz: But it’s been a complaint that’s been hanging around for almost 8 years, yet still it goes unchanged. That’s inexcusable.

Jae_Blaze06: Lmao, it’s a complaint very few people are making about the game. And it’s a minor part of the bigger problem you’re implying

BauerKillz: Do I look like a game developer? I’m not going to do their work for them! Push the series forward, develop a new engine and BALANCING THE DAMN GAME would go a long way to alleviating some serious issues. For instance, SMG’s in BLOPS II.

Jae_Blaze06: LMAO!

BauerKillz: That would be a start.

Jae_Blaze06: So you don’t like the SMG’s in BLOPS 2. How are they different than in past COD games?

BauerKillz: I don’t like their effect on balancing. SMG’s were the go to weapons and were way, way way overpowered when compared to other weapons and this is a well documented fact, which by the way they never addressed. Instead they released a new SMG in a DLC to add to this legacy. They are way more overpowered in BLOPS II than any other COD.

Jae_Blaze06: So, you’re saying, fundamentally, they play out differently in BLOPS 2 than in other COD games?

BauerKillz: They affect the game differently. More power, quicker speed, best weapons in the game hands down. In Battlefield, you can succeed with any weapon and there is no clear advantaged weapon. The balance is unbelievably good, while COD remains stuck in clear weapon advantages and unbalanced offerings. That is true, even you can admit that, especially for BLOPS II

Jae_Blaze06: But I thought they were supposed to do something different with each release?

BauerKillz: LMFAO. Please. Talk about a red herring.

Jae_Blaze06: lmao. What I’m saying is it goes both ways bro. You were upset that each game was the same, but when I tried to make the point that weapons played out differently in each game, and favored one play style over the other with each release, I was being told they’re all the same

BauerKillz: Oh because they made weapons more powerful, that means the game is different! No. It doesn’t. It just means they decided to make SMG’s the go to weapons, upping their fire rate AND power. That’s not a real difference, it’s just increasing stats for weapon offerings. You can do that in a day.

Jae_Blaze06: How can they be the same when they’re different? I don’t understand…

BauerKillz: What are you talking about?

Jae_Blaze06: You said every COD game is the same. You just proved to me that they aren’t. That literally makes the game different when one class of weapons becomes more powerful than the other. Change the maps, the characters, the perks within the online components, the party system, (the mute all button is a godsend), give it new music, a new title, a new time era, and that sounds like a different game to me

BauerKillz: Increasing the stats of weapons doesn’t constitute real change. Developers can increase their weapon statistics in a day. All it means is that made SMG’s the clear advantage in this game rather than the LMG’s of past. But it’s not a real difference at all, just a stat increase.

Jae_Blaze06: If you have to change the way you play a game from one iteration to another, that literally means the game is fundamentally different. If not, you could just do what you exactly did the last game and get the same results

BauerKillz: And the perks ARE THE SAME PERKS WITH DIFFERENT NAMES. Don’t even get me started on that one.

Jae_Blaze06: But it’s not just weapon stats. It’s different weapons. Dude, where is Commando? Where is scrambler? Where is stopping power, or juggernaut?

BauerKillz: Under different names with similar abilities.

Jae_Blaze06: No. Stopping power doesn’t exist. Neither does scrambler. Neither does juggernaut

BauerKillz: Yes.

Jae_Blaze06: Commando isn’t even a perk anymore in any capacity. The closest thing to that is the knife attachment. Which doesn’t let you lunge. If you remember, knifing in BLOPS2 was basically useless

BauerKillz: That’s what, three perks they’ve replaced in 8 years? I’m impressed.

Jae_Blaze06: No

BauerKillz: Minor tweaks aside, it’s the same game and the same engine, which is inexcusable

Jae_Blaze06 Cold blooded and ghost used to be one perk, now separate perks all together

BauerKillz: Each game is a glorified map pack. Especially with the Modern Warfare series.

Jae_Blaze06: Roflmao. And Battlefield isn’t the same game with new maps either?

BauerKillz: Not at all. The game behaves entirely different with the new engine. They degrade differently

Jae_Blaze06: Sniper rifles fucntion completely differently in infinity ward games vs trey arch ones

BauerKillz: and therefore they play out differently, each and every time. I’ll give you that one!

Jae_Blaze06: Maps are designed differently, depending on trey arch vs infinity ward. Some people can’t stand infinity ward maps, same with Trey arch. Like, I get that you don’t like COD, but to complain about the things you’re complaining about, I can see the same thing about Battlefield. I’m generally not impressed with either of the titles, so I can’t even take sides. I just think it’s silly how aggressively you’re shitting on COD lol

BauerKillz: By the way, something COD needs to take notes on is the Bulletdrop mechanic from Battlefield. In COD you can shoot someone across the map with a damn smg and grab a kill easily. It’s ridiculous. Battlefield requires more than twitch reaction and brings skill into equation because it understands that scenario is absolutely ridiculous in a real life scenario. You want that kill, you account for the distance with bulletdrop and you EARN it

Jae_Blaze06: Do we really need bullet drop in every game, especially if COD is trying to be more arcady?

BauerKillz: I’m shitting on COD because it’s been almost a decade of the same damn thing and it’s being pointed out with the new entry more than ever before. It’s the same gripe I have about Madden: same game, just a roster update with a few gimmicks that don’t constitute real change.

Jae_Blaze06: I agree that COD isn’t a good representation of reality, but it’s not really trying to be. Lmao, battlefield is the same as last year man. It’s using new language and scale to make you think it’s a totally different game. Marketing 101

BauerKillz: I’m not saying it is or it should be, but clearly killing a guy on the other side of a map with a close quarters weapon is retarded.

JaeBlaze06: It’s fun. If someone shot me with an SMG from 100 yards away, I’m pretty sure I would’t be happy. 1,000 yards away I wouldn’t be happy

BauerKillz: No. Like I said, I’ve played it, and it is NOT the same game. Totally different control scheme and mechaics, as well as a new engine entirely, not to mention maps degrading differently and therefore matches EVERY TIEME YOU PLAY

Jae_Blaze06: I’ve played it too man. Not in the comfort of my own home, but regardless, still played it. Hell, I watched people play, and live stream in addition to playing it. I’ve been reading the reviews, and staying current on the game. It’s not like I’m not doing my homework lol

BauerKillz: And it’s simply impossible to say a game moving from 32 to 64 players and an entirely new destruction engine and new gameplay mechanic ENTIRELY (levolution) is the same game as last year. It isn’t. Those are SIGNIFICANT changes that impact how the game is played fundamentally, and a lot of effort went into them rather than pumping out BF3 1.5

Jae_Blaze06: The destruction engine is new, but it’s doing the same thing. Shoot this tree, it topples over. Throw a grenade at a wall, it blows up. We’ve been doing that since Bad Company. hell, battlefield 1942 even. Just because they made it easier to code and in more places doesn’t mean it’s significant

BauerKillz: Nope. Totally different than that.

Jae_Blaze06:  And 64 players has always been a thing on PC. They’re just now finally bringing it to consoles. That’s not changing anything to be honest

BauerKillz: These destructions inherently change the way the map plays out, and levolution does so as well.

Jae_Blaze06: Except that more console players can do what PC gamers have been doing for age

BauerKillz: Hell, multiple buildings that could be used as sniper perches or close quarter arena’s may not even be prsent from one match to another! I’m not talking about PC, I’m talking about consoles.

Jae_Blaze06: Yes, and those are triggered by specific events. I’m talking about the game. Not the consoles

BauerKillz: Levolutions are, but not the destruction engine itself.

Jae_Blaze06: So, in order to trigger whether or not the building is there or not, you have to do something, right? Can you do this to any building? Or is it this one in specific?

BauerKillz: You can destroy your buildings and you WILL alter your environment entirely different each an every match outside of levolution. Levolution just adds a dynamic element to the game, with major events making one map essentially two as, for instance, a calm, secluded beach and jungle map on foot becomes a wasteland of water and naval combat. You can do it to anything! That’s the beauty of it!

Jae_Blaze06: Yes, but you altered the landscape in BF3 too

BauerKillz: Ys, you did, but NOT on this level.

Jae_Blaze06: That’s not what these reviews say >_> So, it’s an enhancement on an already established destruction engine?

BauerKillz: This EVOLVES that level of destruction that was only glimpsed in BF3. It fulfills that vision. No, because it’s an entirely new engine remember?

Jae_Blaze06: You can’t topple any sky scraper. No, what, I’m saying is, functionally, it’s going from one amount of destruction, to another

BauerKillz: The landscape for instance will degrade itself in addition to buildings. In BF3, buildings degraded at certain points and then eventually fell down, but in BF4 the landscape itself changes, and buildings can be torn apart in any number of ways, not just certain areas.

Jae_Blaze06: How does that make the game more fun?

BauerKillz: Are you kiding me? Because every match IS DIFFERENT as a result! It’s NEVER the same experience!

Jae_Blaze06: No. How is shooting out a part of a building adding anything to your actual experience?

BauerKillz: Which cannot be said of COD. environmentally, it’s the same corridors and linearity, and that will never change.

Jae_Blaze06: Every COD game plays out differently, depending on how you play it

BauerKillz: I’ll give you a perfect example

Jae_Blaze06: Did you even see any of the gameplay from ghosts multiplayer?

BauerKillz: First of all, it’s not just buildings in Battlefield that may no longer exist. http://www.metacritic.com/…/playsta…/call-of-duty-ghosts. It looks a bit faster. But let me give you an example from Battlefield

Jae_Blaze06: All the reviewers are saying the same thing about BF4 man. “If you like battlefield, you’ll love this game. If you don’t, then this won’t convince you to get into it”

BauerKillz: We’ll use a building in this example. Again, not saying reinvent the entire wheel, but put in the effort to legitimately push your series forward. Battlefield has always done that, while COD routinely settles for what is already in place. Now. HOW IS IT SETTLING???

Jae_Blaze06: The map they just unveiled is you fighting in a falling building

BauerKillz: Ok, there is a building with a squad, sniping into Flag A and B. They are ravaging your team, and your squad happens to be pinned down by said sniper. You decide hey, we need to take these guys out, but we need to take away this vantage point… So your squad decides to give you suppression fire (AGAIN, you get points for suppression which is a tangible effect in battlefield and awesome way to gain points) and lays down cover fire while you sprint towards said building. You get there, place C4 on the foundational structures, and you get the hell out of dodge. You then proceed back to your squad, behind the hill they have bunkered down behind, and you blow your charges on the foundation of the building…bringing the building down for the rest of the match and killing an entire squad with teamwork.

Jae_Blaze06: I heard in reviews this is only applies to certain parts of the maps. Granted, it’s most places, but not all. But coudn’t you just do a similar thing in batttlefield 3, except not actually toppling that specific foundational structure?

BauerKillz: Then, an enemy tank rolls through and fires at your position, destroying the hill you were just hiding behind. You are on foot, and the environment is degrading around you. Next time you play, that building may be standing, that hill may be standing, and the entire map will look and play out differently depending on what happens in that given match. But it is never the same, and every game is a different story, and I LOVE that.

Battlefield 3 had some destruction, but it was pre determined destruction. For instance, certain sections of a building would be destroyed in sequence before a building would fall down. But it wasn’t dynamic, it was just a glimpse of the overall vision. This see’s that vision through, with no predetermined damage coordinates and bullets and artillery shells destroying things independently. It’s an absolute marvel. And it absolutely does change the way each and every game plays out, which is nothing short of astounding.

Jae_Blaze06: My argument, is that’s ALWAYS been a staple for Battlefield. What you’re presenting to me is an addition to that staple. An addition to what makes Battlefield, Battlefield. That’s giving you more options for strategety, which is great. Again, I make the same argument with COD that gives you specific places to do similar things, whether it’s taking out an entire wall, or “the gas station”, it’s a scaled back version, but the same concept

BauerKillz: Now, I haven’t even played (obviously) with 64 players and 60 FPS. I can’t even imagine it. No, it’s not an addition because it’s an entirely new engine, remember? Therefore, it is inherently different.

Jae_Blaze06: What you’re not realizing is battlefield 4 is adding pre determined destruction. There are videos explaining that from the developers. I’ll try to find one for you. Dude, that argument doesn’t hold up. They made a new engine for other games like Assassins Creed, but that didn’t make it inherintly different

BauerKillz: They had to build it and reimagine it from scratch. Saying that destruction is a battlefield staple is selling it short because having a pre-done animation is so much different than dynamic destruction that plays out differently all the time. Another perfect example from madden: those pre-designed tackle animations from years past. They finally did a new engine where tackles responded to momentum, force and location, rather than triggering a pre made animation. Saying that “tackling” has always been a part of Madden is selling it short big time because the differences between those two are inherently different and mark major milestones and strides for that series. The same goes for Battlefield’s destruction and how it affects the gameplay and plays out.

Jae_Blaze06: Patrick Bach, game producer “Battlefield 4 executive producer Patrick Bach spoke with me at length after this story was published, and while he didn’t change my mind about the game overpromising and underdelivering, he had an intriguing explanation: making everything destructible simply wouldn’t make for good gameplay. “Having complete destructibility everywhere is not a technical limitation, it’s a design decision,” he said. “If you could go into every room of every building in this game, you’d completely ruin the experience… You’d need 1,000 players in order to fill them with something.””

BauerKillz: The argument absolutely does hold up and it shows in many different arenas: actual gameplay, being number one, but also the reviews that universally state Battlefield 4 as the superior game. You just proved my point. Thank you. It’s a DESIGN decision. And it’s absolutely beautiful.

Jae_Blaze06: YES. I know its DESIGN DECISIONS

BauerKillz: It’s not just in there for the hell of it.

Jae_Blaze06: Right. But what you’re saying is everywhere, and anywhere, is fully destructable. That’s obviously not true

Or else his point would contradictory of that statement Here’s the article. http://www.theverge.com/…/battlefield-4-no-you-cant…

BauerKillz: Not every single thing can be blown up obviously!

Jae_Blaze06: These are all set areas that are destructable. It’s increasing the scale, and ammount of desctuctable environments

BauerKillz: But the sheer amount of things that can be degraded, destroyed, taken away from inherently changes the way each map plays out. That’s the design decision, to create the destruction to allow each game to play out differently.

Jae_Blaze06:  And COD doesn’t have as many destructable areas, for that same reason. They feel having more objects than they currently have be destructable would take away from the map design. Those are still pre determined areas in the environment

BauerKillz: There is nothing in existence that would have the power to allow every single pixel or inch of land be degraded in real time. But the engine allows for a sheer “staggering” amount of destruction that provides different experiences in each and every match, and that’s what counts.

Jae_Blaze06: Your argument was that it wasn’t pre determined, no? I’m glad we agree on that

BauerKillz: It’s not predetermined what may or may not be destroyed in any given match, no. There are a sheer number of possible destruction “points”, as I’ll call them.

Jae_Blaze06: It’s the same for COD

BauerKillz: Dude. Come on

Jae_Blaze06: You still have to trigger something in order for something to change for their maps. Those are obviously catered towards specific events. But it’s the same concept. One is bigger, one is smaller.

BauerKillz: Call of Duty has never allowed for truly destructible environments. They don’t degrade and they don’t provide unique experiences for each match as they play out.

Jae_Blaze06: “truly destructable environments”

BauerKillz: There are big triggers for levolution, yes. But there is destruction EVERYWHERE. Outside of that as well. And what may or may not be destroyed in any given match is determined by how players interact with the environment.

Jae_Blaze06: It’s not everywhere. The game producer just told you it wans’t everywhere

BauerKillz: Not literally “EVERYWHERE”. As I mentioned, nothing exists that can provide every inch of a map to be fully metamorphed. BUT

Jae_Blaze06: In most places then. So if someone is hiding in an area that isn’t one of those destructable environments, then it doesn’t apply to that?

BauerKillz: What I’m saying is that considering that, there is a staggering and sheer amount of destruction happening at any given time, and it plays out differently every time depending how players play.

Jae_Blaze06: Yes, there is no questioning that. What I’m saying is, COD has a scaled down, more intimate version of that.

BauerKillz: Good luck finding an area tha tbig that isn’t destructible in Battlefield 4

Jae_Blaze06: And that’s a design choice. Game reviewers are already finding it. PLayers on youtube are already finding it

BauerKillz: COD has never allowed environmental destruction. Maps become stale rather quickly because it’s the same thing over and over. Players may be different, but the environment remains a constant.

Jae_Blaze06: How so? What about the MOAB equivelant of each map? Or how about the water filling up the damn? (god that was a terrible map)What about the gas chambers that fill in Ghosts when a contract is fulfilled, and you unlock the reaper? Those block off access to certain areas of the maps, and dictate where players go.

BauerKillz: The dam didn’t change anything. It was a quick rush of water that killed unlucky souls than receded immediately again. It was a gimmick. From Battlefield 4 review: “The level of destructibility within the game environment is remarkable. Sparks, glass, rubble, and everything in between fill the air and clutter the ground in every firefight. Light dynamically illuminates nearby objects and structures crumbling to the ground, the frame rate stays smooth, and the combined effect is genuinely impressive.”

Jae_Blaze06: That’s not telling me anything. People say the same thing about COD

BauerKillz: LOL. No, they don’t. Destruction of the environment has never been a focal point of COD. and it’s never been done.  Remember when they made a big deal about the gas station falling down? Even you said that it was ridiculous for them to point that out as something legitimate when it wasn’t.

Jae_Blaze06: And it never will be a focal point of COD.

BauerKillz: Why? Why not?

Jae_Blaze06: I’m not comparing COD to battlefield in terms of saying “COD, and battlefield are the same”

BauerKillz: No. Not at all

Jae_Blaze06: Yea, it was ridulous for them to point out. Because cod gamers don’t care about those changes to gameplay

BauerKillz: The game can stay fundamentally the same but having the ability to degrade the environment to an extent can help stave off the stagnation of maps remaining the same every match. It would add variety to maps that play out the same way every time. At least let them degrade in some way, add to the experience.

Jae_Blaze: It was nothing in comparrison to what Battlefield was offering, but that’s the thing. COD is a different game than Battlefield. If it started doing what battlefield does, it would be a battlefield clone. COD gamers don’t want that man. They want structured enviromnents. They want to know that if I plant at A, I have the protection of knowing this building will still be here. Battelfield players want to destroy that building.  It would be stupid for COD to allow that level of destructability, because it wouldn’t resemble COD anymore.

BauerKillz: Let me be clear, I am NOT suggesting tha COD allow Battlefield like destruction at all.

Jae_Blaze06: People don’t play COD for expansive maps, vehicles, or destructable environments

BauerKillz: But why not allow your bullets and RPG’s to have SOME kind of effect on the environment, even if it’s asthetically only? I never suggested that nor would I. Vehicles have NO PLACE in COD.

Jae_Blaze06: It’s doing everything it has done in past games, with more, and better. Just like Battlefield is doing. They aren’t doing anything radically different. THEY DO. Not the vehicles.  they were showing off in the maps, shooting parts of freefall, forexample, exposes the sniper perch on one side of the map. Shooting another area opens up pockets of the wall. blwing up one spot opens a wall for you to go through. That is “SOME kind of effect on the environment”. Any more than that, and people will complain “COD is trying to be too much like Battlefield”

BauerKillz: Battlefield pushes their series much harder than COD. They develop new engines (which COD hasn’t done in, oh, 8 years), add new gameplay mechanics that inherently change the way a game is played (Levolution), and at least try to push their series forward with each and every installment. COD recycles the same gameplay ove rand over and plays it safe, expecting $60 as a result. Again, and I’ve said this over and over, COD and Battlefield are inherently different games and I don’t suggest COD tries to mimic Battlefield.

Jae_Blaze06: Yes, COD has had the same engine for 8 years, I’ve never denied, or said that wasn’t dumb

BauerKillz: But being different doesn’t give COD the right to be lazy and half ass their projects.

Jae_Blaze06: But you are suggesting it do more things like battlefield

BauerKillz: No, I’m not. Far from it, actually.

Jae_Blaze06: Like more destructable environments, and being able to change your class while playing in a match, both of which are Battlefield staples.

BauerKillz: A). Being able to change your class while playing in a match, that ABSOLUTELY should be available in Call of Duty.

Jae_Blaze06: Well… those are the only examples you gave me. What other game besides battlefield lets you do that?

BauerKillz: There is no excuse in the world to not have that ability to adjust on the fly. IN fact I think that goes BETTER with COD

Jae_Blaze06: I think Resistance 3 did that? Or 2, not sure if it was Resistance or Killzone 3 that let you do it.

BauerKillz: And as far as destruction is concerned, at least add asthetic value to your bullets and explosions hitting the environment. It’s fine that you can’t take down buildings and all of that, but the environments remain stoically the same match in and match out and I think COD could benefit from some asthetics there.

Jae_Blaze06: I think Killzone 3 did. Okay, so we have one other game that let you change class load outs in game?

BauerKillz: I’m not sure how many other games allow the capability, nor do I have the time to research it now BUT…even if it is a Battlefield staple, COD could really benefit from that. Big time. As could other games. I hate being “stuck” in a match during COD without that ability to adapt.

Jae_Blaze06: As nice as it would be, it never became such an issue that I couldn’t/wouldn’t play COD anymore, or thought the game was worse because it didn’t let me do it. That’d be like saying any other FPS I played that didn’t have it, was worse because it didn’t have it. And you’ve heard me say it before, I agree that the ability should be in there. But it’s not a big deal. Didn’t you have a class with an RPG?

BauerKillz: Yeah I did, but I hated not being able to mix and match my perks or weapon attachments.

Jae_Blaze06: That’s totally understandable. So, you’d be happy with COD if they let you do that, and let you destroy more of the environment?

BauerKillz: Not completely. It would be a nice step though. I want to see some mechanics to push the series forward too. I just want to see some effort in evolving the multiplayer experience. They need a new engine first and foremost. They have got to get off this 8 year engine.

Jae_Blaze06:  I agree, a new engine that is better suited for this new age of gaming would be really nice. But even if its a new engine, it’s lag compensation could be even worse, or better. They deal with very small maps on a constant basis, and haven’t had dedicated servers in past generations. This game does have it, but it’s yet to be seen what long term impact that will have on the game

BauerKillz: Time will tell. I just want to believe in COD again. I hate lack of effort. That’s what my frustrations boil down to overall.

Jae_Blaze06: So a mechanic to push the game forward… What if they made new game modes like Crank? Or being able to edit your characters’s appearance and let you play as a female (which btw, is LONG over due for modern shooters. Why did they take stuff like that away in the first place?)? What if it let you shoot other players will sky diving? I understand man.  People are saying the same thing about God Of War Ascension and Batman Arkham Origins. I loved both games, and tried not to judge them based on if they were different enough, as opposed to if it’s just plain fun and entertaining. And I do think a lot of iterations felt very lazy in some areas. But in other areas, I felt it was really different. Take for example (I hate using this example cuz I hate how it works in BLOPS2), the point streak system. I basically stopped playing team death match unless I was a more support class because it took soooo long to unlock score streaks. They used a completely different way to get points in that game to the point where TDM was a joke. I hated it, but it was a different way to accumulate points. They thought that would push the series forward, but I ended up not liking it, and alot of other gamers didn’t either

aaaw man, I gotta go to bed. This was a great talk. I miss you on the podcast, this would have made for an awesome discussion on teh interwebs

SoILakaSOAD: The fuck I miss last night? Wow guys!

Mr_Yarger: You missed an argument that ended with a sweet sweet bro-hug.

Image from Battlefield 4 Copyright EA

Image from Call of Duty Ghosts Copyright Activision

Video Review from Gametrailers.com, copyright Game Trailers and Activision