Call of Duty vs Battlefield: How to decide which game suits you better

Fans of the FPS genre have been spoilt for choice with quality AAA and Indie developers flooding the market with brilliant games since the 2000s. Call of Duty (CoD) games are some of the most popular games today, along with the Battlefield franchise.

The FPS genre has seen much innovation over the years, with each game trying to put their own unique spin on the genre. While it can be argued that the basic principles of an FPS remain the same through every game, there are various mechanics at play that alter the feel of a game drastically.

Call of Duty and Battlefield games also are vastly different, and cater to different types of players. CoD is a faster-paced experience with smaller maps, making for a reflex-based shooter offering.

The Battlefield games are known for their large maps and hence, a higher proportion of players on each map. This makes for a much larger play area, resulting in larger-scale battles.

How to decide if Call of Duty or Battlefield suits you better?

There are several details, both large and small, that you should keep in mind when trying to decide between the two franchises. It also has to be noted that while there are alternatives in the FPS genre, the biggest games have always been Call of Duty and Battlefield.

---

Mobility

Mobility has always been an essential part of the FPS experience, and fluid movement can often make or break a game. For example, Titanfall 2 is regarded as one of the best FPS games in the last decade, and much of its praise was directed towards its mobility.

Mobility in Call of Duty: CoD games of the last decade have spanned over different eras: from World War II to futuristic space battles. Which means mobility in these games have been revamped time and time.

Games set in the future, like Black Ops III and IV, Infinite Warfare and Advanced Warfare offer much greater mobility in terms of speed, and allow for wall running and even boosted jumps.

This makes for a much more dynamic experience in mobility.

Mobility in Battlefield: Battlefield games have also dabbled in different eras of combat, but have stuck to their roots of having a "boots on the ground" approach to mobility and combat.

These games provide a much more realistic experience, and do not allow for sci-fi like movement like in the Call of Duty games. This might appeal to more players who would rather play a shooter that feels more authentic.

---

Pace and scale

Pace and scale in Call of Duty: CoD games have always had a frantic pace, due to their low TTK (Time to Kill) and smaller, claustrophobic maps. The use of vehicles or aircrafts will only slow down the pace of the game.

Therefore, the increased mobility, smaller map size and low TTK results in a faster pace to the game. Momentum plays a huge part in a Call of Duty game.

Pace and scale in Battlefield: The map sizes are significantly larger in Battlefield, with a larger number of players on each map, making for larger scale battles that are more methodical in pace and require more tactics.

While you might just be okay with using an SMG through every map in CoD, you would experiment more with each weapon class in Battlefield, due to the map's large size.

The use of on-ground vehicles as well as aircrafts make for even more intense larger-scale battles.

---

Single player campaigns

Campaigns in Call of Duty: The CoD franchise has had several campaigns that have been received very positively, while others have received flak. But more often than not, CoD campaigns are great and offer tons of great cinematic action.

While the developers aren't breaking any new ground in storytelling or narrative, the campaigns are fun and engaging.

Campaigns in Battlefield: While the campaigns have mostly been serviceable in Battlefield, none particularly stand out as great or memorable.

The makers have experimented with more narrative-based games in Battlefield, like Hardline and Bad Company, but received only mixed reviews at best.