EA games and Activision….two companies at the top of the videogaming industry…primarily in the field of fps games…
These 2 giants are soon to clash head on with their latest entries: EA games is releasing Battlefield 1, a game set in World War 1, an aspect never before explored in previous fps games, and Activision is coming up with Call Of Duty : Infinite Warfare , which will be jumping far, far into the future!
Battlefield 1 will take place in trenches and on horseback, while Infinite Warfare is going into space with rocket ships. The two franchises have never been so different and in contrast with each other!
But the main question is….Which one will come out on top?
So far, the only material of comparison anyone has are the trailers….and according to them, Battlefield 1 has blown COD:IW out of the water!
The trailer of Battlefield 1 has received great response, and some have even gone on to call it the “best videogame trailer of all time”! Sadly, the same cannot be said about Infinite warfare, as it’s trailer is the second most disliked video in youtube history!
Every passing year has seen more gamers split between the two already, as loyal fans plump for ‘their game’ over and over, yet this year might finally see Call of Duty fans jump ship to Battlefield for good, simply off the back of how negatively Infinite Warfare has been received.
I can tell you as a Call of Duty fan, this is the year for me. Battlefield has simply won me over on too many individual aspects. Early on in the race, EA’s shooter has taken a commanding lead, and here’s why….
We may only be working off of two teaser trailers, but honestly the difference between Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare is pretty obvious.
While I must admit, in recent years CoD has been upping its game on the graphics front – and Black Ops III is quite the stunner – CoD’s engine is still nothing out of the ordinary. Infinite Warfare looks to be like the same game we’ve been getting the past couple years graphically, with still much room for improvement.
On the other hand, Battlefield 1 looks truly amazing. For the most part Battlefield has gotten by with occasionally breathtaking set-pieces and plenty of lens flare, but 2016’s instalment looks like DICE are making the push to improve in every respect.
Of course, everything released so far from both games has been “in engine” footage and not actual gameplay, but from that alone, Battlefield’s engine looks far superior to CoD’s seemingly recycled style.
BATTLEFIELD’S NEW MELEE SYSTEM
Why would a melee system in one of the biggest FPS franchises even be of any importance?
Well, World War I had a lot more close quarters combat encounters, either in the trenches or with someone meeting the business end of a bayonet. DICE has confirmed the addition of melee weapons in Battlefield including shovels, sabres, bayonets and trench clubs, all of which should add to the aspect of you fighting for your life in this bleak environment of World War I.
Black Ops III did add melee weapons to its multiplayer, but it all just worked like a re-skinned knife. Plus, it never felt like a viable option in the fast-paced environment. A bayonet back in World War I was still a thing to be feared -chances are you’ll find yourself at the wrong end of one more than a couple times as you rush around a corner in the multiplayer.
It’s just another differentiating gameplay mechanic that will make the game feel gritty – one that needed to be done. It’ll be interesting to see how it gets worked into the campaign as well.
An intense, mud-caked stealth section in enemy trenches? We can all dream, can’t we?
REALITY VS. FANTASY
As a COD fan, I’ve loved the earlier futuristic games, but I’ve been praying for the next World At War, or atleast something a bit more….believable…..no more jetpacks, no more seeing through walls, no more sending out a flying drone to scout an area, no more fancy guns with extreme attachments. Battlefield 1 will be going back to what started it all: Heavy guns and brutal warfare.
Of course the game isn’t going to be entirely realistic, as truthfully no one wants precisely that. You’ll still be a one man army able to mow down opposing armies.
It’s the fact that Battlefield 1 will take place in a war that actually happened. Being able to go back and study the war, which DICE has certainly done, will make the game feel like an accurate retelling, and not a fantasy. Granted some of the imagery shown so far is very escapist and plays into the fact it’s still a multiplayer shooter, but World War I was brutal, the trenches were a nightmare and mustard gas was absolutely terrifying.
Seeing the effects of these things in the game will be unsettling, it will, but it’s a tribute to what the men and women who fought this war went through. It’ll be nice to have boots on the ground and not running along a wall for a change.
It must be said, the decision to go back to World War I was a bold move from EA and DICE. It may have been a move fans have been asking for, but the current market is saturated with futuristic and fast-paced FPS games. Forgoing Ghosts, Call of Duty has been living in the future for the past four years, what with Black Ops II, III and Advanced Warfare.
All these releases tend to blend into one: Fast paced movement, booster packs, exo-skeletons, robots – it gets further and further away from what established the franchise in the first place.
Battlefield, on the other hand, is going back nearly 100 years and giving us a war that has barely been covered in videogames. Unlike COD, it doesn’t remain in it’s comfort zone.
It’s just nice to finally see a big AAA title take a risk with a more untapped time period, because other than Far Cry Primal, no one has done so in quite some time.