Call of Duty V Battlefield

Instead buying a an expensive VR Headset anyone that wants to experience what it's like to be on the battlefield  anyone can easily buy any games in the FPS genre. Surely it isn't the same experience but it won't cost you as much and it wouldn't be much a problem if anything goes wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't have to buy another console or have a more powerful PC to play these kind games since there are plenty of games that will meet whatever your interests are. Companies such as Activision is known for publishing several games such as the #1 First Person Shooter (FPS).

Call of Duty started off as World War II FPS which was critically acclaimed for its story, gameplay, and its fast paced multiplayer which was added the franchise in later installments. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty World at War was what turned a regular FPS into a multi-million company devoted to giving players a good online multiplayer experience. Many of the fans of Call Of Duty have left and in support of COD’s competitor, the Battlefield franchise which has larger maps to play on and players are treated to 60 vs 60 online battles rather than the usual 6 vs 6 or 9 vs 9. Battlefield is known for its open maps and great community of staff and gamers. BattleField is said to deserve  the number 1 spot in the FPS franchise rather than Call Of Duty due to recent events. However, critics disagree claiming that Call Of Duty is clearly better than its competitors in story and gameplay.

On the contrary, Activision doesn’t entirely review the feedback from fans unlike EA for the most part. The the recent installment of COD : Ghosts let many people down and the games after that didn’t do any better, because of its futuristic gameplay. The same was said for COD: Advanced Warfare where jetpacks and laser guns only made fans of the series a little more than disappointed while very few thought it was a fresh take in the FPS genre. EA’s take on the FPS genre is more of a "tactical war simulator" unlike the "arcade shooter" Call Of Duty tends to be. Battlefield allows players to have more freedom when playing the game. It allows for vehicles to be used and tanks to be fired across large maps so it won't be as troubling to navigate since there is plenty of room for everyone. In Call Of Duty using vehicles in multiplayer are earned through skill and when used are extremely fast paced or just last too long, not to mention that all your hard work might let you drop 3 missiles from the sky or 5 from outer space as you support your team or go on the offensive. More room isn't always the best way to play as many had to learn that the hard way. Campers are usually known to be "camping" or just staying in one spot and picking players of one by one. A downside to camping is that you can only aim in one direction so if someone were to find you by surprise you are in deep trouble. In an open environment it's hard to know where exactly the campers are until you have terminated by them unlike in Call Of Duty where it is easy to spot due to its smaller maps and vibrant lighting and textures. Both games allow for chaotic and hectic battles to ensue or take place as long as the team actually takes part in it.

On the year of 2015 Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 was released and praised for a a better movement as well as  competitive multiplayer as well as a much better campaign unlike Ghosts and Advanced Warfare. Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are releasing completely different gaming experiences to their fans. Call of Duty has released brief information that their Infinite Warfare the newest installment is taking place in space, which many criticized and wanted the franchise to take a step back and use settings such as the 1st World War, which is what Battlefield has been doing in the past 3 years.In conclusion, Call of Duty started off as a FPS franchise that had a fanbase of over 100 million players worldwide however, their competitor Battlefield are giving what the fans want while E.A. exceed fans' of the Call Duty Franchise Call Of Duty by charging more and more for DLC. 

Overall both companies and their properties are well received by critics and gamers alike, however, there are many downsides and faults when playing each game. For Call Of Duty it's the yearly release's which Battlefield tends to avoid. The issue being is that of a game isn't well received fans of previous installments have to wait 1-3 years for another game or if they did like the game and hope to play it more often the player base will decrease as their is another installment of the franchise to be played in a few months. Both games suffer from connectivity issues and "lag" which can cause players to rage quit. Bugs and glitches are usually a thing of the past, Battlefield 4 is no exception to this especially because of the fact that the game launched and sold with many of these issues. Again these are great games with issues that not all are aware of so if you do end up purchasing a VR headset do you instead to play "battle simulators" or just to have a good old time in the
"arcade", that's a decision that you'll have to make not me so good luck with that.
.