Battlefield Vs Call Of Duty Research Paper

Over time these two separate communities will take the war in support for their favorite video game series, Call of Duty and Battlefield. The next generation consoles will have new life into this debate. Activision and EA they both enrolled for another campaign for the fans. So now the war between the two continues.
When it comes to FPS (First Person Shooter) games there are more military based shooter games. Different publishers did this concept so many times ever since 3D images were possible. I feel like the publishers cut down on putting military shooters games. The reason is because there is only one military based game that is dominating the market every year is Call of Duty. As a COD (Call of Duty) player myself, I have been since Black Ops. So I can understand the appeal of these games, single player campaign in COD offers some of the exhilarating action. I never knew that there would be a FPS that could rival COD until I played Battlefield 3.
Battlefield is pleasing those who wish to know what it means to experience war. So here are reasons why Battlefield is a better game than Call of Duty by my opinions. In Battlefield there is vehicles that include tanks, APC’s, helicopters, and jets. All of these can be used at any time during the match types. COD has kill streaks but very little. In Battlefield matches like conquest really rely on handful of players depend on the vehicles at their deposal. Battlefield have accurate hit detection. I hate COD’s hit detection. Battlefield has more visually immersive graphics than COD. All thanks to Dice’s Frostbite Engine. Activison’s developers coming up with an engine more powerful anytime soon. The best part in Battlefield for me is the destruction and how you have to play and communicate as a team. Activision developers and Treyarc have been finding ways to use this on their engine but it’s not the