I rarely do such subjective articles as this, but I feel the need, so now you grab it! Of course you can not read it, but I think at the end of these lines, you may have either changed your mind or strengthened your belief in choosing one of these two titles: Call of Duty Ghosts or Battlefield 4.
To analyze everything well, I will start by listing the pros and cons of each game; later, and only subsequently, I will compare them. We assume that for these analyzes I have based myself on gameplay carried out in the first person by myself.
I underline two things: I will not talk about the single player mode, as we already know it from the beginning, it will be almost useless; I will also begin each paragraph with derogatory phrases heard on the various titles.
Call of Duty Ghosts
"They could have called it Call of Duty: Rex"
The cross-gen Call of Duty, the Call of Duty that will revolutionize the graphics engine, the Call of Duty of Call of Duty. The answer is no! at least 2 of these things:
The Activision geniuses sponsored the use of a new graphics engine from the very beginning, which charged me a lot about this title. Subsequently, everything was denied, and the use of the old engine was confirmed, but with new textures.
If the game is pleasant upon detailed analysis, it should be noted that on Next-Gen the title does not stand out for visual quality.
On the other hand, the various game modes, character creation and whatever else there is in multiplayer, is all designed to perfection to be varied, new and fun: and in fact it is!
So, no, it's not the cross-gen Call of Duty, as it doesn't stand out on the next-gen; did not revolutionize the graphics engine, but I can confirm that it is the best Call of Duty for some time.
Battlefield 4
"If I wanted to destroy the buildings, I would have bought a demolition ball"
Battlefield 4 charged with one goal: to destroy Call of Duty. Well, on Next-Gen you can feel the detachment, the graphics are sublime, and the Frostbite 3 it's a scream!
But what about this bombshell graphic on current-gen? Lag, Freeze, and much more to no end.
Not to mention the servers that, either because of EA problems, you want to hurry to get the title out before COD, are a disaster.
Which is better?
"A COD shotti people with spit!" - "A BF will shoot them only if you pull the joypad"
Well, neither is better, and I tell you why:
- You are paying 70 euros for a DLC, since, even if updated and revised, it offers you similar things in different contexts
- It will be full of DLCs, so in addition to those 70, you will spend another 70, but you will not miss the happiness of having two different cases
It is also true that, as they say, a team that wins does not change; if it works, don't fix it. And so it is therefore that both Activision and EA offer you a Call of Duty Modern Warfare and a Battlefield 2: Bad Company with maps, weapons, graphics and anything else a little updated.
But no more chatter, now I give you my humble advice.
Battlefield 4 shows better graphics, and unprecedented realism, with his Levolution, where each map will change during the game. So I recommend it to those who want a next-gen multiplayer game and to those who love the realism of wars. Remember that on next-gen will have the possibility of games up to 64 players.
Call of Duty Ghosts shows the old Call of Duty formula, corrected, revised and improved. I recommend it then to those who want a semi-arcade multiplayer game on current-gen.
If you have a NASA PC, choose if you want scary realism (Battlefield 4) or a funny and quick title (Call of Duty Ghosts)
What am I going to do? I will buy Battlefield for Ps4 towards the end of December, when they have fixed the servers by now, and maybe in December, maybe a little further on, I will buy Call of Duty always for Ps4, even if the Ps3 version would change a little.
I thank all the people who have allowed me to draw these pearls of wisdom, without saying their names.
