COD vs Battlefield

COD vs Battlefield

Spencer Hill

Cameron Jacobsen, Reporter

The top two first person shooter genres taking over the gaming community are known as Call of Duty and Battlefield. The two franchises have been at each other’s throats for years, trying to win over as many players as possible in order to support their game. Ever since Call of Duty 4 was released, the Call of Duty franchise made its mark as a superior FPS genre, forcing Battlefield to compete by releasing Battlefield: Bad Company, just a year later. While some players are just casual, there are some who take their game choice to heart, creating the controversy over which game genre is truly better.

With such a big school, the range of students who play both games is widened, increasing the controversy over the better genre. Call of Duty draws in players because of its simplicity compared to other genres, while Battlefield pulls it’s players by faming itself as more of a war simulation rather than just an everyday arcade shooter.

“It’s just a lot more realistic than Call of Duty is, like you blow up buildings and stuff and its large scale battles. Call of Duty’s just kind of shoot each other and it’s stupid,” says Mckay Bates, a prestigious Battlefield player.

The two genres are very different in the way that the game is played, while they are both based around the modern war shooter, making them different enough to stand alone yet similar at the same time.

    While students like both games for their unique aspects, both genres prove themselves as major competitors, proving that while neither is better, some people just have their own tastes in video games.