3702 views 5 comments

Why COD: Ghosts is better than Battlefield 4 in terms of singleplayer campaign

by on November 11, 2013
 

bf4_vs_cod_ghosts
Before getting into this quite dangerous area I’m going to clear some things up. First off, this opinion piece is based only on the singleplayer campaigns of both Call of Duty: Ghosts and Battlefield 4. Second thing, this piece is only based on my experience as a normal gamer whom plays more than 90% of each major new releases, I’m not a Call of Duty or a Battlefield 4 fan at all. Also, I’m not encouraging a fanboy duel between any fans of the both sides.

So, without further ado, let’s jump into this restricted area. Will I be the first human to get past this alive or I will be crucified by the fans? I hope I’ll live to see. Throughout the article I will be mentioning the two games using their acronyms in order to simply my task.

Well, BF4 and COD: Ghosts have just been released for both current-gen consoles and PC. Was I impresed? Not in the slightest. The two developers have released flawed games, each one having that tiny or big thing that made the game fail in terms on singleplayer (I won’t be jumping into the multiplayer area, as that’s on a whole different level in which I don’t qualify).

We’ll take COD: Ghosts as the first example. The developer managed to put together a nice little four hours campaign, with an attractive story and an engaging gameplay. But what’s missing from the game? It’s the graphics. Ghosts is still trapped in the old days, in which Pentium PCs ruled the world. Well, not quite, but the visual part of this game should get a negative grade, not even a positive 1 out of 10.

But graphics are everything in a game? Well, not quite. Let’s take BF4 for this simple example. The game has quite some good looking, ass-kicking looking textures but it lacks in terms of story and yes, it also lacks in terms of gameplay. Why I’m saying this? Because over the past few years, DICE got us accustomed with the amazing possibility of driving several different vehicles from usual cars, to big-ass airplanes.

This wonderful feature was missing in almost the whole game. There are some parts of BF4 in which you are able to drive some cars and tanks, but the experience lacks the wow factor I’ve been looking for.

Basically, BF4 and its four hours campaign (yes, just like COD: Ghosts) it’s only shooting, followed by shooting and then more shooting. This is only possible because of the endless waves of enemies that will make your life horrible if you are playing on the highest difficulty available. I do know it’s FPS game, and it should be all about shooting, but isn’t that a bit oudated? We need something new and fresh in games, something to make the experience less boring.

It seems like the greatness of Bad Company 2 has faded in time, a lot of the features that I liked in that game got lost on the way. There’s simply no unique scene in the whole shameful campaign of BF4.

So, in big lines, Battlefield 4 has the graphics and Call of Duty: Ghosts has the story and the gameplay. A game made out of both would really satisfy most of my needs when it comes to gaming. Why do I prefer COD: Ghosts when it comes to a singleplayer campaign? Well, because it simply is a far more enjoyable and interesting experience.

I’ve been able to overlook the fact that it looks horrible because it has a really enjoyable campaign, even tho it’s damn short. Also, if we look back at the beginning of the gaming, most of the best-selled games were not based on graphics, they were based on original and attractive story.

So, what are you waiting for developers? We are all waiting for a game to amaze us, stop delivering mediocre games. As a footnote, I’ll know that most of the readers will not agree with me, and they will even redirect some nasty words towards me, but this my opinion, as a gamer who wants the best from the 60 bucks I spend on every new release.

comments
 
Leave a reply »

 
  • AnObjectiveReason
    November 29, 2013 at 9:50 AM

    Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one who still buys the games for their single player experience and narrative. It’s too bad that developers rarely make great campaigns over 4-5hrs anymore. I know that the money is in the online subscriptions and multiplayer content is seemingly the primary component that rakes the cash in for developers/publishers. But I still want an epic story (that is longer than 5hrs) for my hard earned cash. I guess the single player base is a dying breed.

    Reply

  • December 12, 2013 at 11:36 AM

    God ghosts has a wayyyyy better and more distructive single player more new machines but battlefield has multiplayer because is team work and more distructive things…. I thinck but it seems boring but cod seems more strickt and modern.

    Reply

  • March 23, 2014 at 6:24 AM

    I find the review a Bit lacking in some detaisl in BF4, like the poor character development, the whining Irish, the bad campaign conclusion. In Ghosts You miss the glitchs in cutscenes, who ruining the imerse in the history and the waste of Riley use, (only 1 Fase). Ah and the thing with a mute protagonist, I dont see how this increase imersion. I dont see me As Recker or Logan, I enjoy Beeing Prophet and Booker because they have a personality, About the graphics of COD its not a negative note, I give a 7 out of 10, The lightining is good, the character models too, the level design is more fun. I find the textures weak in some objects, and in the grass.

    Reply

  • GTA IV Main Story + DEAL ENDING & GTA V Main Story + Deathwish Ending>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g
    May 12, 2014 at 7:34 PM

    GTA IV Main Storyline + DEAL ENDING is million goddamn times better than CoD Ghost’s and BF4 (which is probably the worst campaign of all time)

    /reply

    Reply

  • AWESOME
    May 25, 2014 at 7:39 AM

    At first i played Ghosts and then i played the BF4 single player and i was SO disappointed in bf4.Ghosts is way better than bf4.Though ghosts is still my fifth best call of duty game

    Reply

Leave a Reply