An annoying trend beginning with COD: Modern Warfare 3 was the
automatic player matching for online multiplayer games. You don't pick servers or your teammates you
just pick the level of difficulty and game type. That's a time saver for those weary of
trudging through pages of server pings and player counts but more often than
not you'll find yourself outmatched by other players. Considering how most maps are designed for
less than 24 players there is no refuge in numbers. Just one level 50 player can dominate any game
mode simply because his opposition often offers little in the way of a
threat. Automatic matching is a nice
thought but it seems whatever algorithm Infinity Ward is using to match players
is more concerned with filling maps than providing a level playing field.
There is an option to create a private match but unless you
have a dozen good friends to play against, it's a largely unused option.
A new wrinkle that's showed up is an expanded arsenal of
player deployable items like land mines and sentry guns. Their inclusion is an obvious nod to
Battlefield players and assuming you can attain enough of a level to obtain
them, they can help level the playing field a bit.
I suppose if you're a masochist looking for even more ways to punish your ego the "Kill Cam" is
a godsend but in reality it's just another element to keep the game moving
along. Which is a strange twist considering how much time you waste watching yourself die. I guess that's so the guy who tagged you can change his location. Unlike Single or Cooperative play modes, you'll rarely have a multiplayer
game in COD last more than 20 minutes.
Battlefield games in comparison can drag on for hours.
Playing Call of Duty multiplayer, regardless of the noun
that follows those words, is an extension of the single player experience. If you play the single player mode you'll
find corresponding locations in Multiplayer.
But don't be fooled. While the
environments are an extension of single player maps that knowledge will afford you no advantage
in multiplayer.
You'll be treated to maps that answer burning questions
like, "Hey, that big dam that got blown up when I was playing "Legends
Never Die," what does it look like up there?" Locations are just backdrops, however, and if
you spend too much time thinking about it you'll find yourself looking at the
respawn timer repeatedly.
There are 6
multiplayer modes in all for Battlefield 4 as opposed to Ghosts 11 (not including the "Hardcore"
variants) The "objective" is in fact the core of gameplay and that makes
Battlefield 4 a far different multiplayer experience.
If you'd prefer a game that offers play modes containing
more than just variations on deathmatch then Battlefield 4 is likely a better
fit for you. It's still a run and gun
affair but where most game modes in COD flow from deathmatch, Battlefield flows
from the conquest mode.
In essence,
conquest is nothing more than capture the flag and Battlefield 4 offers it as
well as a multitude of variants including Domination and to some extent Rush and
Defuse modes. There are deathmatch options but
they're still team based as opposed to Ghosts "Free for All" that
requires you to shoot anything that moves.
Like its predecessor. Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4 relies on a new
version of the Battlefield game portal otherwise known as Battlelog. Battlelog 2.0 is the latest incarnation and
aside from the option to enter "testing" servers to try out new
equipment and develop strategies it's largely unchanged.
Your multiplayer experience starts on a webpage followed by
selection of a Multiplayer tab where a list of servers and their statistics are
shown including name, game mode, number of players active and ping (although
I've yet to see a ping value in any server listings.) Everything flows from the Battlelog including
your stats, loadouts and game mode.
I've been a vocal critic of starting a
triple-A title from a web page and Battlefield 4's insistence on Battlelog 2.0 only seems to make it worse. In fact the latest patch has effectively
blocked my gameplay of BF4 if my default browser happens to be Internet
Explorer 11.
While IE isn't blameless for this, the fact that I have to
switch to another browser for the sake of a game is nothing short of
pathetic. At least Call of Duty still
handles multiplayer duties from within the actual game. Web pages are fine for free to play flash
games, not triple-A titles. And for
what? the capability to get stats on your Nexus 5?
Right now, the biggest problem with Battlefield 4 is that
it's not done. Rumors are that Dice was
literally
begging
EA to hold off on the release date. The
plea fell on deaf ears and so far BF4's broken launch has almost elevated it to
SimCity failure. If it weren't for the
throngs of ever suffering Battlefield fans the game would have become another
Medal of Honor: Warfighter. It's amazing
how someone who has invested in some
cases over $100 for a subpar experience can become an ardent defender and
company apologist.
That's devotion and
while I don't agree with it, I understand it...if your 12....
Battlefield 4 has brought back an oldie but a goodie to its
multiplayer experience. Commander mode was
last seen in Battlefield 2 and lets you take control of friendly forces to direct them toward objectives. As far as I'm concerned, its
return is welcome as the best and highest scoring games I ever had
in BF3 only happened when players would follow the direction of another. Just watching an objective taken by a huge
contingent of your teammates is an epic experience. You're still running and gunning but it's not
just about you anymore. That's a key
distinction between Call of Duty and Battlefield multiplayer experiences.
That said, Battlefield multiplayer can get very "high
school" with clans and "clicks" that operate to the exclusion of
all others. If there's bad game lag, for
example, the first one blamed will be you if you don't happen to be part of the
group. It's also not uncommon, for
example, to find server admins who act like arrogant little boys on the virtual
playground. Servers with unwritten
"rules" also pop up with restrictions on weapons, objective control
and other nonsense that confuse gameplay.
I've personally been kicked for a server for using a weapon that wasn't
a knife or a pistol, for example. I had
no idea I was breaking "the rules" and I was allowed to choose
"banned" weapons in my loadout.
This arbitrary and often ad-hoc deviation from what most
understand to be online multiplayer only server to diminish the
experience. I played Battlefield 3 for
almost 300 hours, I've played Battlefield 4 for less than 20 and already ran
into it. You've been warned. That's one thing that can be said for Call of
Duty, the rules are the same for everyone no matter whose server you play
on.
Well, ok, aside from the cheats and hacks but that comes
with the territory in online gaming so I won't belabor the point here. Hey, if you've read any of my stuff you knew
it was going to come up at some point!
:-)
Call of Duty: Ghosts
and Battlefield 4 Single Player
I'm going to go ahead and combine both games under one topic
for one reason. In a word, they're both pretty
much the same this time around.
Single player in the Battlefield series hasn't been much
competition to Call of Duty's since Bad Company 2 which was more of an offshoot
of the series than a core title. In
Battlefield 4 you're basically trudging around dangerous locations with your
buddies to take objectives. That's
pretty much the whole story and aside from some nifty visual effects there's
not much more to say. As in Battlefield
3 there's an attempt to draw the player into the narrative but you never really
care about the characters. It's more
tutorial than tome. None of your
accomplishments transfer to Multiplayer save a few extra dog tag options for
you to equip that only serve to prove your mania to your online friends.
Single player in Call of Duty has always been the strongest
aspect of the series with well fleshed out storylines that could be lifted from
a Tom Clancy novel. It's less about
shooting stuff and more about advancing the story. Unlike Battlefield 4 you won't find much in
Ghosts to train you for multiplayer. Even
with a game engine that's been patched more than a porcupine's blow up doll,
Ghosts offers a fast paced adventure that takes you from a quiet conversation
with your father to the edge of space then rockets you into battle with a
backdrop of a world turned upside down.
Then there's the dog.
Everyone talks about the damned dog.
Guess what, it's just another weapon.
Yes you can control it a couple of times during single player but in the
end it's really not much more exciting
than piloting a drone from a suitcase (a common event since Modern Warfare 2.) Your
4-legged friend even shows up in Multiplayer games as an available option in
your loadout. Here's a hint, shoot it if
he's coming at you in multiplayer. If
you have any hang-ups about cruelty to animals just think of it as a robot with
fur. After all, it's just a game and you
aren't killing anything but a few pixels and maybe a few brain cells should you
knock back a few.
I started this section with a bold statement. That being that both games offered the same
single player experience. I say that
because while the story in Ghosts is better than BF4, it all seems a bit
contrived. All COD single player
campaigns follow basically the same formula.
That being: You're some guy inclined toward the military arts, the world
is in danger and you're the only one who can save it. Along the way you meet characters that may
help or hinder you but ultimately you're going to save the day.
The problem is that I personally never really
cared about the storyline in Ghosts. I just
wanted to see the next cool environment because that was all I really had to look forward to.
Not that the experience wasn't a roller coaster ride but I never had an
investment in the story. I was never
able to suspend my disbelief and that's a huge failure for a COD title.
Think about it like this....
Remember
"The Matrix?" That movie made me question my own reality. The sequels just milked the franchise and
that's what Ghosts single player is. A
tired rehash of the same formula.
Where Battlefield 4 (and 3's) single player experience was
lacking in the story it did serve as a good tutorial. You can literally run all over the place and
get yourself in all kinds of trouble.
Call of Duty is still about the story (weak as it is) which means you're led down a
tightly scripted path.
To put it in the proper context, think of
Battlefield 4 like those times when you were a kid on the way to the principal's
office. You eventually got there but your
path was probably not a direct route.
Think of Call of Duty's single player like a trip to the museum. There's lots of nifty stuff to see but it's
all behind ropes you're not allowed to cross.
In short, single
player is not the strongest element of either game and that's detrimental to
the Call of Duty franchise. Battlefield
4 can be excused mostly because they don't have as high a standard to
meet.
Which leads me to the last section.
Cooperative play
modes
This shouldn't take too long mostly because there's really not
much to say.
Battlefield 4 unlike its predecessor does not include a
cooperative play mode. Dice has not
abandoned
the idea entirely but it's likely EA's rushed timetable and problems with the
game shortly before launch knocked it off the priority tree. Even the open beta was comprised largely of
Battlefield 3 elements placed on new Battlefield 4 maps. That should have been an indication that
something was wrong so close to launch but more about that later.
Admittedly, co-op is a low priority for a title so focused
on multiplayer but the past few years have shown a growing popularity to have a
multiplayer experience that doesn't involve suffering the unwashed masses. While not up to the co-op standard of
Battlefield 3's then competitor Modern Warfare 3, many players found it a good
training ground free of the bullying of malevolent Colonel types.
Call of Duty, on the other hand, has done it again. "Again" being fall on its co-op
face.
Ever since Black Ops, Cooperative mode has suffered. First it was a rehash of zombie survival mode
stooping so low as to even pull in 4 year old maps from COD:World at War. Gone was the parallel storyline in favor of
an endless meat grinder of stumbling corpses.
This time around Infinity Ward threw in a twist. Instead of zombies you're fighting an alien
invasion. Aside from the settings, the
game mode has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the game. It's yet another tacked on survival mode
experience with aliens bouncing around like rabbits intent on your demise. The only objective, if you want to call it
that, is to set up and protect a drill you place on the alien's
"mother" thing. I put about an
hour into it before I gave up.
Summary
Battlefield 4 is broken, plain and simple. It was a rushed product and developer DICE is
spending all their time trying to fix it.
It's gotten so bad that DLC development has been
suspended
until the core game is fixed. Some would
say that's a good thing as howls from the Battlefield 3 forum were plagued with
pleas to "fix the game!" throughout its run. Battlefield 4's forums have been seeing the same.
With no less than 5 major patches since its release a month
ago, you'd have been wise to heed my advice last summer and skip the
pre-order. I did and actually picked up
the game for half price on Amazon during a flash sale. Hey, I'm late to the party but at least I
didn't end up an unwilling beta tester.
Call of Duty: Ghosts is more stable than Battlefield 4 but
that's not saying much. It's another COD
formula release and hasn't improved on its predecessors. If you liked the last 3 years of COD titles
then that's probably going to work out just fine for you.
After skipping a few installments I was frankly expecting a
little more. Then it occurred to me.that for
all the hype it's received, Ghosts is not really a major COD release. At least no more than Black Ops was. Where Modern Warfare 3 was a direct
competitor to Battlefield 3, Ghosts is more a competitor to a Battlefield: Bad
Company title.
In that light comparisons between the two aren't really
fair. It's apples to oranges even though
they share common traits. Battlefield 4
is the "It" game for EA right now, Ghosts is just another franchise
distraction while everyone anxiously awaits
Destiny.
As much as EA's poor management of its studios has caused a
string of launch day disasters it's not alone.
Activision's meddling and constant
squabbling
between Treyarch and Infinity Ward has forced Call of Duty to produce a string
of titles that are largely the same.
It's a safety play and potentially threatening to the franchise.
While sales of both games were good they weren't quite what
the publisher's expected. The bloom is off the rose and gamers were
expecting more than a re-run with a few tacky add-ons.
Unfortunately, it seems re-runs are all we're getting which
will eventually doom both franchises.
You can only count on fanboys for so long. 12 year olds eventually grow up...
Fast forward to 2013 and the much hyped and much overpriced
BioShock Infinite. Critically acclaimed
but almost instantly discounted from its $60 price. For that money we ended up with 15 GB of
installation files.
