Bf1 vs Cod WW2
Bf1 vs Cod WW2
I haven't played BF or COD yet, so it's hard to say which one is worth buying.
I've tried both games, and they really stand apart from one another in key ways. The biggest difference is the battlefield layout—BF1 offers a much larger, open space while Call of Duty provides tighter, more confined areas. Maps are significantly bigger in BF1, giving you more room to explore, whereas in CoD everything feels more compact and focused. Games in BF1 let you control tanks, planes, and other vehicles, which aren't available in CoD. If you're looking for a faster-paced experience with lots of action, CoD is the better choice. For expansive, open-world battles, go with BF1.
Battlefield focuses on major engagements and vehicle use. Victory centers on effective command rather than sheer destruction. If your server doesn’t support this style, stick to deathmatch rules for smaller maps. Call of Duty leans toward close combat. It offers structured objectives, though most players opt for raw kills and quick reflexes. I prefer Battlefield’s approach since it expands gameplay beyond just aiming for high scores. When I played BF3, I often ranked in the top ten without many losses—probably frustrating for those who favor deathmatch. Call of Duty, however, leaves a disappointing impression. I tried the public multiplayer beta on Steam. The first round was fine except for a rude teenager using offensive language. The aimbot incident was particularly annoying; it tracked my position and locked onto my shots. That’s why I’m less optimistic about CoD.
For tanks, planes, or vehicles, BF is the best option. If you prefer a more casual vibe, COD suits you better.
I haven't played Battlefield but I tried the open beta for World War II on PC. It's really poor on the computer—it's not well optimized and players tend to clump together. If you're using a TV and controller, just skip it because it's frustrating. But with a keyboard and mouse, the fighting works fine. I should mention the Battlefield version has good reviews.
I believe CoD WW2 would be a better choice as it WILL have a thought out worthwhile campaign, versus multiplayer, and some type of mini-game whether it be zombies or special operations. Battlefield one as said above kinda needs competant teammates to work together with. Yes there are vehicles and cool WW1 combat, however in reality it's a hit or miss on whether it'll work well or not depending on your team. CoD is easy for playing by yourself. Personally I think that there are better tactical games, vehicle games, and ww1 games compared to Battlefield 1 that all do each role better, whereas Call Of Duty has a tride and true known method of you KNOW what you'll get. Also there's an open beta. Should still be going on to try out. Battlefield 1 is behind a pay wall of 60 dollars.
Never had a chance with either, but from watching gameplay videos and similar content, Battlefield seems to offer superior graphics and an incredibly realistic experience in terms of reload animations, textures, combat styles, and historical accuracy for WWI. COD is decent, but I haven't been impressed by its precision.