Call of Duty WWII versus Battlefield 1

Can't find a topic to your liking? Here would be a good place to post what you want. Go ahead, make my day hee hee.

Moderators: leeroy_t, TheStuboy, Kaing of Kaings

Call of Duty WWII versus Battlefield 1

Postby TheStuboy » January 8th, 2018, 3:02 am

Two world war games came out in 2016 developed by different studios. I have conquered both games and will proceed to review both and point out differences and similarities between the two. These two games are Call of Duty WWII and Battlefield 1. Both are the PS4 versions. CODWWII was published by Activision and Battlefield 1 by EA.

Call of Duty WWII as you can tell by the name takes place in World War 2. Battlefield 1 takes place in the largely forgotten World War I. This is a review of the single player campaigns.

Call of Duty WWII features a relatively linear campaign, which spans multiple locations across Europe. Battlefield 1 is five different stories you can choose at random plus a sixth credit sequence that really adds nothing to the game other than a cinematic. CODWWII mostly takes the view point of one soldier with a platoon of others you get to know. It is very similar to COD 3 for the PS3, in that some of the locations overlap and the mechanics feel like that game. At times its just as frustrating but nowhere near as hard as COD3. COD3 still remains the hardest game I have played. The graphics are obviously massively improved and the story is different. I did notice that the pace of COD WWII was a lot faster but BF1 was even more-so. It took me roughly two nights worth of work to get through CODWWII. It seemed speedy but reflecting on it, the campaign was longer than BF1. Battlefield 1's single player campaign felt relatively short. The levels felt the same but the locations were different. I will proceed to state the similarities between the games.
Image

Similarities
Both involve a lot of stealth (should you choose).
Both have short campaigns with WWII being slightly longer
Both have some of the same mechanics as far as there are lot of periods where you run and then you run into a bunch of enemy.
Both feature tanks you can drive and planes you can fly, however BF1 has many more and it's more a part of the game.
Both came out the same year and have very good graphics, with WWII having a slight edge. (crisper and a better color palette)

Differences (more than similarities)
Battlefield 1 allows you to blow stuff and change the level. For example you can shoot through stuff in this game. CODWWII not so much. This comes in handy in BF1.
BF1's water graphics are more realistic but the rest of the game has a washed out fuzzy feel to it.
Regarding stealth, I think CODWWII relied on you to be more stealthy and it was imperative. BF1 you can break stealth but you risk dying but can stay alive. COD WWII you either stealth or you're dead.
WWII and BF1 each take place in a different war, so the weapons and technology are vastly different.
BF1 has more vehicle and plane usage. In fact one segment is dedicated solely to flying a WWI plane around and shooting Germans. Another has you riding around in a crappy tank that keeps breaking down.
BF1 is less linear. There are multiple ways to go in levels, as opposed to being forced down a single path. This probably allows for re-playability. I didn't notice this in COD WWII.
BF1 allows you to play as characters with differing backgrounds/ethnicities. I don't remember this in CODWWII
CODWWII has crisper graphics with a pleasing color palette.
CODWWII feels more realistic
BF1 has a slightly more interesting story in that you get to play different characters, some based on real people (see Lawrence of Arabia). I did enjoy CODWWII although some of the parts were a bit over the top (see the survivable train crash).
BF1 seems to run smoother on the PS4 but maybe that's just something to do with game play. In general BF games have a sleek feel to them where as COD games are more rigid. There's nothing wrong with this it just is the way it is.
The more I think about it, WWII was harder than BF1. Each part of the story had one spot where I kept getting stuck and it would be spawn/die spawn/die. I recall having to lower the difficulty level at least once to progress through the game. Both games allow you to do this.
BF1 has its hard spots but its easy enough to keep progressing. I didn't switch levels in this to lower the difficulty. I did die a lot. A couple of times I blew myself up or crashed into something (especially the ground).
Ammo is easier to find in BF1
CODWWII's health system is better. It forces you to seek your teammate to get a stimpack.
BF1 makes you look for field manuals. This is like treasures in a game like Uncharted. I don't know if I like that or not, because I had no idea they existed until late in the game. I don't know what benefit there is to finding all of the field manuals except maybe a trophy.
BF1 had a slightly more cluttered HUD but it wasn't bothersome. It got out of the way when it needed to. I don't remember COD having a map in the corner like BF1 did.
Flying and trying to aim are hard in BF1. This was and still is an issue with me in all BF games.
CODWWII's ending was kind of hea but it was better than BF1 which just had a stu cinematic that seemed out of place.
CODWWII has a snap aim which means your gun will automatically target enemies if you move over them. This can be turned off but I used it. I believe BF1 has a similar system although it didn't work as well.
CODWWII felt a lot like COD3.

CODWWII positives
Battle of the Bulge, Omaha Beach, and the first WWII game that I know of to acknowledge the Holocaust.
Longer campaign (but not by much)
Better graphics
Fun to play
A lot of historical facts were talked about.
Omaha Beach sequence reminded me of Saving Private Ryan
Stealth gameplay makes it interesting.

BF1 positives
World War I is largely a forgotten war. The game has a lot of text to read and explains historical facts. I appreciate this. I am a history buff.
Five different stories which you can choose at will.
Lawrence of Arabia mission was probably my favorite, that or the one in the Italian Alps. I least enjoyed the very first mission because it was incredibly short and way too cluttered.
Horses
Aussies
Ottoman Empire
Realistic physics
Good voice acting and character acting.
Stealth game play can be bypassed and you can choose your path.
Less linear means you can take multiple paths to the objective.

Overall I enjoyed both games. I would say that I do remember BF1 more-so because I just conquered it the night I wrote this. That's not to say I didn't enjoy WWII. They're different games but very similar at the same time. Call of Duty wins with the graphics department as BF1 had a slightly washed out look to it, kind of muddy. It was also darker and harder to see things. Maybe my settings were too low. I don't believe so though. BF1 had more vehicles and that's always fun. I do enjoy the on the ground segments of both games though. I enjoy the stealth too because it forces you to think through things and not rush. I thought BF1's AI was a bit less responsive than COD WWII although both games suffer from AI that is too easy. I did die more in BF1 as I mentioned. That's not saying COD wasn't hard. It was. There was one particular level where a tank is practically right on top of you and it took me a long time to figure out how to take it out. I must admit I did adjust the level in CODWWII at least once as I mentioned.

I don't understand why either game is getting the flack they are but I have yet to try multiplayer. I suspect BF1's multiplayer will feel comfortable since I've been playing BF4 all these years and I expect large maps with vehicles and such. I don't know what to expect with COD WWII's multiplayer as I've been away from that series for a long time (since Modern Warfare).

I would rate CODWWII an A (graphics and campaign length clearly win here)
I would rate BF1 an A- mostly because the campaign was way too short.
I still enjoyed both games and hope to switch back and forth when doing multiplayer (when I get that setup). I wish the PS4 continued the free multiplayer but they went the way of the Xbox :(. I wish games coming out would make their campaigns longer.
If Naughty Dog can do it with Uncharted, why can't a WWII shooter take a long time to finish. Uncharted 4 took 13 hours to pass spread over several nights. BF1 took roughly half that over two nights. CODWWII was between 7 and 9 hours.
Image
"I won, you losht, get ushed to it shon"
Danny Glovershh - Shhootersh.
User avatar
TheStuboy
Do I have a life?
 
Posts: 952
Joined: January 1st, 2005, 12:40 am
Location: Blaine, MN

Return to General Stu Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron