The Great Divide of Call of Duty vs Battlefield 2016

8 May 2016

This week saw the first official announcements for both the next Call of Duty and Battlefield games. And boy could they not be more different. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare was unveiled on 2nd May and is essentially a sci-fi shooter set largely in space. Battlefield 1 was revealed four days later, and as rumours suggested, is a gritty World War 1 shooter. Both series have been the kings in the console FPS genre for many years, and nearly always cause debates among the dedicated fan bases as to which of their latest respective games is better. However after these two announcements, the divide has never been bigger, and judging by initial reactions we could see a major shift in those player bases.

First of all, I have always been a COD fan since 2007 and the release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I've played countless hours of every title in the series up to Black Ops 2, and loved my time with each. However I've not been a fan of where Call of Duty is heading ever since Advanced Warfare. The thruster movement changed some of the core concepts of Call of Duty. Cover and finding a vantage point became obsolete with the ability to avoid enemy fire or ambush players by boosting in any direction. For gamers out there who say Call of Duty never changes - this is where I point to. I did enjoy the latest title, Black Ops 3, as developer Treyarch dialled down the boost movement some what, but they also introduced wall running to remind us we are still playing a very futuristic military shooter. It was at this point that near futuristic Call of Duty was getting saturated and the vast majority of fans wanted something different.

Switching over to the Battlefield series, I have always had an appreciation for their games despite preferring Call of Duty. The realism is the key factor. Battlefield has always simulated genuine warfare better than COD, especially in multiplayer. The enormous maps, destructible environments and range of vehicles available to everyone create some truly epic moments. However one could argue that Battlefield has barely changed since the Bad Company series, especially on consoles. With the exception of Battlefield Hardline introducing cops and criminals, each title has been purely focused on Modern Warfare. Which to be honest isn't to the disapproval of Battlefield fans - this is exactly what they want. Certainly nothing sci-fi or futuristic...

Speaking of which, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, and the reveal trailer that went live a few days ago. This is the very first time I've not been excited for a new COD. The trailer shows nothing fundamentally new, apart from venturing into space. Boost movement is once again present, and the robot soldiers look identical to those heavily featured in Black Ops 3. The series is heading in the complete opposite direction to where fans want. Planets are being used as different locations for both the campaign and multiplayer. Just how far in the future is this!? I can only imagine that every gun and piece of equipment is fictional too. This is too futuristic and too sci-fi for Call of Duty.

Now as if this wasn't bad enough, I'm guessing the developers at Infinity Ward did sense that many fans wanted to re-live the Modern Warfare era of Call of Duty again. So as rumours suggested, they decided to develop a remastered version of Call of Duty 4. Fantastic news! This is what every COD fan has dreamt of. However, as confirmed by the end of the reveal trailer, it is only available with the $80 Legacy Edition of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. What the hell Infinity Ward! It seems as though they realised mid-development cycle that fans were tiring of futuristic combat, and as it was much too late to change the whole concept, publisher Activision thought they'd better include a remastered version of COD4 to be safe. Although not even a complete version as it turns out with only 10 of the original 16 multiplayer maps included. Was it really that late a decision to develop the remaster? Anyway the reason for this not being a standalone title is because they know it would outsell Infinite Warfare - causing significant embarrassment to the team. Having said this Activision and Infinity Ward should already be humiliated by the sheer number of dislikes the reveal trailer has now received. Over 700,000 and growing every minute, which is a record for a gaming video on YouTube.

After this relative bombshell, all heads turned towards the next Battlefield reveal - both Call of Duty and Battlefield fans. And wow were we in for a treat of a trailer! Rumours suggested a trip way back in time to World War 1, and they were correct. One aspect not predicted was the name, Battlefield 1. Was the same guy who named the latest Xbox behind this? Anyway regardless of the name, this game looks incredible. Tanks, trench warfare and mustard gas could be expected, but bi-planes, horses and sword fighting... Yes please! EA and Battlefield could not have timed a release of this type of game any better. It feels like the entire FPS community has been craving for a game set in the past after the last few years have been dominated by sci-fi shooters. Destiny and Halo 5, along with the last two Call of Duty titles. Battlefield fans should also be relishing the new setting as the series has never travelled back to World War 1 before.

So what does this mean in the war between Call of Duty and Battlefield in 2016? Well judging by the reactions to the two reveal trailers, there could be a massive transition of COD players moving over to Battlefield. Here are the current views, likes and dislikes from both videos.

There is a real desire from the Call of Duty community to have 'boots on the ground' again, and re-live the now classic modern warfare era. Of course Activision has realised this with the Call of Duty 4 remaster, but they had the cheek to only make it available with a purchase of Infinite Warfare. And not even the base game - a special deluxe version of the game, forcing fans to spend more than they normally would on a new Call of Duty title, just to replay a replica version of an old title. It's a middle finger to some of the longest serving COD fans, and for this reason I hope every one of them switches to the new Battlefield. At least temporarily because Modern Warfare Remastered has to become a standalone title at some point... Surely please Activision!

It also leads me to think what of the massive eSports scene for Call of Duty. This could take a considerable hit if the COD player base takes a big drop. And what of the future for similarly themed near futuristic shooters. Titanfall 2 is imminent and doesn't seem to be attracting any negative feedback so far. Could this help Infinite Warfare or hinder it further by being direct competition? Lastly I want to know what direction the next Call of Duty will take. Treyarch must already be developing the 2017 title in the series due to the alternating three year development cycle the series now has in place. Will they dare to revisit the past after the reactions to these two games? Such as World War 2 following in the footsteps of Call of Duty World at War back in 2008? Or will it be Black Ops 4 or something completely new but still sci-fi based? That decision has surely already been made, and I very much hope for the former scenario. The run up to October this year will be fascinating to see whether the current trends continue, and whether Battlefield can finally beat Call of Duty in the sales charts. If it's ever going to happen, it has to be this year.