Best realistic military FPS? BF4 vs COD

[RedlinePSI]

This is not a typical which is better question. I have a decent PC that I build within the last year and I want to get an FPS. I haven't gamed in a long time, so I think a shooter will be a good jump point.

Main question, I want Battlefield 4 but I am wondering if anybody knows if they have worked out all the issues yet? It seems like they have been busting ass ever since the issues started, but it still doesn't look like they have everything perfect. If I buy a brand new hard copy can I expect it to be pretty patched up and running smoothly or are there still lingering issues that people are complaining about?

I suppose it's between that and COD Modern Warfare 3. I'm not really interested in waiting for Advanced Warfare. I just want to get something now, it doesn't have to be the newest. Just really good.

[Devious21]

For realism, BF4 on hardcore mode is just okay. If you want realism, you're better off with Insurgency or Arma 3.

That said, BF4 is much less buggy now than it was. I no longer have any issues.

[R3SQ]

BF4 has been fixed up for the most part. It'll run fine on your PC and you'll be able to get plenty of time out of it. I agree with Arma 3 being an option, but I've always found it difficult to get started in that game. It seems very complicated to me.

You could also give Counterstrike:GO a shot? It's relatively realistic, with a decent learning curve but lots of fun. Plus the community is massive.

[RedlinePSI]

Thanks for the other options. I'm gonna check them out.

[RoamPT]

Best of the category is ARMA, but between BF4 and COD, BF4 wins by far. COD is a teenage mainstream videogame with fast combats. BF4 is more tactical and more exciting.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by R3SQ

BF4 has been fixed up for the most part. It'll run fine on your PC and you'll be able to get plenty of time out of it. I agree with Arma 3 being an option, but I've always found it difficult to get started in that game. It seems very complicated to me.

You could also give Counterstrike:GO a shot? It's relatively realistic, with a decent learning curve but lots of fun. Plus the community is massive.

Arma can definitely be overwhelming.

I'm liking Insurgency right now. It's basically a very hardcore counter-strike. Maps are fairly small and games are 16-32 player. Bullets are extremely deadly, suppression is VERY effective and guns have a lot of recoil. No crosshairs, just iron sights and scopes.

[aksi]

If you are comparing those two games, definitely BF is what you are looking for.
I have spent more than enough time with BF3 on pc and had lots of fun.
Glad to hear BF4 is less buggy now. Time to update and play...

[CMann]

BF4 over COD all day every day. I've got it on PS4 and have clocked about 100 hours online and I'm still not bored of it. I don't know what you mean by realism but in terms of 'realistic' destruction and immersive gameplay BF4 s***s all over COD. Add to that the fact you've got 64 player conquest modes and it's the closest I'll ever got to a real warzone (I hope). As for glitches and stuff most of them have been ironed out with patches and updates now, it was terrible to start with though.

[RedlinePSI]

By realistic I only originally meant a military based role, with real weapons and enemies. Not fighting aliens with lasers. Though I was also interested in super realism like what Arma apparently offers when I learned of that. I was looking for Arma but I was at the mall a couple of weeks ago and the GameStop there had BF4 in stock, so I just grabbed that and I love it.

My time to play is pretty limited (if I could I would easily burn up hours playing) and still playing the campaign but I have to say I have not had any issues with it. Once I get a bit better I'll jump on the multiplayer, hopefully no bugs there either.

[Zeroblade]

For realism, I agree with Arma 3. Heavy on simulation side than anything.

BF4 is the far better game. More modes, weapons, varied maps and vechicles as a bonus. Its also more team based game so its very recommended if you find a group that takes advantage. Its had its issues since launch but many of the known issues have been fixed (finally). If you have the hardware for it, PC is best followed by PS4/Xbox One. I personally don't recommend PS3 or Xbox 360 version as I feel you don't get the complete package.

CoD I say is only for the kind of person that likes really fast and twitch based combat. I personally don't find this game enjoyable anymore as I'm convinced the code of any of their previous games is identical to the newer ones but with a different skin.

[Quicksilv3r]

Always thought Counterstrike was a great FPS while being somewhat realistic.

[E85BMW]

CoD is like playing paintball with 12 year olds and claiming that it's real combat.

[Shaung]

Arma 3 has the most realism.

[BRASSCRAF]

DayZ mod is the most realistic.

[chris82]

BF4 is way ahead of CoD in terms of realism (and every other way IMO). Graphics and effects are incredible, 64 player servers, big maps, great vehicle integration, etc. One thing I think is genius is that suppressing fire actually is suppressing. When someone is shooting at the wall you are taking cover behind, your player reacts like you're getting hit; you're vision gets blurred, less peripheral, slower movements. It legit makes you want to stay behind that wall lol (and you probably should). The way the player reacts in the game is the best of all the FPS I've played (and I've played a LOT of FPS games lol).

One thing that pisses me off though is the XM25 airburst. Are you f*cking kidding? Who thought that abomination was a good idea. You should get a permanent ban for using that IMO. That's 12 yr old CoD stuff (it's a weapon that fires projectiles that explode past cover) . Thankfully, I haven't seen too many people using it on PC; as it should be.

However, do get the expansion packs, the standard maps kind of suck. There is just no flow to them. Bad Company 2 had much much much better maps.

[MrRoboto]

On PS4 I find COD Ghosts way better then Battlefield 4. As far as fun factor goes, Wolfenstein New Order is better then both of them.

[Demetrius Joel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

On PS4 I find COD Ghosts way better then Battlefield 4. As far as fun factor goes, Wolfenstein New Order is better then both of them.

I guess to each his own. I bought wolfenstein and hated it after a couple of hours. Just plain terrible.

But back to main topic. BF4 all day everyday over COD.

[aj555]

BF4 and COD have almost no realism at all. This is coming from an Army Infantry vet with a CIB.

The closest thing you will find to military realism is definitely Arma. The vast majority of non-military players can't even begin to notice the minor details that the Arma crew have implemented. Still nothing like real life, but 100X closer than COD or BF4 will ever be. But it's a PC only game, and a huge resource hog.

Originally Posted by BRASSCRAF

DayZ mod is the most realistic.

DayZ mod, lol. You got to get on the DayZ standalone.

[aj555]

Originally Posted by Kitsune sama

CoD is like playing paintball with 12 year olds and claiming that it's real combat.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by aj555

BF4 and COD have almost no realism at all. This is coming from an Army Infantry vet with a CIB.

The closest thing you will find to military realism is definitely Arma. The vast majority of non-military players can't even begin to notice the minor details that the Arma crew have implemented. Still nothing like real life, but 100X closer than COD or BF4 will ever be. But it's a PC only game, and a huge resource hog.


DayZ mod, lol. You got to get on the DayZ standalone.

I can't recommend Insurgency enough. I love Arma for what it is and the rush you get from a firefight after 12 minutes of traveling to and clearing a town is hard to reproduce but I don't always have that kind of time.

Insurgency keeps the brutal bullet damage and I think has superior weapon handling (although I hear Arma is going to be updating that soon). Maps are smaller and play faster. You get a lot more action in.

I own both but I play Insurgency much more.

[aj555]

Originally Posted by Devious21

I can't recommend Insurgency enough. I love Arma for what it is and the rush you get from a firefight after 12 minutes of traveling to and clearing a town is hard to reproduce but I don't always have that kind of time.

Insurgency keeps the brutal bullet damage and I think has superior weapon handling (although I hear Arma is going to be updating that soon). Maps are smaller and play faster. You get a lot more action in.

I own both but I play Insurgency much more.

I'll check it out. I saw some early previews for it before, and it just looked cheaply done. So I never bothered to try it.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by aj555

I'll check it out. I saw some early previews for it before, and it just looked cheaply done. So I never bothered to try it.

Yeah, that's understandable. The old mod and the new Standalone are both built on the source engine. So it's definitely not winning any awards in the looks department. The gameplay is where it shines.

It also has Steam workshop access, so you can install custom skins and other stuff by simply clicking "subscribe" to the stuff you like. I'm running some weapon skins and a more "realistic" sound pack.

Here's an example of some of the eotech skins. You can get a skin that adds the authentic markings or (the one I use) change it to a smaller eotech model. I have an exps2 in real life and these skins look pretty good.