Why Battlefield 1 Will Be Better Than Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

After my first article explained why I thought Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare will be better than Battlefield 1, I realized that I also do love Battlefield games (eh… not Hardline). After the Infinite Warfare Beta and playing the Battlefield 1 Beta, there are things that Battlefield did better than Infinite Warfare.

Of course, Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered looked beautiful and there was nothing wrong with it in my perspective (except juggernaut). Like before, I will give my three reasons why I think Battlefield 1 will be better than Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, let’s get to it.


*Disclaimer* This is my opinion if you didn’t see it was an opinion piece. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


1.) Boots on the Ground

The main problem that plagues Call of Duty in the view of many people is the fact that there have been boost jumps and “advance movements”. Call of Duty used to be boots on the ground with players having to only aim left and right. However, now they also have to aim up as they see their opponents flying which is frustrating to most. Battlefield has been very good at keeping their games boots on the ground style and it seems like they will keep on doing it for the foreseeable future.

Having boots on the ground gameplay doesn’t only keep the game realistic, but also simple with the only means of getting around on foot is by sprinting or walking. There was a good reason why Infinite Warfare’s reveal trailer has over three million dislikes and that reason was mainly because there were still boost jumps after public outcry for the franchise to go back to their roots.



2.) Era

The Era that both games take place in are unique. Infinite Warfare takes place in the far future and Battlefield 1 is in an alternate World War I setting. However, Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3 have both been in the future making it seem repetitive for Infinite Warfare to go to the future again. Battlefield 1 on the other hand will take place during a war which no major game franchise has touched, which in my opinion takes the cake.

With the new World War I era, it gives the player a completely new setting with new weapons, equipment, and vehicles. Riding on the horse was highly entertaining as I tried to get as many “road kill” kills as possible before eventually getting gunned down easily.

With an array of snipers and semi-automatic rifles that I have never even heard of before, it allowed a ton of replay value as I loved trying out every single one of them. Dogfights also seemed a lot more entertaining than previous Battlefields as I had to rely solely on my machine guns rather than heat seeking missiles and using counter measures.

The problem with Infinite Warfare’s era is that I am not a fan of the laser guns that they have. After watching gameplay and seeing that there was a new AK style weapon, I was beyond ecstatic. However, I was let down at the fact that it fired energy laser beams instead of actual bullets which really threw me off. Of course, with a futuristic era comes futuristic guns and equipment, especially the dreaded black hole grenade which I was definitely was not a fan of. The grenade stops all gun fights and sucks everyone in making it very overpowered.

Overall, the weapons in Battlefield 1 fit more of my play style rather than jumping around shooting laser weaponry. Yes, I do know that there are guns in Infinite Warfare that shoot bullets but Battlefield’s weaponry is a better fit for me and most likely for you guys.


3.) Realism and Graphics

We all have to admit, Battlefield always has and probably always will look better than Call of Duty. With the powerful Frostbite 3 engine powering the game, even in the beta stage, it looked stunning. Call of Duty is going back to the heavily modified but old IW engine to power Infinite Warfare and from the gameplay I watched, it looks essentially like Ghosts.

With regards to realism and being labeled a military simulator, there’s no mistake that Battlefield beats Call of Duty in this category. Call of Duty is labeled an arcade shooter that is faster pace and with their past installments, I can see that they are trying to go towards pace and quick gun fights and less towards realism.

From bullet drop, scope adjustments, vision blur from weather and bullets flying around, Battlefield has it all with realism. Also with maps being completely destructible and having no place to hide, it really forces the player to think tactically rather than running and gunning like in Call of Duty.



Like I said in the disclaimer, this is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I cannot wait to play both games as Battlefield comes out on October 21 and Call of Duty on November 4.

If I had to pick one category that I feel is the most crucial on why Battlefield will be better is boots on the ground. I like the slower pace and having only to aim left and right and not up. With regards to both articles that I wrote, I feel that both games will be great, it just comes down to your preference.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments