ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Games, Toys, and Hobbies»
  • Computer & Video Games»
  • Online Video Games

Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Multiplayer compared

Updated on April 26, 2013

We purchased our XBox a little over a year ago now, and in that time, I have been the majority player of the system. I started, on the advice of a friend, with Modern Warfare 3, and after learning the ropes and getting good, I was feeling somewhat confident in my abilities as a First Person Shooter player on console.

Now, don't get me wrong! I am not saying I am a "Beast" or anything like that, but I can certainly hold my own against good players at times. I may die more than the top players (but who doesn't, really, other than other top players), but I can surprise people, and in public matches I am usually in the mid-range of the Lobby Leaderboard. I think that makes me an OK FPS gamer.

Then, this same friend got Battlefield 3 and recommended that I get into it as well. As it turned out, I got a copy for my anniversary, so he and I started playing together.

Now, I know that they appear to be similar types of games, with shooting, war, guns, and multiplayer that features a range of modes such as Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and Conquest/Domination. But to say that they are very similar would be a mistake, in my opinion.

Show Us the Similarities!

Obvious points first:

  • Each series was set during World War II at it's inception, and has progressed to more modern or future scenarios;
  • Each game is in the First Person Shooter genre;
  • Each game has a single player and a multiplayer component
  • Each allows you to choose your weapon and accessory loadouts for multiplayer

That may not be an extensive or even complete list of similarities, but there is no denying that they have come from a similar beginning and have progressed along a similar path. While Battlefield went future warfare far sooner, it was not as well received for various reasons.

The ability to have a persistent soldier "build" in each game is somewhat of an RPG element (based on levels earned, you have different items that can be equipped and others that still need to be unlocked) though you are not necessarily locked into any particular choices and can freely change skills, weapons, etc., at will.

Also similar between Battlefield 3 and Black Ops 2 are many of the multiplayer game types:

  • Team Deathmatch (TDM)
  • Conquest (BF3)/Domination (BO2)
  • Squad Deathmatch (BF3)/Multi-team TDM (BO2)
  • Capture The Flag
  • Gun Master (BF3)/Gun Game (BO2)

While the similar modes may not be exactly the same, the basic rules and objectives for each game are there. Rush in Battlefield 3 is somewhat similar to the Demolition or Search and Destroy modes in Black Ops 2, but are different enough that I didn't include them as a direct similarity.

In Demolition and Search And Destroy, the objectives are to bomb or defend a pair of sites with a number of rounds on the same map to determine a winner (Best of 11, if I remember correctly).

In Rush (and Squad Rush), however, there is an attacking team, and a defending team on a map, but there is only one round, and once one set of objectives is destroyed, a new area of the map opens up with two new M-COM sites to destroy, The defending team has unlimited respawns, while the attacking team has a limited number of respawn tickets to complete each area (the ticket count is replenished to 75, by default, after destroying both M-COM stations).

So What is Different?

The main difference that is immediately noticeable in the multiplayer portion is the size of the maps. Black Ops 2 has small, tight maps with multiple lanes to different parts of the map. There are specific places you can go, and many places that you cannot. In Battlefield 3, however, the maps are sprawling, open areas with no real set lanes to follow to get from one area to the next. You can walk across a vast expanse of open area, on some maps, though doing so puts you at a severe disadvantage as you have no cover, but you can go anywhere in that open space.

Other differences that I have noticed in the short time I have been playing:

  • Levelling up is rather slow in Battlefield 3, whereas you can level up quite quickly in Black Ops 2. After 3 days of gaming, I am only level 6 in BF3 - in BO2, I would have been into the 30s in the same amount of time, starting from level 1.
  • There are classes in Battlefield 3 (Assault, Engineer, Support, Recon) which allow you to heal teammates, fix damaged vehicles, resupply ammo, or provide spawn points (in that order). Black Ops 2 has no such similar classes or abilities.
  • Battlefield 3 has various usable vehicles, such as tanks, Humvees, APCs, buggies, helicopters and planes. There are no vehicles in Black Ops 2 multiplayer (I don't count the RC-XD, as it is a one-use weapon, not really a vehicle).
  • Destructible environments in Battlefield 3. Portions of buildings or other things you might use for cover can be destroyed leaving gaping holes in that house you previously used as a hiding spot. There is no such similarity in Black Ops 2 other than exploding barrels and cars.

One other major difference that is affected by the map sizes is the bullet dynamics that is present in Battlefield 3. I had thought it was simply a difference because of the game itself, but in thinking about it, the small sizes of the maps in Black Ops 2 don't really lend themselves to realistic bullet drop. Because the maps are so small and the distances from one place that can be seen to another are so short, it wouldn't make sense in BO2. Having an enemy over a mile away, and at several hundred feet lower altitude in Battlefield 3, it makes sense that you cannot just aim at someone and hit them; bullet drop over long distances only makes sense, and the massive map layouts lend themselves to this.

Cool! So Which One is Better?

Is country music or rock music better? Is dragonfruit or pomegranate better? There is no right or wrong answer here, because people's tastes are so different, they will each have to decide for themselves.

If I am in the mood for a long, drawn out fight with running and hiding, testing my skills as a sniper, and close support squads moving together to take an objective, then I will turn to Battlefield 3 with no hesitation. If, however, I have a short amount of time, and just feel like getting a bunch of quick, easy kills, I will bring up Black Ops 2 and get into a hockey-style, fast-paced brawl with a bunch of other like-minded individuals.

There is no answer I can give for you. You will have to decide which you like better, and either try them out, or take a chance based on the research into each game. Right now, I am loving Battlefield 3, but who knows - next week, I may take a break from it and kick some Black Ops 2 butt again!

Hope that was informative. If you have anything to add, or your own opinions on which you prefer, hit up my comments section below! Also, check out my Battlefield 3 review or my review of Black Ops 2 League Play.


-- Slyde


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Christian 3 years ago

      Yea hopfully I see you out there but I like being an engineer because it has weapons that defend you and weapons that can attack but thank you for giving me suggestions about the game.i think the scar-h or the m4a1 i think its called because you can make it so you can stand back and just shoot or you can be up in battle because you can just add a suspresser an acog

    • SlydeDraco profile image

      Sean K. Lueck 3 years ago from Kanata, ON

      Hey Christian: Best gun is somewhat an individual choice, but also depends on what you want to do. I have always enjoyed the P90 and MP7 for close quarters combat situations, and PP-2000 is good for laying some bullets down in small spaces. For shotguns, the Remington and Saiga are both pretty powerful, as is the DAO-12, but it's a slow reload.

      For snipers, I liked the SKS and M39, but I was never much of a sniper for the most part. M16 is always a good reliable AR, but I also liked the F2000.

      And for laying down good suppressing fire (always helpful in those times where you are trying to take or hold a flag, or get in on an M-COM position in Rush) the SAW (M249), M60, and PKP Pecheneg are all good options.

      These are, of course, just my opinion based on my own gameplay. But they are some suggestions you could potentially try! Hope you are having fun playing B3! Maybe I will see you out there!

    • profile image

      Christian 3 years ago

      Also if anyone else wants to friend me my gamer tag is Dixie174 no spaces

    • profile image

      Christian 3 years ago

      Battlefield is so much better but what gun is a good gun on battlefield 3 because all the guns seem not to good

    • profile image

      Jeremy 4 years ago

      I really like to play BF3 and BO2 both, its just they both have the good and bad. Its just not good and bad, its Really good or Really bad!


      BO2 has more realistic gun fighting and bullet damage, but has very small maps, and no jets, tanks, ect. No camping depending on your preference. Has hardcore for a single shot to the leg to kill someone which is a little to far from looking real! But I would rather play a game that plays like it does compared to 4,5,6 shots to kill them close range.

      BF3 has lots of things to fight in, great graphics on my PS3 with large maps and a nice sized selection of them, along with camping if you like. But the realistic part when it comes to gun fights are a JOKE! you can shoot players at 30 meters with a machine gun, hit them 5 times in the chest and they will either shot back and hit you with a single shot from a 1911 handgun and kill you or simply jump away. NOT very realistic! Not to mention a shot to the head with a SNIPER and the can still stand, SURE!

      If BO2 and BF3 would join up with maps, guns, graphics, and real life shooting it would be a long time before it would be beat by another FPS game! If they say realistic then TRY HARDER no person in this world could take a shot to the chest with ANY gun and still stand let alone walk away. Not many people wouldn't be able to shot back with a single shot to the foot either. Come on games and try hard for a better experience in gaming not just a better amount of money for your pocket!

    • SlydeDraco profile image

      Sean K. Lueck 4 years ago from Kanata, ON

      LOL. Thanks for your candid opinion, kyle. :-)

    • profile image

      kyle 4 years ago

      the worst review i ever read...