When comparing major games, many people consider Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty WWII because of the realism of the game and not much fantasy. But which one is better? Both Are set in a Similar time period, Battlefield in World War 1, and Call of Duty WWII in World War 2. Both of these games are extremely realistic and use engines that can support the real feel of an old fashioned war game. Both of these games are extremely realistic and will bring a thrill to anyone who enjoys an old fashion game instead of the new future based war games.
For Information comparing Roblox and Minecraft click here
When it comes to historical accuracy, neither games hit the mark but one does come closer. This game being Battlefield one, not necessarily because the story is historically accurate, but because the equipment is mostly historically accurate. In Battlefield one, most of the weapons and equipment are on par with the real thing except for a couple of errors in the builds of weapons and possible reloading animations. While Call of Duty WWII is quite far from that of a realistic story or use of equipment. These games are both based on crazy wars that actually happened and are definitely not fictional. Though these games are based on these wars they do not come very close to what actually happened in these wars and missed many very important details.
Which war game is better
Both games are very good games but it comes down to two things that would sell these games for me, story and realism. One of these games has the best story, and the other has the best realism. compared to each other they rank at a 50/50 scale on comparison between these two things. The one that really sells it for me is the story. I don’t really focus on the realism of the game too much but i know that other people are different and may like the most realistic feel that they can get on the market. If you are going for an amazing story definitely go with call of duty WWII. If you are looking for the realism however, battlefield 1 is the way to go.
On the conversation of which game is more entertaining, I would have to say call of duty WWII because of the story and how it really gets pushed forward. Battlefield 1 seems to drag you slowly through the entire events of the war while Call of Duty WWII pushes along the story quite well. The games starts straight from the beginning of the american invasion and pushes all the way to then end of the war. This really keeps you involved in the missions and the play style of the game. While battlefield 1 really rushes you into the story and does not give you a big time to try and adjust to the very intense play style where there is no very subtle moments and is mostly full of action play style while Call of Duty WWII has a more laid back play style.
The graphic comparison of these games is partially alike. Both games feel extremely realistic in the sense of graphics while you are playing. When playing them people may get the feeling that they are actually in the game.Now more games are coming out with V.R.. V.R. can change the way that we play games. When using a V.R. it is almost as if the game comes to life. When playing these games, they can both be compared closely. They are set in almost the same type of era. This means that many places may be the same. These two games compare on a larges scale by the way that they are built. When these games were released many people raved over how realistic they were. After years of them being released though, the graphics begin to get old.
Both these games are amazing games but one comes over the other. After comparing both of them two big factors came into play. One of them was graphics and the other was the story. The game that in my opinion wins is Call of Duty WWII. This game wins because of the combination of amazing story and graphics.