Because they are using the real names instead of making some up for the gun, or even make up guns. An example of this is the striker in Call of Duty, the real name is the Dao-12. This does not mean that Call of Dutys guns are bad. Because the sites or details are much better than Battlefield. Because one reason is a personal experience of battlefield, the iron sights on battlefield are wrong. They sites are off aim! This is literally unacceptable, on a video game you can not have this. The creators of this game clearly do not care about fixing this. In call of duty this does not appear, mostly because call of duty is more known for its red dot sites, and sites in general. Battlefield has more iron sites then tactical sites such as the red dot, which can kind of get really …show more content…
First up is the call of duty franchise, the realism to the game as it goes on gets worse and worse. But the first call of duty was incredible, you got to take old towns in Germany by storm and hold the Germans hostage. It was just altogether a lot more related to warfare than the newer ones. And as one of the main characters on this game you got to do most of the things. O one scene is where you could become a russian and plant the flag to win the war.This year continues the trend of the two franchises going in different directions. This quote shows us how realistic battlefield can be.(Battlefield 1 brings players back to World War I, one of the messiest, most horrific conflicts in history. The game is gritty and realistic, with a surprisingly humane campaign that tonally recalls Band of