Overall, I must vote CoD. It's faster-paced and very popular, so there's ALWAYS a lot of people on the newest game to play against. Plus, Batlefield, while it is more realistic, that realism can make for some annoying, rage-worthy gameplay, and takes a LOT more effort than CoD.
It all depends on what you want out of a game. CoD has a larger community, but at a cost. Battlefield has just enough players but a skill balancing issue, but it's not bad at all. CoD is kind of repetitive and can get old quickly and really has only one style of play (not talking about modes, plenty of game modes though). Battlefield has a few game modes but tons of ways to play. You could focus on supporting your teammates in a firefight, close quarters combat, or sniping and most are viable strategies on almost every map. Cod, in summary, is a fish and a game that only really has a run around and shoot stuff play-style, while BattleField has a few game modes but has mastered having multiple ways to play the game. It kinda reminds me of TF2, just a little.
10 months ago
Last edited at 1:17PM on 5/17/2013
Battlefield= more tactical more realistic, more like real battles, more weapons,Huge Maps, Alot of players in each team, Alot of skill is required since this game is based off real life combat. C.O.D.= More fast paced, Different types of Gun Camo, fun killstreaks, kill cams, Throwing knives and Tomahawks, Zombies, special ops, gun stickers, Customizable Scopes, game for quick-scopers, many popular Youtube People play them. Little to alot of skill is required since it's not based on real combat yet more close quarters combat.
It depends on your preference and whether you focus on Single Player or Multiplayer. I, personally, prefer Battlefield. Here's a rundown of the Multiplayer side of things (I've not played the campaign for Battlefield, but Call of Duty was pretty horrid).
Battlefield 3 is a lot bigger, there are more players on each team, and it is a lot more tactical.Teams are divided into squads, which are made up of four or five different players. The squads can communicate internally using mics, but can't communicate with other squads (as far as I know). This means that in a larger-scale battle, there's a lot of potential for one team to dominate by effectively using tactics and force interchangeably. Another advantage to Battlefield is the ability to utilize vehicles and other machinery.
On the other hand, Call of Duty Multiplayer is a lot faster, a sort of run-and-gun-'em game for players who just like to kill kill kill. If that sort of game is your speed, then go for it. (Oh, also: Call of Duty has Zombies for Black Ops and World At War, and Survival Mode for Modern Warfare.)
Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are great franchises. Battlefield presents a more open, and more available field of battle. It gives the option to pick what class you think you and your squad will benefit with most, and allows different approaches to playing the game, such as rushing with tanks, hovering above in a helicopter, or gliding the skies in a jet, but customization is set for each designated class,(e.g.), medic, support, engineer, and scout. The only really bad thing is that if you plan on downloading the updates and getting the add-ons, you should know that they take up a lot of room compared to call of duty, and it may take a while to adjust to the multiplayer. Call of Duty presents a much more fast-paced, adaptable multiplayer. It offers perks, more game types, and much larger population, but it may get repetitive and bland.