[100%] 
Epic flame war time!
I thought I would write this comparison, because I feel they are similar enough to make reasonable conclusions between the two.
With that being said, let's begin.
Get the obvious things out of the way.
They are both shooters, both 'realistic,' in that they aren't set in any future, or past setting, and depending on the one you are playing, they also have similar gametypes.
One key difference to note, is that Battlefield has bullet drop, and impact delay, meaning you actually have to 'aim' the sniper rifle. While Call of Duty doesn't have this, it feels as though even if it did have it, you would never really know, as most of the maps are small enough to not notice.
Call of Duty seems geared more towards fast paced, high action, while Battlefield, with it's humongous maps, leads to more of a slower type of game, though both have the potential to play either way, depending of course, on the people you are in the game with.
Call of Duty has some advantages, if you are the type of person who uses assault rifles, and shotguns, actively 'playing the objective.' The fast paced game is very intense, and at least can keep you interested.
Battlefield has some other advantages... Cause there's tanks... and helicopters....(and hookers...and blackjack!)
Seriously though, having twice as many people in games, and having some small maps, can make for some very intense games, especially if even some of the people are above average players.
This is all bias on my part from here.
I however much prefer Battlefield, for it's killstreak-less bonuses like helicopters, and tanks, mortar strikes, and ammo resupplies, I feel this make the game slightly more balanced in this sense then Call of Duty, as only lucky, or extremely skilled players get them. Also it seems even though there are larger maps, and more things to calculate such as distance, tanks, and vehicles, there doesn't seem to be much lag. Plus the map destruction makes for some very interesting games.
Let me know you opinion, that's what debate is all about!
I thought I would write this comparison, because I feel they are similar enough to make reasonable conclusions between the two.
With that being said, let's begin.
Get the obvious things out of the way.
They are both shooters, both 'realistic,' in that they aren't set in any future, or past setting, and depending on the one you are playing, they also have similar gametypes.
One key difference to note, is that Battlefield has bullet drop, and impact delay, meaning you actually have to 'aim' the sniper rifle. While Call of Duty doesn't have this, it feels as though even if it did have it, you would never really know, as most of the maps are small enough to not notice.
Call of Duty seems geared more towards fast paced, high action, while Battlefield, with it's humongous maps, leads to more of a slower type of game, though both have the potential to play either way, depending of course, on the people you are in the game with.
Call of Duty has some advantages, if you are the type of person who uses assault rifles, and shotguns, actively 'playing the objective.' The fast paced game is very intense, and at least can keep you interested.
Battlefield has some other advantages... Cause there's tanks... and helicopters....(and hookers...and blackjack!)
Seriously though, having twice as many people in games, and having some small maps, can make for some very intense games, especially if even some of the people are above average players.
This is all bias on my part from here.
I however much prefer Battlefield, for it's killstreak-less bonuses like helicopters, and tanks, mortar strikes, and ammo resupplies, I feel this make the game slightly more balanced in this sense then Call of Duty, as only lucky, or extremely skilled players get them. Also it seems even though there are larger maps, and more things to calculate such as distance, tanks, and vehicles, there doesn't seem to be much lag. Plus the map destruction makes for some very interesting games.
Let me know you opinion, that's what debate is all about!
