• Oh come on cod sucks

    Everyone says that cod is better because more players play it! But remember this cod Is on its 9th game now and battlefield is on its 4th! Battlefield has a more realistic game experience that helps you get into it more, but in cod you want to quit after 5 minutes because you are getting beaten by a 10 year old who won't stop playing weird music through his headset and spazzing out every minute.

  • Battlefield is more realistic than CoD

    The Battlefield is more realistic than the Call of Duty, let's be honest. First let's get something straight, I'm a fan of Call of Duty. But Battlefield has much better graphics, and besides requires more skill than the Call of Duty (I'm not saying that the Call of Duty need not skill). Simply Battlefield is made so that you only need more capacity. For example, guns are much more difficult to control. The vehicles require additional skill to be effective. But all this is so because it is the nature of this game such. But I, personally, find the Call of Duty to have more fun, and because it is much faster game, regardless if you're playing as a team.

  • Let me set your mind on something

    A knife thrown at you hits your pinkie no biggie "im fine" *flat-lines* utter bull**** COD when they ran out of history they made their own creative and innovative but the mechanics i mean seriously
    SKILLSHOT 306 no scope triple killshot suicide double y! I mean really guys make a better mechanic then trowing a knife through a window then bouncing 3 feet in the air and into the guys pinkie i mean... Wow

  • Of Course it's More Realistic

    There is no denying that Battlefield is a more realistic game than Call of Duty, not that it makes Battlefield a better game. Battlefield has bullet drop, more realistic recoil, a more complex sound engine, more players, vehicles, teamwork (which is important in real life), more interactive maps, more realistic movement and of course better visuals (hence why the game is more demanding).

    But they are two very different shooters, Call of Duty is more pick up and play while Battlefield requires you to put time into the game to get the most out of it.

  • Battlefield is by far more of a realistic game

    My opinion is that Battlefield is a lot more realistic due to the types of game modes on cod ALIENS i mean come on seriously this is by far the worst realistic game ever.
    Then once you get into the multi-player part of this game e.g. deathmatch and so on the graphics are horrifically bad compared to Battlefield although battlefield has the best graphics and more of a realistic feel it has its down's but nothing compared to COD.

  • Are you kidding?

    I have a friend who is on seal team 8. He is like a brother and when he came to my base we were playing cod and he said what is this crap. I switched to battlefield and he said that it was a more intense an realistic battlefield made for gamers who actually were good

  • COD barely works

    Call of Duty has left behind its roots at this point as a realistic combat simulator to become an arcadey fragfest, whereas Battlefield, not exactly the most realistic game, has at least made great strides to be the more authentic purchase of the two. Battlefield games are more intricate and well made than Call of Duty at this point.

  • Battlefield Wins Realism War

    Between Call of Duty and Battlefield, the Battlefield series features far more realistic gameplay. Both games take some liberties compared to actual wars. However, Battlefield beats CoD in realism in many ways. The weapons act more realistically, and the same goes for the vehicles. Plus, the stories and action scenes are more believable.

  • Definitely More Realistic

    To me there is no question that Battlefield is more realistic then Call of Duty. When buying a game though most people aren't thinking which is more realistic. They are thinking which is more fun to play and the gameplay of Call of Duty is better than that of Battlefield.

  • Blue hat runners

    Cod was my fav game ever, until advanced warfare and lost its way, what is the point of any camo, when you have blue hat, yellow shirts and red guns running and jumping and shouting without any aim, cod have lost all reality, in any real life they would be dead and gone, I am not saying that they do not have skill and good reactions, they do, but that is not the game I want to play, I want a more realistic, getting my heart going, scared to pop my head up, not some blue hat running the spawn,

    Battlefield 1, was the first I got as I would not get the new cod infinity , and I am so glad, it does what I it says, I love it,

    Gave cod a go on ww2, same old running, no brain needed, so sadly that's it , not even going to get this years, going to battlefield v , all the clan is too

  • No, Call of Duty is better.

    No, Battlefield is not more realistic than CoD, because CoD did a better job of making the game look like it is real. I have talked to people who have fought in wars, and they have described it more like CoD than Battlefield. CoD also has better graphics, that make me feel like I am really there. It is intense.

  • Battlefield is not more realistic than CoD.

    Although Battlefield has a lot of fans, it is not as realistic as Call of Duty. Call of Duty has superior graphics and a better story line, both of which make the game play and the total experience more realistic. Battlefield is still a good game, but it is not as realistic.

  • No, not necessarily.

    CoD and Battlefield both have parts in their gameplay that is realistic, but than also like "That could never happen!" Off the top of my head I know that CoD Ghosts has a dog that is super crazy and almost impossible to take down, which is not that way in real life. However the graphics are amazingly realisitc.

  • Depends on the gamer.

    When it comes to realism in first person shooter, this question gets tossed around quite a bit, and can be biased at some points. I think both games, having played them both already, excersise roughly the same amount of realism. It really depends on the gamer and what they consider better.

  • Get over it.

    Although both game are pretty intense, people are still saying that Battlefield is so realistic that it not. The only disadvantage is the health regeneration and a bunch of other crap that you don't find in COD. COD, however, offer you intense gameplay and amazing multiplayer that will leave you in rage. Battlefield multiplayer is boring when you're out stuck somewhere in a huge ass map.

  • Call of Duty has a faster time to kill.

    In Call of Duty a 5.56 x 45 mm round will kill a player with full health in 3-5 shots. In Battlefield, the minimum shots for the same round are 5. What seems more realistic? It is true that Battlefield has actual in-game geometry for bullets which are affected by gravity and travel at different speeds. Call of Duty uses the point and shoot hit scans. However, why does realistic bullet behavior matter if the lethality is not present. In real life, a military operator is trained to aim at the head and fire two shots in quick succession, what is known as double tapping. Call of Duty requires less shots to kill and therefore simulates the effect of double tapping better.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.