• Overall yes. Call of Duty is a bigger (hence better) franchise.

    Call of Duty is the most popular videogame franchise of all time. Everyone knows about Call of Duty, but some people do not know about Battlefield. I do prefer Battlefield to Call of Duty, but statistically speaking, Call of Duty is a better franchise. Not statistically speaking, it's just all opinion. If you get more in depth with your games and like strategy, then Battlefield is for you. If you like straight up playing, and fast paced gaming, then the Call of Duty franchise is for you. Commercial products are all about sales and if C.O.D has more sales, then it is better.

  • Battlefield copies call of duty

    First they copy weapon camos which is bad enough and now they have the audacity to copy knifing too? When will you battlefield fanboys accept that call of duty is the superior game which requires more skill and team play to win. I don't see MLG battlefield, i wonder why?? LOL.

  • In most ways

    Battlefield's realism is lacking. For starters, a soldier wouldn't be driving a tank or helicopter. They would be on the ground, mostly in urban environments. While they wouldn't have "Bling" or "Sleight of hand," bullets would be 1 shot kills, so in truth, battlefield is not realistic at ALL. -Me

  • Way BETTER customization of classes.

    My friends and I have played both games. But we realize that Battlefield just doesn't cut it for customization. 1) COD has a lot more guns and accessories. 2) more add-ons to many different weapons. 3) kill streaks can be customized at the main screen. Thank you for reading this review!

  • Cod is better than Battlefield because Cod is all the way up to Cod 10 and Battlefield is only up to 4. Battlefield SUCKS.

    I hate Battlefield because Call of duty is more exciting and the grafices are so AWESOME. Cod zombies and multiplayer is so cool as well. All my friends say that Battlefield is better than Call of duty, i have been a Call of duty fan ever since Call of duty 1 came out.

  • Best FPS ever

    Many games of battlefield series was a fail and call of duty is a great success on every single game battlefield only got better because of how well call of duty gameplay performs and battlefield gotten better after that and in my opinion call of duty is the father of FPS

  • Better grapics and guns

    I love call of duty but not battlefield. First i work for it so call of duty has better guns than battlefield.Call of duty yes battle feild no. Not battlepee. Ok i dont want to go to school. So buy my games and keep killing and playing and buy all of my games thanks

  • Call of Duty Is Better

    I prefer Call of Duty and think that is a better game overall. The game play in Call of Duty feels more natural and the graphics are better a well. Call of Duty is better when playing online a well. There are always much more people playing it online than Battlefield.

  • Battlefield is worse than Cod

    Because for example if. Join mid game battlefield you are likely to be killed by a jet or helicopter if u do not have any experienced players on your team it can be hard if not quite difficult to take down a jet or helicopter. By this I mean the game is not friendly to new players. With cod being new doesn't make it any harder for you because the default classes can sometimes consist of some of the best weapons in the game for example MW3 game u the ump and the striker as default weapons giving the new players good weapons to start then off. There are many more arguments I could use but most of them have already been said basically battlefield is more realistic while COD is generally more fast paced and more and fun.

  • Yes it is

    In call of duty you can quick scope and spawn kill squeakers while in battlefield no one talks and you cant quick scope and people in helicopters suck because they cant drive and kill me by crashing into the ocean and there's to many random explosions and half the time I cant figure out how Albert Einstein figured out that E=mc2 and I always thought that E was a letter but apparently it is a number and it makes me confused :( also battlefield is sooooooooooooooooo unrealistic and Rob sucks at counter strike xD

  • Battlefield is the better company.

    In Battlefield you can see DICE's innovation, but in Call of Duty: ghosts, they have little or no innovation at all.

    For example:
    1. They copied Battlefield knife animation
    2. They copied the idea of destructible environments
    3. They implemented vehicles ( in the trailer you see a character riding in a heli)

    DICE should not put up with this, as all those feature were in battlefield since 2005.

  • COD's a kid game.

    My first COD was Black ops. I loved it, played it almost everyday. I met friends on there who I still talk to 3 years later. I continued to play COD, got a new one every year, not because it was new. I got it because my friends got it, plain and simple. Now 3 years later I have matured more and realized that COD just annoys me now. Host migration, lag, little 10 year olds, etc. I started playing Battlefield and I loved it. The idea of being able to be a jet pilot or a rouge sniper whenever I wanted was awesome. One of my old COD friends plays it too, and when battlefield 4 comes out I'm getting it and AC4. COD sucks. Oh and reading the COD fanboy arguments on the left made me laugh. "I don't even know what Battlefield is" "COD's more realistic" "I'm 12 and I can't hit puberty"

  • Why is this even a question?

    Call of Duty is a one-dimensional game. That is to say, the only focus is to kill people. That's it. As such, it's "huge variety of maps" are all tiny, to promote the killing. First of all, Battlefield HAS exactly that kind of gameplay for those who want it, so it's already on an equal standpoint. There are plenty of small maps in Battlefield 3, as well as an abundance of utterly gigantic maps.

    Battlefield 3's greatness lies in that there are nearly limitless ways to kill your enemies, and it rewards creativity. Want to stay old-fashioned and kill people with just your guns? Great, go ahead. Want to kill people by loading a vehicle with C4, driving it into the enemy base, jumping out and detonating it, killing everything in a giant fire ball of death? Cool. You can do that. Not only are there a ridiculous number of avenues for taking you enemies down, they're all fairly balanced. A sniper can shoot the pilots out of flying vehicles, an engineer can utterly destroy ground vehicles with RPGs or landmines. Each and every class has it's strengths, but somehow lack many weaknesses. What does Call of Duty have? Oh yeah, the same old "12 year-olds shooting each other on some guy's lawn" game. There's no variety in that. It's just killing people over and over in the same, revamped tiny ass maps with nothing to do but point and shoot guns, which EVERY FPS offers anyway. Call of Duty's popularity is one of life's greatest mysteries.

    Battlefield 3 has far more variety, not only in content, but in gameplay, than the entire Call of Duty franchise has to offer.

  • This game is awesome

    More realistic and requires skills and fast thinking. This game is amazing in its own way. The guns are just right when it comes down to knocking down a enemy and you have to think every step you take because you never know who is going to take you tags

  • No, Just NO.

    Of course, everyone has different opinions, I understand that COD is a pretty decent game franchise, but it's just the same thing over and over again, it also doesn't really require much strategy either. Sure, put some claymores around your camping spots and start sniping, but thats really it. Battlefield on the other hand, is all about strategy and working in squads to achieve objectives and what not. Although I wouldnt exactly call Battlefield realistic, COD is even worse, "Hey guys, lets make a perk that allows you to reload in .2 of a second"

    Battlefield also has better dynamic destruction and also.. Graphics, also 64 player maps and in general, Battlefield has a lot more work put into it.

    Don't even bother saying that COD puts this stuff in because it is more enjoyable, They also made one shot snipers too, yeah, lovely, and seeing as all the maps are small, bullet drop and travel speed are basically not a problem.

  • Its better in every single way.

    It just is, nobody has to explain why. All the cod fanboys saying cod is better, havent even tried playing battlefield. I started out with cod, loved it, then i tried bf3 and i thought it was the best game ive ever played. Im not saying cod is bad, but its definitely not better than battlefield.

  • IMO, i think they both offer different things.

    When I was 12 i liked COD. Now i'm older, i prefer Battlefield. Anyway, i think its unfair to say that one game is better than the other. COD gives you that fast-paced, arcadey gameplay and there is nothing better than a good old intense team deathmatch. COD has a variety of customisations and unlocks which is also cool. Yes, Battlefield doesn't have the amount that COD does regarding weapons but when you take into account all the vehicle customisations they level each other out. Battlefield has more of a variety of map sizes but COD doesn't need big maps as the gameplay is fast and intense, a huge map would ruin that. Vehicles are a big plus in BF and give you a variety of ways to kill people. A tank, jeep, jet, helicopter, a lot of variety. COD offers the better campaign IMO. BF tried to copy the linear, Hollywood-style COD campaign in BF3 and it doens't work. It doesn't suit BFs gameplay style. I haven't played the last few CODs but one thing you dont get in BF is hackers like in MW2. You still get campers in both however. BF is without a doubt more realistic. Destruction (not scripted) , bullet drop, recoil etc. Some don't like it some do. COD isn't trying to go full-out realistic and is more of a casual game what you can play all the time and enjoy, whereas in BF, I sometimes find that it can take a couple of games for you to really get into a game but when you do it is amazing. Both have its strengths and weaknesses and each strength and weakness cancel each other out IMO. I prefer Battlefield now because I like that team-work, realism and variety but still like COD (the older ones - COD 4 - COD 6)

  • Only in battlefield kids

    If you read the cod supporting text, you can tell it is just a bunch of 10 year old babies complaining that their franchise is better. Back on topic, I have played ghosts AND bf4 and I cannot emphasise battlefields superiority enough (big words right. Cod kids wont understand)lol) let me ask the average cod fanboy (age 10) a few questions ( all of them end with "in cod"). Can you blow up a building? Can you make a crater with a c4? Can you perform a veriety of assasinations? Can you load c4 onto a car and drive it into a tank and blow it up in a fiery ball of death and destruction? CAN YOU EVEN DRIVE? Can you jump off of a building that is crumbling beneath you WHILE shooting a rocket at a helicopter? CAN YOU EVEN JUMP OFF A BUILDING AND PARACHUTE? Can you go up an elevator in an A.T.V and ride off the building? These are just a few examples of only in battlefield moments. I could go on forever. Just ask yourself cod fanboys....... Are you just not man enough for the battlefield?? ;)
    Cod is for boys while bf is for men

  • Never, call fo duty is kid game

    Call of duty is kid game every player is a kid, battlefield is complicated wich mean you have to be older to understand and smart, a regular player in bf is like the best player in cod, bf is better and will always be. Cod is boring , nuff said.

  • Battlefield is better

    Battlefield has a lot more weapon choices than CoD, and that is one of my favorite things in games which is the weapons. Also, there are a lot more vehicles and realistic combat situations, and one of CoD's main problems is the unrealistic combat. You can probably have more fun in Battlefield 3.

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