Battlefield is a better game series than Call of Duty

Well, I'd be happy to share the reasons I prefer Call of Duty, but first I suppose I should clarify which games in each series I've actually played. Call of Duty: I've played five of the nine games currently available. I started with World at War (the fifth release), and each of the four released after that. I've completed all of the single player campaigns, excluding Black Ops 2, the most recent release.Battlefield: I've only played Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3. I didn't complete either single player campaign, though I did play through some of each. I didn't find the campaigns in Battlefield to be very engaging, and wasn't able to get sucked into them at all. I didn't much care for the campaigns in Call of Duty, either. There were only two reasons I even played through them entirely. One was putting the difficulty on veteran to hone my skills. The other was for achievements. Because of this, I will focus my attention on the multiplayer aspect, as that's the only place I find any real enjoyment in either. Both games have pros and cons to the multiplayer, and the gameplay in each is vastly different, but I'll get to that a little bit further on.Realism For now, I'll turn my attention to the realism aspect. I won't argue against Battlefield being more realistic. I agree completely that it is, but I don't agree that it really matters. Yes, the games are both set in the real world, but that doesn't mean they have to be completely real, or that having more realistic integrity makes them better. I have no doubt that realism is important to many people. I also have no doubt that to many people, such as myself, that realism is highly unimportant. That said, there are many contributing factors to why it's more realistic, but since the destructible environment is probably the biggest of those factors, I'll concentrate on that. It is most certainly an amazing feature that, as far as I know, isn't in any other game. That's not to say it doesn't have drawbacks to it, though:Drawback #1: To incorporate such a feature, the maps have to be much larger than they otherwise would. This makes for a slower paced game, as it takes longer to get to the action if you're killed. Well, the multiplayer in Battlefield has vehicles, and this naturally counters that problem, at least somewhat. It is further countered by allowing players to spawn at a teammates location, or in a vehicle with them. At this point, you might be asking yourself, "Well, what's the problem then?" The problem with it, for me at least, is that one of the reasons I prefer Call of Duty is because it doesn't have player controlled vehicles in it's multiplayer. It originally did, but they've since been phased out of it completely. World at War had some maps with a few tanks on them, and the games after that had nothing. Battlefield has a plethora of vehicles on the majority of its maps, ranging from ATV's and jet skis, to helicopters and jets. This makes it less of a first person shooter, and more of a full-on war game. While this may be a good thing to some people, it's not what I'm looking for.The spawning on teammates also brings problems, as sometimes players will spawn behind nearby enemies. It makes it hard to keep a sense of any sort of a frontline, and essentially impossible to use tactics to cover your teams flanks. For me, this is an even bigger problem than the vehicles. Drawback #2: In Call of Duty, if you have a couple snipers on a roof, and a couple guys guys in the building protecting them, you have three choices. You can try and out-snipe the snipers, you can do a tactical sweep on the protectors, and come at the snipers close range, or you can risk spreading your team thin and try both at once. In any case, it requires you to have more skill than the other player. If I die because the other player has more skill, I can accept that.In Battlefield, however, you have that fourth option, you can just blow up the building. But blowing up buildings doesn't take skill. You just need some explosives. Take out a few sections of the base walls, and the whole thing comes crashing down. For me, this hurts the game more than helping it. Again, I can only speak for myself, and this may not hold true for other players. GameplayAs I said earlier, I find the gameplay between the two series to be vastly different. BOTH games have game modes such as Capture the Flag. Considering Pro has played both, I'm not sure why he thinks it's only in Battlefield. I'll leave it to Pro to include the different modes included in Battlefield, as he's played them more than I have. These require varying levels teamwork to be successful, but all of them benefit from it (excluding Free-For-All, for obvious reasons). The modes that are consistently in Call of Duty [1] are as follows: - Team Deathmatch- Mercenary Team Deathmatch - Free-For-All - Capture the Flag- Domination- Headquarters- Ground War- Search and DestroyMany of these are available in hardcore (limited HUD, no health regeneration, no mini-map) as well as core. I prefer to play either Team Deathmatch, Domination, Ground War, or Search and Destroy so I'll talk about those for a moment. - Team Deathmatch is simple. You just kill people. First team to get 75 kills wins. - Domination is a little more complicated, and the more coordinated and tactical tam will generally win. There are three domination areas, and a team gets a point a second for each area it has control of. You need to work as a team in this in order to keep the control of captured areas, while simultaneously capturing the areas controlled by the opposing team. First team to 200 points wins.- Ground War is just a mixed playlist of the Domination and Team Deathmatch modes, but with teams of 9 instead of teams of 6.- Search and Destroy is the most tactically demanding game mode there is, no holds bar. It's teams of up to 6, and consists of up to 7 rounds, with each player getting one life per round. One team tries to plant a bomb at one of two targets within a certain time limit. Each team gets three rounds to attack, and three rounds to defend, with the tie breaking round being random. Attackers win a round when the bomb is planted and detonated, or the defenders are all killed. Defenders win a round when time runs out, or the attackers are all killed. With only one life per round, players have to be very tactical. Winning consistently in this does not happen without strong tactics and teamwork. First team to win 4 rounds wins the game. Besides the standard game modes, Treyarchs games (World at War, Black Ops 1 & 2) also include the Zombies game mode [2]. This mode can be played both single player, and co-operatively with up to 4 players. The objective is to survive round after round of attack by the zombie horde. With each round, zombies become harder to kill, and more zombies attack. This mode, whether you're playing with a few friends, or trying to survive on your own, can be extremely fun and challenging. Graphics And, of course, the graphics. Better graphics most definitely enhance a games quality. But, they also come second to good gameplay, always. While I agree that Battlefield 4 looks amazing, so does every other next gen game I've seen footage for, including Call of Duty: Ghosts. Since screenshots can never do a games graphics justice, here is a link to gameplay footage for Call of Duty: Ghostshttp://www.callofduty.com...[1] Call of Duty, Game Mode Details - http://callofduty.wikia.com...[2] Zombies Game Mode Details - http://callofduty.wikia.com...(mode) [3] General Call of Duty Information - http://en.wikipedia.org...(series)[4] General Battlefield Information - http://en.wikipedia.org...(series)