Where does one even begin with these two franchises?  I mean, I legitimately don’t understand how anyone can say one is better than the other.  In reality, yes, they are FPS and have the same basic functions but overall, they are very much drastically different games.

Call of Duty is more of an arcade shooter as opposed to Battlefield which is more of a realistic (but somewhat arcadish) shooter.  I’ve been a fan of both games for quite awhile and I’ve transitioned from console to PC (though I do switch back and forth) and after really playing them for a long period of time, I can really feel the difference.

For the longest time, I couldn’t quite get a grasp on Battlefield since I was a long time Call of Duty player before hand. Even though a lot of the controls were set up the same in Battlefield as I had them set up in Call of Duty.  I could do a game in CoD Hardcore TMD that was 24:3, no problem but in Battlefield, I would have had to have some incredible luck where I would be -1 or so in KDR.  I just couldn’t quite figure it out.

Call of Duty was just really different, I concluded.  Kill streaks, perks, etc, was all different and gave me a very different gaming experience.  I loved every moment of it.  In CoD: Modern Warfare 2, I did my first Prestige and man, I don’t know why I did.  Pressure of my clan? Trying to fit in? Just because?  I don’t know, but I shouldn’t have done it because the reason I play the game is for fun, not because I need a new medal to show how much more ‘advanced’ of a player I was.

Battlefield was also very much a different experience.  In recent times, I’ve started getting a better grip at the game where I have been doing better.  I’ve been able to actually go positive and kick ass.  But the game types are so much more different than CoD.

There was one game where I was MVP only because I focused on capturing the points rather than just killing since that is what really determined whether we won or not.  I mean, look at the image to the left, I’m MVP, I got the highest award, best assault and yet, my KDR is terrible!

I’m a team player, I killed to stop people from getting our points, I protected teammates, I get a TON of kill assist, repaired vehicles, revived teammates, but I never focused on just purely killing (unless the game was TDM which I rarely play).

And something that really adds to a different experience for me between Call of Duty and Battlefield is that in Battlefield, I’m more of the vehicle person.  I use tanks to kick ass, run people over, etc.  I don’t do planes or choppers because I don’t understand the controls but aside from that, I’m all about vehicles.  Given the chance, I will be in a vehicle.

The games are just so different and they really do give me a DRASTIC experience that I enjoy.  Both games offer me different gameplay and different things that the other game just can’t offer me.

There are novelities of both games that make them very unique and fun to play.  I understand that everyone can only stand a certain type of gameplay or how others can only handle certain aspects of a game, so, yes, I understand when someone chooses one over the other.

What I don’t understand is when someone has to say that one is BETTER than the other.  It just doesn’t make any sense to me because yes, they are both FPS, but still, they are different games.  You know, apples and oranges, they are both fruits but they are different fruits and you can’t really compare them to each other.

I think both games are incredibly fun and enjoyable.  I can’t say I prefer one over the other because they are so different to me.