The debate is pointless. The same points get said over and over again. People continue to fail to realise that they are completely different games. The only similarity being they are both FPS. It would be like me comparing Counter Strike to Battlefield or CoD. They're only trying to outdo each other in sales, they don't actually care about what features the other games have. They're trying to be as different as possible.
If I recalled 1.6 and Source are still one of the top sellers in the Steam market as well as being very popular even after the years.
I would personally go for Battlefield series, because I like the various vehicles you can use there, plus it's more about teamwork and large-scale battles, rather than lone wolf running around, setting up some hi-tech claymores with lasers and kniving your enemies from the behind (altought all of that can be done in Battlefield series, but the battles there, to me, seem in a more "grander" (probably the word doesn't even exist, but you get it, I meant more grand battles or whatever) scale than CoD.
CoD has small maps with fast paced combat action, while in Battlefield you sometimes engage the enemy from large distances, you can also better use envivorment for your advantage (especially in Bad Company 2, oh my, I just love hiding in bushes in BC2 and raining down bullets on unsuspecting enemies or kniving snipers, it's so easy to hide in bushes).
But, as mentioned previously in this topic, those two games can't really be compared. Battlefield series are more about grand scale battles involving armored vehicles, boats, fighter jets etc., while CoD is all about fast paced close-quarters combat with a bit too unrealistic perks (more of an arcade action FPS game) and such (altought grand scale battles are still possible in CoD, just like fast paced combat is possible in BF, but that's just how I can describe both of those games without making a 8000 word essay that none will read anyways).
Plus, CoD has a bit worse graphics, which gives possibility for more players to play it, that's why it might also dominate in sales. It's a relaxing game, you don't need a beast computer to run it too, simple as that. Battlefield 3 is just going to nom-nom your computer and you need to really go "deeper" into it to enjoy it (you won't really suceed if you just keep running over an open field, you'll get sniped, shot by a tank, blown to pieces with a rocket or anything else that you can get killed with).
And CoD also seems to be more going for medium-quality graphics, fast paced and usually relaxing combat, while Battlefield goes for super-quality graphics, grand scale battles and ... well ... shitload of destruction.
I like both series.
Battlefield: Great action in large scales, vehicles, bombing people is always fun, buildings blowing up is great,
Pilot: "Oh hey, I died in that building, someone's camping in it."
Co-Pilot: "Let's bomb the crap out of it then."
The problem is that we're people. People are shitty beings, you just gotta keep that in mind.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." - Richard Dawkins "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
Troll nomination. Allah and Muhammad for 1400 years of bullshit.