[Bacon]

I am not trying to start drama I am just going to keep the statistics unbiased, and sense these both games are on three/four consoles, I shall keep it set to general statistics, not xbox, ps3, or pc.

Sense I am a Battlefield fan myself, I should start with CoD. These are the next step-up game, ie; Battlefield 4, CoD Ghosts.

Key Code:
[*] means explain at the bottem
[#] Means not confirmed.
[$] means it replaces something

Spoiler:

Call of Duty Ghosts:
Trailer:

Spoiler:

Details;

What's new: Dynamic Loading screens[#], Dynamic Maps[$], Slightly Bigger maps, Rebuilt engine[*], Sliding[$], Rolling[$].

Guns:
|||Confirmed via trailers and reveals: M4a1, Honey badger, MTAR, UMP-45, Dragonov, CZ 805, Vector, FAL, APS, Scar-H
|||Unconfirmed due to visual: AK-variant(Many say AK47, AK74U. I say AK108)[#]
|||Sights: Hybrid, Acog, Red Dot, Default Iron Sights

Perks: Unknown

Streaks: Unknown

Customization: Unknown

Note: To be edited with information as released. May not be updated until launch.

Here comes my favorite part.

Spoiler:

Battlefield 4:
Trailer:

Spoiler:

What's new: Five man squads, Bigger maps, 64-person games(32 red 32 blue), Water against water warfare(improved), Huge collapsing skyscrapers(Check out the trailer), COMMANDER mode, Knife takedown rebounds, limited tank/heli ammunition, Swimming with pistols, Reloading clip wastes ammunition.

What's tweaked: Many customizations. ex; Handgun customs, physical customs, class customs. I expect it's going to be a little closer to the customization of CoD.

Guns:
|||Confirmed:
Assault Rifles QBZ-95-1, CZ805, M16A3, AEK-971, HK416.
Carbines M4A1, AK5C.
Snipers Steyr Scout Elite, QBU-88, SV-98, Kel-Tec RFB.
LMG Mk.46 Mod. 0, Ultimax-100, QJY-88.
SMG/PDW CZ3A1, P90, U-100 M5K.
Pistols M9A1, QSZ-92, MP412 REX
Shotguns Serbu Super Shorty, Saiga-12, Hawk 12 Gauge, M26 MASS, Norinco V1218
Other/Grenade/Melee Milkor MGL Mk 1S, M320, RPG-7, FIM-92 Stinger, SRAW, XM25 CDTE, C4, M67 frag, M34 WP "Incendiary grenade", MTN-55 M9 Bayonet, Shank type.

Image of weapon custom screen with camo.

Spoiler:

Engine Explained:

Spoiler:

Rebuilt Engine: The CoD engine is like a human body, you have the fine detail like hair, skin, soft tissues. Then finally you have the bones, the basic structure of the system. The fine details like lag comp and FPS-ties are all soft tissues. The basic mechanics, kind of like head glitching, is in the basic structure.

Final conclusion: Based on what I have listed here(Note it may not all be 100% accurate) Battlefield 4 is going for diversity on all of their possible combat ways. Call of Duty Ghosts, they may be shrouded, but they might not be ahead. I like battlefield more, one reason is you get the feel your in real combat. You can feel how a tower will collapse due to all the combat on it.

My Opinion: Battlefield is much much better than CoD because for one, I don't deal with... pretty much all the static guns that have been with CoD. I like the sniping physics. Plus, they have a great new engine, unlike the Quake 3 engine CoD works on. [Don't think I am hating on CoD, I don't like CoD for the engine it uses. Check the "Engine Explained" Spoiler.

[Blue]

I am more of a Battlefield fan seeing as it includes tank's and planes that you can actually get in manually. As well as the realism.

[Bacon]

Blue, I prefer Battlefield because it has the most top notch realism I have ever seen.

[Blue]

Well if you are looking for realism get Arma 3 or Arma 2. I have them both. Great and most realistic military games around!

[Bacon]

Unless their 360 games, my pc is too slow.

[Anizeb]

ARMA, or at least ARMA II, is very far from realistic. They aimed too high and shot too low.
There's a lot you can do, sure, but damned if nothing works as intended.

Battlefield is better in terms of both functionality and realism, although the multiplayer maps are too large for their own good. They look terrible.

Call of Duty, on the hand, has the opposite problem. Their maps are too small, they're not diverse enough. (MW3 is an exception however. Their maps are actually quite perfect, if a little boring in small groups.)

But in reality, I'm not a fan of any multiplayer FPS. It's a genre that's essentially the same, no matter what the game is. I like fresh gameplay, so games that are effectively duplicates of each other just don't do it for me.

That said, an FPS that focuses on the campaign mode rather than the multiplayer mode is much more interesting. MW3, again, isn't as bad as the others. The story is actually somewhat captivating.

(The only mass FPS I really enjoy is Black Ops Wii. Damned if that isn't fun.)

[Bacon]

By that logic, "Their all the same."

Final Fantasy viii is the same as viii-2 and vii. Then fable is the same as FF. Then Forza Motorsport is the same as Need for Speed. You thinking too narrow in my opinion. If your going to buy a FPS, then you need to make sure 1. You have friends(Mr. Lonely is not any fun.) 2. Good quality and choice to make. 3. Big maps, but not too big. (Battlefield 3's maps were REALLY big, I mostly sniped. I got a 1200 meter shot once by pure luck.) The bf3 cqc maps were amazing though. You never stood out of combat too long.

So, your mostly right about the maps, but you not right about the "every fps is the same as the last." I think you've only experienced what we call, the Quake 3 issue.

As I defined in the original post, Quake three is a decade old engine that has all these weird graphics. Specially when their on 360. The 360 clocks 58.2 fps, while CoD is an engine that is FPS locked at 60. With what their doing to the engine for ghosts, is they stripped it down to it's core mechanics, and rebuilt it from the ground. It's like say you were made up of skin from 50 different people with a different heart one different lung and two different kidneys. What they did, they stripped you down to your skeleton, and they rebuilt you with parts from the SAME location. Treyarch, and Infinity Ward used the same engine, but each tweaked it themselves to work differently. Treyarch, they tweak it to be fps-related, so higher fps means faster shooting, lower me slower. IW, they tweaked it to count for in between frame adjustments. So, I think you have a case of the CoD's.

[ZherkTG]

Arma 3 is the most realistic and best looking war game, but to answer your questions id say battlefield is better.

[Anizeb]

FFVIII is not the same as VIII-2(VIII is a traditional linear JRPG, VIII-2 is less linear JRPG with ARPG elements.), but it is the same as VII. Fable is more focused on choice than FF is, though Fable bears similarities to early FF games, just with upgraded graphics. Forza is a carbon copy of NFS.

However those games, other than the racing ones, are quite fun. The gameplay doesn't get stale, as with most shooters.
And the thing is, with RPGs, there's almost always more to do. The most detailed description you can really give for how to play an FPS is "run, point, shoot, kill or be killed, repeat."
However, you mix in RPG elements into it, you've got the basic gameplay, but then you've got quests, and locations, and endless amounts of NPCs, and objects to play with.

But a raw FPS is always the same. It gets stale all too quickly.
And honestly, it's not just limited to FPSs.

I didn't like AC3, a series I love, just because the gameplay was so stale.
I didn't like GTA IV, a series I love, just because the gameplay was so stale.
I didn't like Pok'emon Black, a series I love, just because the gameplay was so stale.

Not only are all these the same as other games, they're all too similar to themselves.

Really, the only games that are the same that I can stand is the Fallout series, and that's only because that series defines immersion.

Now if more shooters payed as much attention to detail as Bethesda and Obsidian do, I'd be more willing to play them.

I kinda lost track of what I was saying and don't feel like rereading right now. If I kinda trailed off there into something else, forgive me.

[Anime]

I prefer BF over CoD but more people play CoD so it's easier to level up etc.