Difference and similarities of Call of Duty and Battlefield series (MULTIPLAYER) - General

Hi there. I do not own a game of either series but I recently started watching some very entertaining/funny gameplay videos of Battlefied 3. For someone who never played these games, please tell me about their differences and similarities because I consider buying one of those (for multiplayer only) and have zero clue. Thanks in advance! (Should say 'Differences' in the title..)

Similar: Guns.

A few questions in case you are not sure what I mean: 1. Is one of them more noob-friendly than the other? 2. Is one of them more action oriented (as in less realistic)? 3. Do i always have to own/play the latest CoD/Battlefield to get a good experience (enough players)? Trying to think of more.. [editline]8th January 2012[/editline] 4. Do they (one or both) have a level system so I need to play a few hours to get the cool stuff? 5. Do I need to buy additional content to enjoy the game (maps, vehicles, weapons)? [editline]8th January 2012[/editline] 6. Do I need hardware worth $1000 to play them (pc versions)?

1. CoD is more noob friendly. 2. CoD is less realistic and will be going faster, yet you still don't get to drive around tanks and shoot down buildings in multiplayer, do you? 3. Generally for CoD, if you play the older ones before Modern Warfare, it won't be the same at all, Battlefield is the same really. 4. Yes, I played a few hours on CoD and got a good enough guns rather quickly, but on Battlefield it takes longer. 5. CoD will usually a shitload of overpriced DLC. 6. It matters whether or not you want good fps and no lag.

[QUOTE=Zarjk;34110872]1. CoD is more noob friendly. 2. CoD is less realistic and will be going faster, yet you still don't get to drive around tanks and shoot down buildings in multiplayer, do you? 3. Generally for CoD, if you play the older ones before Modern Warfare, it won't be the same at all, Battlefield is the same really. 4. Yes, I played a few hours on CoD and got a good enough guns rather quickly, but on Battlefield it takes longer. 5. CoD will usually a shitload of overpriced DLC. 6. It matters whether or not you want good fps and no lag.[/QUOTE] Thanks :)

1. CoD is much more of a 'pick-up-and-play' game simply because the online immersion is very shallow in comparison, I think, to the amount of time it takes one to experiment and adjust to their liking of class load-outs in Battlefield 3. Anyone who has played Black Ops or MW2 can tell you that there are very few guns that change the whole of the experience. I would say the MW3 is more 'noob friendly' in that case. 2. Action-focused and action-packed are important to compare here. Whereas MW3 may be action focused simply because of the sheer speed of the gameplay, something that CoD has always succeeded in producing because their main focus is the flow of their maps and the in-diversity of the general classes, BF3 is much more action-focused and action-packed. Every moment of BF3 once you are immersed in the game, there will be many take-away moments where me and my friends will be asking ourselves "Why is this game so good?" 3. I still play Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and CoD 2 on occasion and their are a decent amount of people still playing. However, as far as game quality goes, the Bad Companies 1 & 2 do not easily compare to the CoD's of the time that they were released in my opinion. 4. It doesn't take long to get most of the things levels 1-20 in CoD, maybe a few hours if you are diligent. It takes a lot longer to preform the same feat in BF3. However, a CoD player who wants to get the most out of his gaming experience will most likely prestige (when you reach max level, you go back to level one to obtain a new 'presteige' rank and work your way back up) at some point because the unlock tree is so easy to climb. I have played BF3 for about 100 hours and I am maybe halfway through the unlock tree. (And it's not because I suck, haha) 5. CoD has a lot of overpriced map packs, usually with 2-3 maps in it. Battlefield 3's one DLC so far had 4 maps, 10 weapons and 3 new vehicles for the same price that a CoD map pack would be. 6. CoD is by default less graphic intensive and less stressful on your PC, so you don't need a 'powerhouse' to play it. You don't need a supercomputer for BF3, but playing it at max costs a lot more.

The CoD community has more "smoke weed erryday" people. Battlefield might have a little bit of those people, but for the most part, they're normal.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;34111862]The CoD community has more "smoke weed erryday" people. Battlefield might have a little bit of those people, but for the most part, they're normal.[/QUOTE] Actually in all multiplayers that are played a lot, you can't really tell what kinda people plays there. Mostly there are the silent type of players that just play, either alone or God knows who else behind the monitor. And then probably follows up the paired/partied bunches of players. And that's splitting millions into two groups.. And CoD has some weird people in some videos that get posted on Youtube, I admit. But the "Weed erryday" people are probably mostly just some kids.. some of who might have smoked some skank-ass hash out of a plastic bottle-bong.

They both have Guns Teams People Enviroment Annoying douchebags Elitist faggots Nice people Graphics Sound Code Developers made them The developers are human beings The developers live on earth

Thanks guys! You helped alot :)