Originally Posted by gtarmanrob
its not really a BAD thing that COD wins in sales numbers, just means the franchise is doing a very successful job.
i've always loved BF more. to me battlefield is more of a professional game. like a sim vs and arcade game. even though you have fun and run a muck in both, battlefield takes a more serious approach to the warzone than CoD.
but they really are completely different games which just fall under the same genre of FPS. imo the only way they compete is pure sales figures, which is all the companies care about anyway really, but other than that they dont really have anything to compare to each other, nor do i see a point in comparing really.
For the most part, there isn't a point in comparing the two franchises, period.
Other than both games being in the FPS genre, the gameplay/style and strategy involved are very different when it comes to both games. Battlefield revolves more around teamwork/squad-based gameplay in a much larger, battlefield-scale environment, whereas CoD is built around the more arcadey, twitch-based, arena-esque shooter style.
When it comes to the sales figures, it's also difficult to compare the two. Battlefield has mostly been a PC game - really, outside of Bad Company 1 and 2...the rest of the games were built for and released ONLY on the PC, and obviously, when you compare the number of CoD games that were released cross-platform, it's easy to see where a lot of the sales discrepancies lie (cross-platform releases are always going to outsell PC-only releases).
As it stands, CoD pretty much had no competition in its genre for its style of gameplay, and it was easy and fun enough to establish itself cross-platform within its first couple iterations. And really, name recognition did the rest, whether or not future releases would even actually be better than past releases (see: every game after CoD 4 MW1).
Battlefield doesn't have that same established name in the console world outside of Bad Company 2 - it'll be interesting to see if Activision's "copy-and-paste" CoD-model will still stand firm after Battlefield 3, and if BF3 gives CoD a run for its money and people start to realize that Battlefield really is more of a worthwhile, immersive experience, only then might we see Activision actually attempt to innovate.
But until then, both games are different enough to not really have to be compared. They'll both offer different gameplay experiences and a different pace. I feel like Battlefield is just the more robust game overall; there's so many more variables and features and things to do (and you partly can't blame CoD since Battlefield's goal as a battlefield-shooter inherently means that is has more features/content), and that's really what makes it so much more appealing than every iteration of CoD that feels like the last. Again, MW3 is an established franchise and the sales will reflect that; but BF3 and all the innovation behind it should take a huge chunk from the CoD fanbase if BF3 is done right, as it will then start to have that name recognition that CoD has had for years across all platforms.