I am seeing the complaint about Battlefield 3's beta that bullets took down people "too quicK" like in Call of Dtury.  Ok, I have a question: How do bullets take someone down in real life?  How is Call of Duty unrealistic in this regard?

Call of Duty is the opposite of realism. Fast deaths in CoD works with the formula because CoD is a fast-paced game. BF traditionally is more tactical and slow-paced, so quick deaths in BF don't work with the formula too well.

It has nothing to do with being realistic. Battlefield games (only played bad company series) tend to take a little more to kill someone because they are more tactical, but in BF3 they completely changed. Before, guns in battlefield each felt different and had there own pros and cons, but when you only make it 1-3 shots to kill someone with any weapon, it takes away from that distinction. 

It unfortunately makes the medic class a little less helpful as well (in regards to bf3). What is the point of laying down a med kit when your teammates will die so quickly you will have no chance to help them? You can always revive...but I wish the med kit was a bit more useful.

Strange in real life if i shot you in the chest with a M16 you probably would be dead in seconds. So that argument is irrelevant when it comes to realism. But it is a video game so they have to keep some things unrealistic.

why no respawn IRL?
desperately needs a patch lol

Video games are video games. Depending on the game, some aspects should realistic, while some should not. In BF3, the bullet damage should not be realistic; the reasons being mentioned in the posts above mine.

I just came here to say hi and share with you how much fun I am having with Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
Oh, and that I just hate it when you have to shoot someone 15 times till he finally dies.

To be honest CoD is highly unrealistic.

Example you can die from being shot in the foot, or leg or arm. Fact is the damage system should be built around the actual body. Every cop and soldier knows your not going to kill a guy with a shot to the foot or leg at least not right away. You aim for the torso or the head for a kill shot. I know head shots kill right away but torso shots should also and appendages should not.

Another fact is body armor. The soldiers portrayed in Modern Warfare and Battlefield are all wearing state of the art body armor. So a shot to the torso from a long range with a pistol isn't going to kill a soldier. In fact five shots from a pistol at long or medium range still won't likely kill the soldier. A shot gun might do a number on a soldier but depending on where the soldier is shot and distance from the gun the soldier could easily survive at least a shot possibly 2-3.

I have heard of soldiers taking over 10 bullets and surviving due to their body armor.

In reality if developers want to create a realistic battlefield simulator they will need to factor in body armor and actual anatomy into the design. If they did and you had to shoot for vital organs and try to get around body armor then the games would be a lot more realistic.

But since the games obviously aren't realistic and I have yet to see one developer actually do a good job at creating a body damage system. The best we have is what we are seeing in the games.

well COD is a bad game anyway. the most realistic shooter will likely be Ghost recon future soldier with few exceptions.

the real problem is that shooters these days don't create the battles of shooters past. you just die!