They are the two biggest war games.Both battlefield and COD have their ups and downs.I prefer battlefield more because it is more dynamic,you can do a lot of stuff in it like in battlefield 2 you could change soldiers and in battlefield bad company has very unique storyline and gameplay.COD is more of world war,that i don't like about it.

In Battlefield series you can switch soldiers and its not world war 2.

COD is complete world war stuff,but i did like the COD 4 when they changed from their normal world war scenario to modern warfare

Beaten both.

Prefer Bad Company.

Battlefield has another aproach, as being a deliberate multiplayer game(except bad company) while CoD is more like Medal of Honor, yet better. The true question should be CoD vs MoH.

BTW, the first BF was in WW2, it´s name was BF 1942 and had two expansion packs.

I like both, Bad company wasn't my cup of tea because BF has always been a purely multiplayer experience to me, and it should stay that way.

Overall package wise though, CoD is king.

The single player's good, but not excellent. It's too slow-paced, the story is pointless and the penalty for death is being chucked backwards 100 metres so you can enjoy a long walk through blurry textures and somehow pass 15 tanks on the way.

The multiplayer's better. But I'm afraid in both single (despite its length) and multiplayer, COD4 wins.

"The true question should be CoD vs MoH"

One of the best FPS series of all time against a pathetic attempt at the best FPS series of all time. Hmmm...