Woah Woah Woah. Hold up there. Most of the guns in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare are fairly realistic, aside from the energy weapons, and seem as if they could be real.
My point. CoD doesn't just say fuck it and attach a chain saw as a bayonet. Both BF and CoD try to make authentic, believable weapons, neither do realistic sims though. Let's leave AW as the comparison to a near present BF game is totally asinine. Did CoD 1 or 2 make their guns less realistic than 1942. Not really, they both try to make them as authentic as possible. Did BF2 make guns a whole new level more realistic than CoD4, no. CoD doesn't do weapons on any different level than BF.
Wait, energy weapons? More or less realistic than BF? Hait, hold up.
Ya, my point. It's a moronic to use a game with made up energy weapons for comparison of "realism". If we want to compare BF to CoD we have to tale same time period. Sure, CoD went and made stuff up in it's latest iteration, but so has BF. Neither series has any more claim to realism.
Look, Call of Duty has always tried to be more arcadey, and while it is true they have some real weapons, Battlefield has always tried to be more accurate.
No, none of that is true. Neither BF nor CoD as a series (not some BS comparison to a single futuristic game) is more arcadey. One is about team work and large mixed combat, the other has been more so about infantry fire fights, totally different, but that doesn't make them more or less arcadey. This is a series of jihad jeeps, magical area of effect heal spells around vehicles, paint ball ballistics, teleporting into vehicles, and force fields around tanks that stop all damage. BF has many things on CoD you could point out, realism isn't one. CoD does weapon models and stats as accurately as BF. Sure, they have hit scan, but that's near irrelevant on the scale of CoD maps. That's about it.
The only weapon of their's really that doesn't exist is the Rorsch, but Railguns exist, they just aren't shoulder mounted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFCTzIGYeMk . Even the projectile that goes into the Rorsch is modeled correctly.
Who said anything about railguns not existing? No shit. Still not a point that means anything. I'm trying to take scifi out of this to make a fair non bullshit comparison, and you are trying to throw more in for some reason. Leave AW put of this, leave final stand out of this, and leave 2142 out of this. None of them are useful for this discussion. BF takes as many liberties from realism when portraying real life weapons in the past or present. They have as many made up stats and functionalities as CoD does. In some cases BF does a better job, others CoD actually does.
The bullshit wasn't cranked to 11. He was stating an opinion we all realize is more or less true.
Oh, it was up to 11. "This modern game is more realistic than this one set in the future" is about as bullshit as bullshit gets. He was simply using the most cliche statement on BF forums when you don't have a point, "go play cod". The "we" who think this is a war simulation while CoD is like some high fantasy are delusional.