I think the best CoD-Battlefield comparison I could make is the following:
People often say that BF2 was the height of the Battlefield franchise. I could offer many objective reasons why this isn't the case.
People also often say that CoD IV MW was the height of the CoD franchise. In this case I have trouble proving them wrong.
Both of these postulations hinge on the progress the devlopers have made over 10 years. In CoD's case, it feels like CoD WWII is getting closer to the original CoD formula, while BF games are closer to the original vision of what DICE wanted to achieve with their game, although the engine at the time could never support it.
Maybe it's just me, but one franchise seems to be genuinely looking towards the future, and the other is firmly stuck chasing the past. Seems like the biggest difference to me, and probably why I don't really care for CoD even if I enjoy a good 6v6 infantry romp.
For your transgressions you shall be labeled a shill, called an idiot and anytime you mention facts or disagree with a tribe member you will henceforth be known as a troll. The best you can hope for is that the labels won't haunt your offspring. -RedEye9