Both aspects. Honestly the graphics (on 360) are the worst I have seen in some time. Maybe I'm just spoiled by Rage and Gears of War, but it just falls far short of the hype and way short of the commercials... I wonder what they used to render them honestly. The mechanics also don't seem to be improved in either mode, I will say the voice acting seemed to be pretty good so far, but aside from that the game slows down during big firefights in both modes, it still takes multiple sniper shots to kill a single dude, it always seems like you're traveling to the action and never in it... I could go on and on. I can see where this would be good on PC, maybe with a 64 player battle, but I don't see it translating to console. The maps seem too big for console, being that you're maxing out 16 on 16 (IIRC) and it's probably due to the developers, cause Joint Ops was running 100 person battles years ago, so if you can't do that on a console nowadays, that's just sad. BF 1943 was a lot of fun, so it's not a problem with the series as a whole, but the way it seemed to be entirely developed for the smallest purchasing market (pc).
Not really. The single player campaigns maybe closer in relation, but as far as the multi player goes they are two different animals. COD is more straight deathmatch, with smaller maps and constant action, you're constantly running, gunning, or both. But there are a bunch of different play modes to COD that freshen things up if you don't want to play just one mode. BF is big maps and more of an all out war with vehicles that for the most part revolves around controlling points on the map.
