Neither one feel like war game, but COD4 is the better shooter just because everything is more refined. I mean for one thing the hit detection in COD4 is much better and you can actually take them down in one shot in the hardcore mode. BC you probably need to shoot them 20 times to kill one person.
I really do like how big the maps are in BC though it's better when you can move around quite a bit. I can't believe consoles are still so far behind that all MP games are small maps. I mean it's 2008....I can remember back in 02 playing the original battlefield 1942 on huge maps.
Downloaded the demo for Battlefield: Bad Company and all I can say is this game blows! I understand that its only the demo, but good lord, the graphics are no where near COD4, the gameplay to me is not polished what so ever, the guns suck, no attachements / gun mods (if there is I didn't delve into the game enough because I lost interest), etc. I agree with a previous post, the only FPS game I see beating COD4 is COD6, assuming IW goes above and beyond. If COD5 is even close to COD4, then it will keep my interest until COD6.
Ultimately, COD4 :gta:> Battlefield:Bad Company by leaps and bounds.
At least we have to give credit to BF:BC that it's a strong contender. I played the demo and I liked it a lot, so I currently waiting for the game to ship in from ebay (it's already a week). But I think that CoD4 can remain on its throne as the best FPS to date.
When CoD5 or Socom comes out, we talk again