User blog comment:AndImBatman/Why Call of Duty: Ghosts does not deserve it's unwarranted hatred/@comment-5112067-20131107095116/@comment-25496444-20131108131151

"Battlefield 4 is 10x better than Ghosts, better community, more teamplay, more tactics, bigger and more interesting maps, destructable enviroments, levolution, more realistic gunplay, better graphics, better lighting, vehicles, bigger battles, it requires thinking where as CoD is played by kids for the sole fact that it requires no thinking or tactics."

Out of your twelve reasons one is untrue ("better community"; without going on a steaming rant why I despise the BF community, shortly said it's not any better than CoD), some are a matter of opinion ("more interesting maps", "it requires thinking"), some are redundant ("better lightning" is a part of "better graphics") and some are points where it's up to you whether or not it makes the game better ("bigger maps", "more realistic gunplay", "vehicles", "bigger battles").

In addition, the destructible environment hasn't been a major asset in Battlefield since Bad Company 2 where you could literally obliterate almost any building in style, in the two most recent installments there are very few houses you can actually blow up (aside from Levolution events) and it focuses almost entirely on "micro-destruction" like being able to shoot concrete with a rifle.

The Levolution events are also a bit shady, what with them being entirely scripted and just on a bigger scale than the dynamic destruction in Ghosts (how much depends on the map; leveling down a skyscraper is more than just bringing down a rather small guardtower in a prison). Even then they're not perfect, for example you can see how the aftermath magically appears in as the dust falls when the skyscraper is falling down, and instead of it being an actual part of the environment, when you near the building when it collapses it becomes technically just a killzone where you quickly lose health (even inside of a helicopter with the vehicle staying completely intact) instead of it crushing you or anything. And of course while they first feel awesome you get quickly tired of the events (just like that base jump in Damavand Peak), the only one that I still actually enjoy and I think looks cool is the Paracel Storm one, including the thunderstorm that occupies it.

And to wrap it up, one of the biggest issues Battlefield has over Call of Duty is that it's riddled with bugs; the BF4 launch was a disaster, it honestly felt too rushed when the full game was more full of issues than the beta version, most notably a horrid netcode and extremely constant server crashes and game freezes. There were some other minor major issues like the "authentic reload" system appearing on all gamemodes instead of just Hardcore where it was supposed to be.

But to be honest, I don't even know what's the point of comparing the two titles, as said basically the only similarity they share is both being modern military first-person shooters. Aside from that, different games, different arguments and factors that make each game unique and better in their own way.