CoD uses hitscan, BF3 doesn't. Sniping in BF is much different, and more difficult than Call of Duty.
You clearly haven't played Battlefield Bad Company 2 it's the reason why Battlefield 3 has to have it 2 shot kill because they could cross map no scope and quickscope with 75% chance to get a one shot kill so yea Call of Duty takes a lot more skill to snipe then Battlefield Bad Company 2 because that game didn't even have sway just imagine if they took out the hip fire disadvantage and sway out of Call of Duty how bad sniping would be. Battlefield 3 with out the two shot kill would take less skill to snipe.
COD sniping could be skillful, but only under circumstances that we rarely get in game. I remember playing the map Crossfire in COD4, having to take up a position without being seen, and having to steady out to line up sights on your enemy's head which would be just a couple tiny pixels in the distance. When you did land a shot like that, you were proud of yourself. But sadly, the concept of sniping in this series had abruptly died at the introduction of MW2. Sniper rifles are still there, a few of the maps may be big, but the odds of setting up in a deliberate position and deliberately aiming at targets in the distance are slim to none. It just doesn't happen any more.
Lets just hope Ghosts maps will be like CoD2/CoD4 style with some actual wide spaces for snipers. I hate sniping but i hate more not having adequate maps for a very important role on your/enemy team
If BF fans want everything to be realistic then why do snipers take 2 shots to kill in most cases?
In real life if you got shot from a Barrett sniper from 500 metres away, the bullet travels through a 12" thick wall, their body would be no where to be found..
COD has found an excellent balance of real and gaming world..
For example the throwing knife is an excellent piece of equipment. But in reality if I threw a throwing knife into someone's leg, they would most likely just be shouting with pain and not die..
And it never needed to be real to be entertaining. BF isnt close to realism either otherwise you wouldnt play it, trust me
I actually I still would, I play arma and aa, so yeah I wouldn't mind realism. BF is closer to realism than CoD.
Closer than CoD but very far away from realism at the same time. Not that i care about BF anyway since for me CoD has the perfect balance between realism and entertainment
I think COD is more entertaining without even needing to find ways to make it entertaining unlike BF. BF is just boring and thus you need to find something to do that makes the game enjoyable like flying jets into tanks or helicopters.