Should have bought a console

Seems I'm missing out on all the fun.

Rolled

Kinect: not Kinetic

So this is where gaming is headed.  Auto-aim was just the beginning.  Before long, all games will play themselves.

Someone on the internet is wrong!

That someone -- calling himself "Tyler Cameron, Contributor" -- has a editorial up on GamerNode entitled: "What Call of Duty Can Learn From Battlefield's Better Multiplayer."  His argument in summary form:

1. The creators of the CoD franchise have failed to introduce anything innovative since CoD4.
2. The Battlefield series has larger maps, which "allows players of any skill level to enjoy the game."
3. BC2 promotes team play, while CoD does not.
4. BC2's sound design is better.
5. Destruction 2.0 is a more than a novelty; it's a game-changer.
6. BC2 is more balanced and less exploitable.
7. BC2 has enjoyed better and longer post-release support.

Argument #1 is true as far as the core gameplay goes.

Argument #2 is false to the extent that it implies that the CoD series requires a greater degree of skill to play effectively.  To the contrary, the latter's perks and killstreaks amount to a rather potent handicapping system that allows those who cannot run-and-gun to join the slaughter.  That CoD has smaller maps just means that camping is a more viable tactic.

Argument #3 is true, but that doesn't mean CoD discourages teamwork.  Although CoD players do have a tendency to go all Rambo on pubs, the only prerequisites for organized murder are a few friends and a decent VOIP.

Argument #4 is very, very true.

Argument #5 is roughly half-true.  BC2's dynamic battlefields certainly do offer tactical options that CoD lacks.  To say, however, that Destruction 2.0 ensures "no battle ever plays out the same way" is just naked hyperbole.  A game's environment doesn't dictate the outcome of a round, the players do that. And by-and-large, players are predictable creatures.

Argument #6 would have been more defensible if the author hadn't said this:

Snipers also can't dominate a match in BFBC2, which seems to be a frustrating problem in CoD. High-powered sniper rifles in BFBC2 are bolt-action rifles, meaning they must be reloaded after each shot, and players must take into account their target's distance, because the bullet will arch downward if it travels far enough. The slow rate of fire and the precision required to effectively use these weapons assure that they can't be used to completely humiliate and frustrate other players.

BC2's players coined the term "bush wookie" as an invective for one of the main sources of exasperation with the game. A handful of said wookies can lock down a choke point indefinitely on defense, and can be useless KDR whores on offense. DICE acknowledged the issue and tried to address it (without much success). Competent sniping in CoD, on the other hand, is much more of a virtuoso niche. Between the massive scope sway, the laser accuracy of the non-sniper weapons, and short sight-lines, snipers are much less common in CoD than in BC2.

Argument #7 requires three responses: (1) CoD4 had mod tools, which means the sheer amount of community content dwarfed anything a developer could hope to do post-release; (2) the abrupt ending of MW2's post-release support probably had something to do with the implosion of the developer; and (3) saying that DICE released a total of seven map packs is just naked fanboyism.  Adding game modes to existing maps is not a "map pack" no matter how EA/DICE spins it.

Even if he were to shore up his reasoning, Cameron's thesis has little merit.  I'm a fan of both Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty (with the emphatic exception of MW2).  I've played both, not because of their similarities, but because of the pronounced differences between them.  When I want to play BC2, I play BC2 ... I don't argue that CoD should become something other than it is.