While I enjoy the feeling of the controls, aiming, general gameplay, etc. of COD, I disliked the way Battlefield played, but loved the maps. This got me to thinking about how interesting it would be if COD released a map on the scale of Battlefield, and similarly, BF would release a more close quarters map. I would assume that Battlefield on a COD map would be utterly terrible, especially because it would severely limit vehicle use, but COD on a huge map seems really interesting and would change the gameplay a bit and maybe get people to play a bit differently. At the very least you wouldn't be dying around every corner...but what do you all think?

I think I would just play Battlefield 3 at that point. I play BF3 for those huge maps because they work well, and I play Call of Duty for the smaller, tighter maps with quicker gameplay. There have been pretty big maps in Call of Duty in the past (like Wasteland in Modern Warfare 2) and they're just massive sniping fests, which isn't very fun. Not to mention the AI controlled kill streaks which, on the larger maps, absolutely dominate more than human players in helicopters and jets in Battlefield because there's no human error involved.

Battlefield 3 does have a COD-like experience: Metro. No vehicles, and when you're in the subway, it's very, very close quarters.

But if you'd like to see a larger-scale COD experience, look at World at War. There were some larger maps, and the player caps were raised to support them.

I did enjoy World at War. But I think a lot of it was me appreciating what made COD and BF so different. World at War straddled that line between pure Quake-esque map control and larger-scale maneuvering. It was fun for me, but I can see it being very not-fun for people who really, really loved Call of Duty and not Battlefield, and the other way around.