There are many FPS's with good gameplay: Half-Life, Quake, Deus Ex, Counter-Strike, BioShock, Metroid Prime, Halo, Team Fortress, Natural Selection, etc.
Not all FPS's are like CoD and Battlefield. Your statement is very ignorant.
To say whether
"gameplay" is good or not, people have to start understanding what
"gameplay" means.
"Gameplay" is a set of underlying mechanics governing how the player interacts with the game world
(manipulation rules), what is the objective of the game
(goal rules), and the rules governing the forementioned two
(metarules). Generally speaking,
"gameplay" is a term describing the overall experience of playing a game excluding graphics and sound.
Both
"Call of Duty" and
"Battlefield" have very neatly laid out mechanics, the objectives of the games are very clear and the whole meta of the games is straight-forward. For all intents and purposes, the gameplay of
"Call of Duty" and
"Battlefield" is perfectly fine - in fact, they're shining examples of good gameplay in their respective category of video games. Both titles do exactly what they're designed to do and by doing so, they appease their target audiences just like any other good game does.
Gamers tend to confuse
"gameplay" with
"taste" for whatever reason - the fact that you don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it's poorly structured or badly designed, it just means that you don't fancy it. To be frank, I'm sick and tired of hearing that
"Call of Duty" or
"Battlefield" are bad FPS'es - they're not. They're simply in completely different categories than
"Half-Life" or
"Metroid Prime" which are supposed to be adventures immersed into a shooter,
"Quake" which is supposed to be a straight-forward
"shoot everything" kind of game with very little context or
"BioShock" or
"Deus Ex" which are supposed to be story-driven role-playing experiences in an FPS environment
. I'm not sure if any of the vocal
"Call of Duty" and
"Battlefield" critics have ever contemplated the thought that
"Battlefield" and
"Call of Duty" are not like
"Half-Life" in terms of execution because
they're not supposed to rather than because they're
(supposedly) poorly constructed.
Even
"Call of Duty" and
"Battlefield" belong to different sub-genres altogether -
"Call of Duty" focuses on the competitive aspects of combat, it's designed to be fast-paced and it does that very well.
"Battlefield" on the other hand focuses on the combat simulation aspect, its matches are long-winded and require far more team co-operation than in
"Call of Duty". These approaches are very different and so are the resulting games, so putting them in one basket alone is already a massive generalization.