To me it just seems like CoD is adding things rather than improving or changing things. Then the fact that it's so repetitive makes you wonder if they know how to draw the line between the saying "don't need to fix what isn't broken" or just being so repetitive.

Then people tell me, "Oh what about Spec Ops Survival?" Well still, to me, that's just a combination of Treyarc's zombies mode and Infinity Ward's spec ops mode. Now I'm not assuming that it is, just that's what it looks like when they showed it.

Then the companies sorta make me facepalm when they try to explain certain things. For example, how quick scoping in Black Ops was made more difficult in multiplayer (but not zombies) for the childish reason that "it's cheap" is so stupid.  

Posted by Wafflez

To me it just seems like CoD is adding things rather than improving or changing things. Then the fact that it's so repetitive makes you wonder if they know how to draw the line between the saying "don't need to fix what isn't broken" or just being so repetitive.

Then people tell me, "Oh what about Spec Ops Survival?" Well still, to me, that's just a combination of Treyarc's zombies mode and Infinity Ward's spec ops mode. Now I'm not assuming that it is, just that's what it looks like when they showed it.

They are changing things though. Source: http://www.xboxhut.co.uk/2011/09/cal...irmed-details/

These qualities have always stood out to me...

Battlefield: Larger maps, team-focused game-play, vehicles.

Call of Duty: Smaller maps, arcade-style game-play.

All multi-player games become repetitive eventually, obviously it's a lot easier for CoD since matches don't seem to take nearly as long.

Both are sequels as well so changing the core gameplay radically isn't exactly an option either and is a dangerous move on the business side of things. I would recommend looking to different titles for different experiences.  

Posted by fp4

They are changing things though. Source: http://www.xboxhut.co.uk/2011/09/cal...irmed-details/

These qualities have always stood out to me...

Battlefield: Larger maps, team-focused game-play, vehicles.

Call of Duty: Smaller maps, arcade-style game-play.

All multi-player games become repetitive eventually, obviously it's a lot easier for CoD since matches don't seem to take nearly as long.

Both are sequels as well so changing the core gameplay radically isn't exactly an option either and is a dangerous move on the business side of things. I would recommend looking to different titles for different experiences.

True.

I know this might be silly/debate cliche but take a game like Halo. Each one of the titles offered something brand new to the table, and greatly improved on older features which practically make it seem brand new, forge mode for example. It was great in Halo 3, being able to make various games inside of the game itself, then once Halo Reach forge came out, the variety of options available increased so much it's insane. Also Firefight was greatly improved in Reach as opposed to the version in ODST. Even little things like armor customization, yes it was in Halo 3, but what I loved most was the fact that you pick your armor set and play the campaign, then once you're done you go into multiplayer, your character look/emblem is still the same. It felt more satisfying as if you are your own character, or you make the character you play as what you want it to be. Which is rare when i comes to FPS games like Halo.

I'm not trying to say that Halo is the better series, I'm a CoD and Battlefield fan too. I mean I preordered Battlefield 3 and am contemplating getting MW3 now.

Since you showed me that link it's comforting that there are some nice new changes going on in MW3. Though, I admit I did lack in doing my research. It just got disappointing to see not much difference between MW -> MW2 or WaW -> Black Ops. At least in my opinion there wasn't any awesome major differences.  

I liked Halo 3 the most.  

Mw2 is the greatest; only FPS I've ever played that actually has a goal to work to, nukes. They are the reason I'm still playing mw2  

Posted by Hammy

That was the worst out of the series.....Why..why..choose that game.

You're kidding right? Halo 2 was the most popular of the series. ODST and Reach are just awful.  

Duck Hunt on NES!
http://www.gotoandplay.it/_games/_nesDuckHunt/nesDuckHunt.jpg (Unsupported image host)  

I like MW2... Hopefully MW3 will be even better. BO is cooler cause of zombies  

Posted by Shaun

I like MW2... Hopefully MW3 will be even better. BO is cooler cause of zombies

well thats treyarc. did you know that the each zombies map is another step in the story of the zombies mode? each release in sequential order for a reason.  

DooM, because retro shall never die.  

MW3 is za best  

Posted by fp4

Also BF3 needs:
[X] Flyable Jets

LMAO

Posted by Aster

Duck Hunt on NES!
http://www.gotoandplay.it/_games/_nesDuckHunt/nesDuckHunt.jpg (Unsupported image host)

Favorite Duck hunting game forever! next to halo 3's custom game duck hunt gametype

Posted by Swift

I liked Halo 3 the most.

Best of the series.

I can see why some people go for BF3, because of graphics and tactical, but in my case i like fast paced games. for BF3 i usually feel when playing BF2 you need to look for ways around enemies and I prefer to go in head on.  

CoD is overrated trash, Gears of War I tried to play but the first one was so awful that I quit, and the only Battlefield I've played is Battlefield 2142. BF is developed by Swedes so they get my natural vote.

Best FPS: CS  

Posted by Wafflez

well thats treyarc. did you know that the each zombies map is another step in the story of the zombies mode? each release in sequential order for a reason.

Yeah I know the whole story.  

Why are there only 3 options.