@DonPixel said:

@SeriouslyNow: Your comment stand true in your twisted distorted and biased simplistic perception of the varios CoD games they have put the last couple of years. Just like you some others might elaborate a convincingly sophist speech on why Bc1, Bc2 and Bf3 are just another "remapped" Battlefield or Rage is just Quake 3 "reboth" .. also wasn't Fallout New Vegas a Fallout 3 mod?

Anyway keep hating, glorifying personal taste while dishing others seems to be contemporary internet meme.

Yeah, ok mate. Call me a name if that makes your upcoming purchase feel more justified.

The thing I've never liked about the CoD games is the speed they come out. I was just getting into MW2's multiplayer, leveling my dude up, when Black Ops came out and everyone I know (we only play split screen) switched over to that, it left me with an "I just did all that for nothing" feel. It's fine for games to come out quickly, no issues there, but it can sometimes annoy me when I just get into a game and the next one barrels through the door like Kool-Aid man on cocaine

@Gladiator_Games said:

The thing I've never liked about the CoD games is the speed they come out. I was just getting into MW2's multiplayer, leveling my dude up, when Black Ops came out and everyone I know (we only play split screen) switched over to that, it left me with an "I just did all that for nothing" feel. It's fine for games to come out quickly, no issues there, but it can sometimes annoy me when I just get into a game and the next one barrels through the door like Kool-Aid man on cocaine

Yeah I partially agree with this statement.

I like they are incorporating the CoD pro stuff (would be nice if they do it for free but..) because as far as I understand they are trying to give persistency to your CoD "career" so you don't feel this "o shit lets start in zeero again".

In the other hand the dynamism of the CoD franchise is something I carve, I can play all Maps from Mw1, Mw2 and Blops with no problem.. sure there are some that aren't that nice but matches last 10 mins top and I just move into the nexto one. While as comparation I've been playing Bad Company 2 for almost 2 years and honestly I can't stand some awfull maps there, I spend my whole time in Atacama, Arica, White pass and Recently Oasis. While in CoD I have never felt I'm overplaying a map in particular.

I'm not quite sure but perhaps the destructible enviroments is the reason for the lack of support from DICE in BC2... I remember te comunity manager said "This maps takes literary months to make". I worked for 4 years doing 3d modeling.. a regular map like the ones from CoD shouldn't take more than a week for a skillfull team.

What bothers me more than either of those things is the decision to not include any kind of in-game server browser for PC users. As someone who has run servers for BF2, and BC2, I am kind of taken aback by this and I feel the publisher, not DICE, has made the call to ignore the feature. I have no proof but, like I said, EA is ultimately responsible for this product and if it's not there, in some way it is their fault. This really only matters to members of the PC community who really focused and adapted to the classic game server structure so I admit, once again, most rank and file BF3 players probably won't care. But I'm not happy nonetheless.

Cod fanboy spotted.

Corporate trash-talk is great.

I'm so sick of these threads. Could there possibly be this much to dicuss about BF3 and/or MW3?

Wait hold up, there's no ingame server browser, but there IS a server browser and there are dedicated servers for your to purchase and run. Only they're on a website's server browser This was a technical decision done by DICE because after 9 years, they have given up trying to create an ingame server browser that works, so they found an alternative which proved to be fast, responsive and efficient during the alpha trial

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/19/ea-and-activisions-cat-fight-gets-seriously-insulting/  EA CEO John Riccitiello said he wanted to see Call of Duty "rot from the core" in June. Activision's Eric Hirshberg responded at Gamescom with no response, saying competition is healthy and mudslinging rhetoric is "bad for the industry." EA's corporate spokesman Jeff Brown agrees with Hirshberg by disagreeing, as he had this to say in response: "Welcome to the big leagues Eric -- I know you're new in the job but someone should have told you this is an [sic] competitive industry.  You've got every reason to be nervous. Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, you'll be out of the category in 2-3 years. If you don't believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk."    ----------------------------- Now, to put this all in some perspective, Black Ops has sold 12 million copies on the 360 alone.  Modern Warfare 2 has sold 7.4 million copies on the 360 alone.  As of June 30, 2011 Battlefield 2: Bad Company has sold over 9 million copies across all platforms.  Latest Battielfeild 9 Million on PC, 360, PS3 vs latest COD 12 million on 360 alone.  That's not even close. Need more proof?   LIVE Activity for week of August 1st, shooters only:01 Call of Duty: Black Ops   02 Modern Warfare 2  03 Halo: Reach  04   05   06 Battlefield: Bad Co. 2  07 Gears of War 2  08 Halo 3  09   10 Call of Duty 4  11 Call of Duty: WaW  12    COD fans have FOUR games they can pick from, all four are in the top 12 games on Live, the two most recent are in the top two positions, and the most recent Battlefield can't even crack the top five.  Battlefield 3 and MW3 will both be quality games that play completely differently from one another, and the PC version of Battlefield will absolutely make the latest COD title look like a joke in the tech department, but let's not pretend here.  Battlefield will be lucky if it can even beat one of the latest three COD titles.

@MideonNViscera said:

@SpaceInsomniac said:

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/19/ea-and-activisions-cat-fight-gets-seriously-insulting/ EA CEO John Riccitiello said he wanted to see Call of Duty "rot from the core" in June. Activision's Eric Hirshberg responded at Gamescom with no response, saying competition is healthy and mudslinging rhetoric is "bad for the industry." EA's corporate spokesman Jeff Brown agrees with Hirshberg by disagreeing, as he had this to say in response: "Welcome to the big leagues Eric -- I know you're new in the job but someone should have told you this is an [sic] competitive industry. You've got every reason to be nervous. Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, you'll be out of the category in 2-3 years. If you don't believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk." ----------------------------- Now, to put this all in some perspective, Black Ops has sold 12 million copies on the 360 alone. Modern Warfare 2 has sold 7.4 million copies on the 360 alone. As of June 30, 2011 Battlefield 2: Bad Company has sold over 9 million copies across all platforms. Latest Battielfeild 9 Million on PC, 360, PS3 vs latest COD 12 million on 360 alone. That's not even close. Need more proof? LIVE Activity for week of August 1st, shooters only:01 Call of Duty: Black Ops 02 Modern Warfare 2 03 Halo: Reach 04 05 06 Battlefield: Bad Co. 2 07 Gears of War 2 08 Halo 3 09 10 Call of Duty 4 11 Call of Duty: WaW 12 COD fans have FOUR games they can pick from, all four are in the top 12 games on Live, the two most recent are in the top two positions, and the most recent Battlefield can't even crack the top five. Battlefield 3 and MW3 will both be quality games that play completely differently from one another, and the PC version of Battlefield will absolutely make the latest COD title look like a joke in the tech department, but let's not pretend here. Battlefield will be lucky if it can even beat one of the latest three COD titles.

COD sucks.

*slow clap*