any information your hear about MW3 is not real. the only thing you can believe is if you go onto twitter and follow the producers of mw3 and listen to them post!

any information your hear about MW3 is not real. the only thing you can believe is if you go onto twitter and follow the producers of mw3 and listen to them post!

Kotaku is extremely reliable, only one thing they "predicted" in MW2 wasn't true.

What does it matter what you hear about MW3? It doesn't matter, all you can count on is that it's gonna have destructible environments because they want to ride on Battlefield's coat-tails. It's stupid that they even bother putting in a campaign for these CoD games anymore, all it comes down to is the main character slaughtering hundreds upon thousands of random un-named terrorists who all apparently are cool with dying, then showing the main character nearly dying or dying, then having another main character do the same exact things.

At the end, they'll probably have some massive nuclear missile thingy-majigger, put in an excuse like, "We had beaten Russia, but they could return, so we nuked the living ***** out of it!" just so they can show a big explosion. Game over, collect a hundred gamer points, play laggy multi-player.

That's how they handled MW2, WaW, and BO, why should they change things up?

It doesn't matter, all you can count on is that it's gonna have destructible environments because they want to ride on Battlefield's coat-tails.

If anything, BF has been riding on COD's  coat-tails. COD has always had the upperhand, it has faster servers(Grnted its because there are less people), faster gameplay(No running around the map for a half hour getting into two gunfights), and it has a deeper customization system.

It's stupid that they even bother putting in a campaign... That's how they handled MW2, WaW, and BO, why should they change things up?

Black Ops had an extremely deep story to it, and it didn't involve Nuking Russia at the end, and its only thousand of enemies if you suck and die on recruit a thousand times(judging by the way your talking I'm sure thats you). And MP is only laggy on Xbox, because its set up to use the slowest connection as host, to make it "fair," on PS3 it uses the fastest connection.

i like cod but it has got a story behind[b]

Black Ops had an extremely deep story to it, and it didn't involve Nuking Russia at the end, and its only thousand of enemies if you suck and die on recruit a thousand times(judging by the way your talking I'm sure thats you). And MP is only laggy on Xbox, because its set up to use the slowest connection as host, to make it "fair," on PS3 it uses the fastest connection.

1: It would be a deep story to someone with such a simplistic mind as yours. The only difference between my insult and yours is that I saw your retarded insult and generalized you as a raging CoD fanboy - not really unfairly, I mean, if you were intelligent you'd realize that speaking on behalf of CoD in such a stupid manner is only going to get you that far. Well done bro, because I don't even need to be a smart-*** to prove you wrong.

It's stupid that they even bother putting in a campaign... That's how they handled MW2, WaW, and BO, why should they change things up?

Story in Black Ops was very exaggerated
WaW? No idea honestly
MW2? Terrible, plot holes everywhere, inconceivable retardism in characters, and for both Black Ops / MW2 - insanely hyped up when really there's no real content.

If anything, BF has been riding on COD's  coat-tails. COD has always had the upperhand, it has faster servers(Grnted its because there are less people), faster gameplay(No running around the map for a half hour getting into two gunfights), and it has a deeper customization system.

Black Ops is crap for this. Less people ? Doesn't matter, general technical issues which should have never been there make it worse than lag. Battlefield has faster servers than that of MW2 and Black Ops, it really isn't difficult finding one. Then, you either exaggerate or assume that's how Battlefield plays - that's if you're stupid and chose the base spawn point only to get to the fight. Other than that, I'd suggest you quite whining. Now.. if you ARE exaggerating then I kindly assume you stop - it doesn't help the debate in any way and only fools (which in this case is mostly CoD followers imo) would listen to that.

Also, I only just read what you said in context, and all I gotta say is you fail. DICE improves their game, not throw one out per year for the money - if you think I'm wrong, then compare the new things from CoD4 to MW2 to Black Ops. You're paying for the same thing. Disagree? Fine, I don't expect CoD players to like quality - it's a braindead game, and people who say otherwise well... how isn't it? There's only a few things that require some thought in CoD - and then you can compare that to the strategy present in Battlefield or other genres. It's why it's so popular - that doesn't make it a good thing, and not necessarily a bad thing either but -- technical problems. They're making the same game (infact getting WORSE since CoD4) and selling it as this revolutionary war-like shooter.

If this has been confusing, dw, I wasn't necessarily thinking this through - but for CoD? I already have and it's blatantly obvious that it's a really bad franchise.

- H

rhats true very true

CoD Black Ops there is the coolest online mode i am on stage 40 3 prestige.!

I would really like it if they did something that worked for both games, like transfering COD points.

Call Of Duty is a joke, snipers dont run around and no scope people! I mean seriously kids! But! in battlefield people actually snipe in the back of the map like their sposed too! or they steal dead ppls weapons