Personally, I only liked Call of Duty 1 2 and 3. World at War was okay also, because it was historically accurate, from what I've seen. Once you get to "Modern Warfare" there's no historical accuracy, cause there's nothing historical about it. That's what I liked about the games. Though they've never been my favorites, I prefer realistic games, such as ArmA, ArmA2, and AA3 (to an extent.) These games are no where near realistic, getting more obvious as the series goes on. But I do agree, one of the reasons these games are fun is because they're not realistic, as they're games. They're not supposed to be completely realistic, you're playing them to get AWAY from real life, not to simulate it.
Unfortunately, I think I just had a conversation with myself, so I'll sum up my post with:
I'm looking forward to this "Modern Warfare 3" to see where they're going with it. However, I'm not looking forward to playing it.
Battlefield > CoD No doubt, just because imature, abusive, and annoying 12 year olds need to scream into a microphone because they suck at a game in the millions play CoD doesn't make it a better game.
It makes it an easier game.
Battlefield 3 is coming the fall of 2011, it will feature actually NEW THINGS (one thing Black Ops did slightly too), reintroducing fighter jets and 64-player maps (for the all-mighty PC), as well as prone. With the destructible objects weapons can be mounted and injured soldiers can be dragged by another in this game.
So Wikipedia says.
But yeah this is a pointless topic since there will be thousands more once some minor announcements are made.
