Yeah, cause I want slow gameplay and overpowered vehicles...
YEAH BECAUSE WHO LIKES REALISTIC VIDEO GAMES? NOT ME!
Oh wait, I do! Maybe some players like realism and team-based gameplay instead of people running at ten miles an hour around stupidly pointless maps, knifing each other from distances of around ten feet. What military would use ballistic knives, tomahawks, or throwing knives in a conventional battlefield? Their commanding officers must've been either retarded or five year olds. The last time I saw team-work in a Call of Duty game was in CoD 2, and that was it.
CoD tries to show people that, in the military, on a daily basis you fire nukes at satellites, kill thousands of enemies, get shot and recover seconds later, and carry enough ammo for a small army every time you go out. No military would have their troops taking rocket launchers and randomly firing at each other, except maybe an army of terrorists with ****ty RPG's that might fire or might explode in their hands.
Besides, why does every army carry the same weapons? The last time I saw the Russian army carrying M16's or Barrett's was...never. There is such a lack of realism in CoD that is pathetic, I just can't stand it any more. It was okay with CoD 4, because that was the first step out of the box. But MW2 was just plain stupid, and Black Ops was even dumber. It's like Treyarch just wrote a ****-ton of bad ideas on a board and threw them together. "How about nukes, mind control, assassination, Russians, Vietnamese, Chinese, and...uh...THE COLD WAR! HELL YEAH!" "Oh, don't forget Kennedy, either." "Of course."
I think I demonstrated my point correctly. YOUR MOVE, Gstroy.
I agree to an extent, but really, would it really be fun if you were limited to one nation's weaponry? i mean, seriously, it wouldn't be fun if people just quit when they got on the wrong team (therefore, wrong weapons), isn't that right koolkylekool?
