Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So you haven't. I think you should check it out.

ChocolateGork wrote:WTF would i get this when i can get BF3

Yeah, even though BF3 is just gonna be yet another generic modern warfare style shooter (basically MoH if MoH was done properly), at least it'll have better graphics than this and probably marginally better writing.

illuknisaa wrote:So you haven't. I think you should check it out.

I take it you're illiterate.

I do have the latest Unreal Tournament. It wasn't very good. In fact, it was pretty bad.... You may not agree with my assessment of it, but I still have it (something which my Steam account would confirm, along with ~34 hours played).

If you are not talking about Unreal Tournament, then stop being a snob and tell me what you're talking about.

And BF3 will have destructible terrain (to an extent). Vehicles and large maps, and slight realism.

If you haven't played UT online then you really haven't played UT. And why are you bashing BF when your precious Homefront was just a pile of steaming poo.

illuknisaa wrote:If you haven't played UT online then you really haven't played UT. And why are you bashing BF when your precious Homefront was just a pile of steaming poo.

Online gaming is only a fraction of a game. If the single player function is terrible, I'm not interested in the online side.

illuknisaa wrote:If you haven't played UT online then you really haven't played UT. And why are you bashing BF when your precious Homefront was just a pile of steaming poo.

I have, I still wasn't impressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChocolateGork wrote:And BF3 will have destructible terrain (to an extent). Vehicles and large maps, and slight realism.

Destructible terrain is usually a bad thing rather than a good one. Just means that maps will turn into snipefests or vehiclefests by the end because you have nowhere to hide.

Wolfun wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:If you haven't played UT online then you really haven't played UT. And why are you bashing BF when your precious Homefront was just a pile of steaming poo.

Online gaming is only a fraction of a game. If the single player function is terrible, I'm not interested in the online side.

It's not any worse compared to cods. It has even more variation in "missions".

Oh yes it is. UT3's AI is horrendous to the extreme.

Really? I didn't find it that stupid. Atleast in UT you can command your stupid AI buddies to defend the flag, follow you or shoot bad guys. Sure enemies AI gets predictable as they always use same routes but when compared cod's AI UT looks like friggin Einstein. UT's AI atleast gets sometimes something done. It's like cod has no AI.

And when you say horrendous AI I think ACII.

illuknisaa wrote:

Wolfun wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:If you haven't played UT online then you really haven't played UT. And why are you bashing BF when your precious Homefront was just a pile of steaming poo.

Online gaming is only a fraction of a game. If the single player function is terrible, I'm not interested in the online side.

It's not any worse compared to cods. It has even more variation in "missions".

Spec Ops? They're pretty different, and pretty good for both Singleplayer and fun with friends/online.

Go fanboy elsewhere.

Spec Ops were boring to me, except for the one when you're on top of a crate in the sub base area sniping at enemies.

BF2 on the PS2 had better challenges in my opinion, the one where you had to snipe from a helicopter was amazingly fun.

MW2= Fail at logistics involved with Russians attacking DC.

BFBC2= The Russians are attacking through Alaska. If Bad Company 2 can make more sense than Modern Warfare, that's pretty bad.

@Melissia: You do know that Battelfield was the first to do the 'Modern Warfare' idea right?

In fact, the final mission in the campaign for the console version had you stopping a missile launch that was being launched by a group of terrorists. Kind of like the last mission in Modern Warfare.

Not saying that you're a CoD fanboy though, we know you hate CoD and BF.

halonachos wrote:Spec Ops were boring to me, except for the one when you're on top of a crate in the sub base area sniping at enemies.

BF2 on the PS2 had better challenges in my opinion, the one where you had to snipe from a helicopter was amazingly fun.

MW2= Fail at logistics involved with Russians attacking DC.

They weren't attacking "just" DC. We don't know the route that they used, but what we do know is that they invaded the West Coast with more than just airborne forces but DC was hit exclusively by airborne forces which captured as much American equipment as they could to supplement their own stuff.

That's far less of a "logistic fail" than you think, especially when coupled with the deus ex machina of the hacked ACS module rendering them effectively 'invisible' to

BFBC2= The Russians are attacking through Alaska. If Bad Company 2 can make more sense than Modern Warfare, that's pretty bad.

Really? In BFBC2 the Russians "attacking through Alaska" makes sense...until you realize that it's one of the stupidest things you could ever do, because it also forces you to put Canada on the warfront.

Interestingly enough, if you want to take a look at another "Soviet Union invades America" scenario, take a look at "World in Conflict".
Seattle is the beachhead the Soviets use to launch their invasion. It's relatively close enough for airborne forces to hit, and has the infrastructure in place to support a full amphibious landing and resupply of their forces.

But hey. I guess Alaska and its barren wastes make sense too.

@Melissia: You do know that Battelfield was the first to do the 'Modern Warfare' idea right?

In fact, the final mission in the campaign for the console version had you stopping a missile launch that was being launched by a group of terrorists. Kind of like the last mission in Modern Warfare.

You do know that the 'anti-government insurgents overrun a missile facility to launch a nuke' isn't exactly a new idea, right?
It's actually based upon one of the biggest fears the United States had post-Cold War with the splintering of the Russian government and the general atmosphere of corruption that emerged amongst former Soviet Generals.

Melissia wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:If you haven't played UT online then you really haven't played UT. And why are you bashing BF when your precious Homefront was just a pile of steaming poo.

I have, I still wasn't impressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChocolateGork wrote:And BF3 will have destructible terrain (to an extent). Vehicles and large maps, and slight realism.

Destructible terrain is usually a bad thing rather than a good one. Just means that maps will turn into snipefests or vehiclefests by the end because you have nowhere to hide.

Actually, it usually depends on game mode. In 'Rush' the defender will usually have snipers, engineers, and soldiers(because they have an inexhaustable supply of respawns and need to take out enemy vehicles), attackers will usually have soldiers and engineers with the odd medic running around because they only get 75 respawns per two targets.

Building destruction can take out an objective inside of it so that usually happens in tougher matches when a bomb can't be planted. Although it can lead to team killing four teammates at once.

Conquest is a base capture game so you see just about every class on both sides and more team mechanics. Playing on Heavy Metal one day when the enemy team was working together and dominating us. We eventually wised up and captured the middle base(with the UAV) and used it to destroy their choppers before they could lift off while we consolidated the base closest to us. After that our choppers were in the air, the UAV was popping enemy choppers, and overwhelming air support rendered the enemy armor useless. This made it more of an infantry battle after their vehicles were taken out they had to assault our bases by foot and our guys were on equal terms.

Then there's the fact that vehicles have a respawn time according to how devastating they can be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Kanluwen.

You do know that Alaska holds a lot of oil right? You do know that Canada's military really isn't up to par against the Russian military right?

What's in between Alaska and Russia? A narrow gap of water.

What's in between the Eastern Seaboard and Russia? Europe and the many US military bases there(seriously there are loads of US military bases in Europe and the Middle East along with some in Japan so Russia is surrounded by US bases) and then there's the Atlantic Ocean.

Attacking Alaska and the pipeline removes a valuable resource from the US forces and is a lot closer to Russia.

halonachos wrote:[
@Kanluwen.

You do know that Alaska holds a lot of oil right? You do know that Canada's military really isn't up to par against the Russian military right?

...You have no clue how wrong this statement is. But okay, go on.

What's in between Alaska and Russia? A narrow gap of water.

And a large amount of defensive radar emplacements, anti-air, anti-ship, Air Force bases, et al.

Alaska isn't as easy of a nut to crack as you think.

What's in between the Eastern Seaboard and Russia? Europe and the many US military bases there(seriously there are loads of US military bases in Europe and the Middle East along with some in Japan so Russia is surrounded by US bases) and then there's the Atlantic Ocean.

Your assumption is that they attacked the Eastern Seaboard directly through Europe. We don't know enough about it to say that they did.

Scratch that. We do. The intro for the level "Wolverines!" shows the route that Cheyenne Mountain was tracking 'phantom dots' on.

Guess what route they used?
They overflew Alaska, hit the West Coast and then proceeded from there. Using nothing but airborne forces, you could feasibly do that.

Attacking Alaska and the pipeline removes a valuable resource from the US forces and is a lot closer to Russia.

The Alaska oil pipeline isn't as "valuable" as you think. It's important, but it's not irreplaceable.

halonachos wrote:@Melissia: You do know that Battelfield was the first to do the 'Modern Warfare' idea right?

No, that's Counterstrike. Hell I'm sure there were games before counterstrike that did it too, but counterstrike certainly popularized it.

Building destruction can take out an objective inside of it so that usually happens in tougher matches when a bomb can't be planted. Although it can lead to team killing four teammates at once.

By usually you must mean always. If they can blow the building up, they will do that instead of trying to plant the bomb. Every time. No exceptions except when the team is so full of noobs that they can't even accomplish this right.

Melissia wrote:Meh, it's just another "modern" game. We already have dozens of them out. Could use more sci-fi ones, or hell, even a WWII one would stick out compared to the usual modern garbage like the crap coming from the CoD, MoH, and BF series.

Ha thats ironic the reason Call of Duty moved to modern warfare with COD4 was because they thought WWII was stale...they had done 3 games based on it. But more to the point, I'm pumped for MW3, I don't care what anybody says. I loved MW1 and MW2. I do mainly play for multiplayer, and I thought MW2 was incredible...both WaW and BO seemed like really bad COD clones, so not a fan of treyarch. While MW2 may have had a bit of a far fetched campaign storyline, I still thought it was loads of fun, but it was the many hours I clocked in on multiplayer that really won me over.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:@Melissia: You do know that Battelfield was the first to do the 'Modern Warfare' idea right?

No, that's Counterstrike. Hell I'm sure there were games before counterstrike that did it too, but counterstrike certainly popularized it.

Building destruction can take out an objective inside of it so that usually happens in tougher matches when a bomb can't be planted. Although it can lead to team killing four teammates at once.

By usually you must mean always. If they can blow the building up, they will do that instead of trying to plant the bomb. Every time. No exceptions except when the team is so full of noobs that they can't even accomplish this right.

Melissia, you really need to play the console versions more often. People do that a lot less than the PC according to your experiences versus my own, seriously, the $400 on the console alone may be worth it.

@ Kanluwen.

The Canadian military exists, but its less powerful than ours and could be swept aside, or Canada could sit out of it like they did in Homefront.

The Alaskan pipeline is easily replaced, but not while Russians are there and then the US will have to get supplies elsewhere or use the surplus stores to supplement the loss.

The intro video shows different attacks, they show attacks on Alaska, the West Coast, and the East Coast at the same time. Again, not really possible. The flight path of the planes attacking the west coast are moving from the South West, which is mostly ocean, and I mean completely ocean until you hit New Guinea and Australia. That means they would of had to use carriers, do you know how many aircraft carriers Russia has now? They have a grand total of one(1) and I repeat one aircraft carrier. So that's being used by the guys attacking the West Coast which means the guys attacking Alaska will have to either land at overrun US air bases or return to their base in Russia eventually. The same applies to the planes attacking the East Coast, except this is a one-way trip for those aircraft seeing as though they would have to fly across Europe once again. Besides, I never guessed helicopters could fly across the Atlantic and still have enough fuel to engage enemy targets without an aircraft carrier.

Do you know how many aircraft carriers the US operates? We have 11, 5 are on the East Coast in Norfolk which is an hour away from DC and the others are deployed in the West.

Logistically impossible.

And again: this isn't the actual Russian military we're seeing now.

You're also missing the fact that the helicopters used by the Russians in MW2 can be carried via airplane.

Kanluwen wrote:And again: this isn't the actual Russian military we're seeing now.

You're also missing the fact that the helicopters used by the Russians in MW2 can be carried via airplane.

Are the helicopters launched directly out of the plane? No, the plane has to land somewhere and there's really no friendly places for them to land, unload the chopper,and then get it to take off.

Which is why the first thing seized by airborne forces would be airports.

I'm not sure why this is so complex. It's pretty 'textbook' for paratroop operations if they're going to be used. They get inserted as early as possible, seize airfields and land forces ASAP.

Kanluwen wrote:Which is why the first thing seized by airborne forces would be airports.

I'm not sure why this is so complex. It's pretty 'textbook' for paratroop operations if they're going to be used. They get inserted as early as possible, seize airfields and land forces ASAP.

And in Red Storm rising they took an American airbase on Greenland to threaten the United States. Paratroop operations aren't going to be conducted in three different locations at the same time successfully and I doubt any Russian commander would advocate attacking three different areas with ariborne troops simply because it diminishes the amount of troops.

Although others have argued against it.

So now, you’re back in the Army Rangers, in East Virginia, during a Russian invasion of America. That’s right, there hasn’t been any real time between the rampage in Moscow, and the invasion. In fact, how did the Russians have time to assemble the so many hundreds of thousands of soldiers, arm them all, acquire all the planes, and fly across the ocean that separates America from Europe, in less than 24 hours? In arguments case, it took the United States of America almost 6 months to respond to the 9/11 attack, and that was a major attack, and a globally known and proven terrorist act. How is it that the Russian government has the ability to send their entire defense force, without any sort of argument or parliamentary passing to allow the invasion, in less than 24 hours? Are they even 100% sure that the suspected American terrorist that was found in Moscow was sent by the government? And how are they so sure that he wasn’t just another civilian? He WAS killed, after all, and they have the bullet and shell to prove it.
Back onto this mission, how did the Russian invasion manage to pass through, undetected, American air space, and air defense grids? And what the hell, did they have cloaking abilities, like macho uber Star Trek or something?
Immediately, you are faced with a BTR, a “Big, Totally-Useless Retartank”. Like seriously, how the hell do they have one of those things on the ground, deployed, already, and they’ve been invading for what, two minutes?
And what’s with all the roadblocks? How did the American army respond so quickly to the Russian invasion, in a suburban setting no less? And where did they get all the stuff to make the roadblocks from?
But, I guess the old saying goes, “You know you’re a patriot when in the case of a Russian invasion, your entire defense force goes to the nearest Burger Town to defend it”.
And again, what the hell is with all the heavy weapons on the roof of the Burger Town? Do they use RPG’s and Sentry Turrets as crowd suppressants? And seriously, why are the Russians pressing so hard in a residential shopping mall? There’s no civilians, the only things there are marines that are defending the place from the Russians.



Now, to make matters worse, the Russians have started their invasion of Washington, D.C.
You are immediately opened up to some huge buidling, like, parliament house or something, as a battlefield, complete with the trenches, which then makes me ask, how the hell did they dig those trenches so quickly? And under heavy fire no less? And why do the Russians now occupy this place? Of ALL places, that would be where Marine (and Army Ranger) forces be heaviest in numbers.
And why is there graffiti on the walls directly in front of this building which is obviously important?
Anyway, putting that aside, it’s actually a really cool mission, and at the finale of the mission is a chopper gunner part, flying through Washington, DC, shooting a lot of Russian bad guys and finally being shot down.
Awesome stuff, if a bit bland, and at the end, what the HELL happened to all your spare ammo? I swear I had like, 8 full clips remaining by the time I got on the chopper, and when it downed, I didn’t even have a gun…


The next mission shows off you having to “retake Whisky Hotel”, in heavy fire. Charging through trenches, built by US marines…
And then another one! How could the trenches have been dug so quickly, under rain and heavy fire? Why was the White House allowed to be taken so easily?

Most importantly(besides the amount of troops and the vast distance they're travelling) is the timing.

halonachos wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Which is why the first thing seized by airborne forces would be airports.

I'm not sure why this is so complex. It's pretty 'textbook' for paratroop operations if they're going to be used. They get inserted as early as possible, seize airfields and land forces ASAP.

And in Red Storm rising they took an American airbase on Greenland to threaten the United States. Paratroop operations aren't going to be conducted in three different locations at the same time successfully and I doubt any Russian commander would advocate attacking three different areas with airborne troops simply because it diminishes the amount of troops.

Paratroop operations are actually going to be conducted in as few as three and as many as sixteen different locations.

You don't care about "diminishing the amount of troops". Paratroop forces, in this day and age, are filling the same role that they filled during Operation: Overlord, Neptune, Husky, or Varsity. Disruption and harassment.

Although others have argued against it.

So now, you’re back in the Army Rangers, in East Virginia, during a Russian invasion of America. That’s right, there hasn’t been any real time between the rampage in Moscow, and the invasion. In fact, how did the Russians have time to assemble the so many hundreds of thousands of soldiers, arm them all, acquire all the planes, and fly across the ocean that separates America from Europe, in less than 24 hours?

Timeframe put it at more than 24 hours, but go on.

In arguments case, it took the United States of America almost 6 months to respond to the 9/11 attack, and that was a major attack, and a globally known and proven terrorist act. How is it that the Russian government has the ability to send their entire defense force, without any sort of argument or parliamentary passing to allow the invasion, in less than 24 hours?

Probably because Russia has never really been big on parliamentary procedures when it comes to revenge.
There's also the fact that Makarov orchestrated the whole thing, and used his contacts within the Russian military to get it pushed forward. But hey. This clearly isn't Hollywood where everything is just thrown at you.

Are they even 100% sure that the suspected American terrorist that was found in Moscow was sent by the government? And how are they so sure that he wasn’t just another civilian? He WAS killed, after all, and they have the bullet and shell to prove it.

They also have him on video with a gun, firing into the crowd. They have him and the rest of his team speaking in clear English(remember the mission name? What was it...oh right, "No Russian"), and opening fire on the Moscow police.
He was killed, however, wearing a bulletproof vest and holding a gun. That's all some people need.

Back onto this mission, how did the Russian invasion manage to pass through, undetected, American air space, and air defense grids? And what the hell, did they have cloaking abilities, like macho uber Star Trek or something?

The ACS module is how they did it. Is it a huge deus ex machina? Of course. But it still is better than "They dun did it fer oil!".

Immediately, you are faced with a BTR, a “Big, Totally-Useless Retartank”. Like seriously, how the hell do they have one of those things on the ground, deployed, already, and they’ve been invading for what, two minutes?

Anyone who calls the BTR a tank is ridicudumb. It takes not even five minutes of wikipedia to realize that the particular model of BTR that was showcased in MW2 is the Russian airborne variant, designed like the Sheridan to be airdropped.

And what’s with all the roadblocks? How did the American army respond so quickly to the Russian invasion, in a suburban setting no less? And where did they get all the stuff to make the roadblocks from?

Really? Someone actually said this?
The "roadblocks" were Jersey barriers. They're the most common thing out there for setting up temporary checkpoints. Cops will use them to set up speedtraps and breathalyzer tests.

But, I guess the old saying goes, “You know you’re a patriot when in the case of a Russian invasion, your entire defense force goes to the nearest Burger Town to defend it”.

This one got me giggling a bit. Did they not actually listen to what was going on?
The whole point of that team being diverted was to protect a VIP whose helicopter crashed. If you look to the north of Nate's and to the west of the bank--you can see the big huge wreckage of a Sea Stallion.
The callsign for the VIP was "Raptor". You never actually find out who or what "Raptor" is and that can put a dent in that bit, but it's likely that if he had a bodyguard of USMC and a Sea Stallion that he was pretty damned important.

And again, what the hell is with all the heavy weapons on the roof of the Burger Town? Do they use RPG’s and Sentry Turrets as crowd suppressants? And seriously, why are the Russians pressing so hard in a residential shopping mall? There’s no civilians, the only things there are marines that are defending the place from the Russians.

There's Marines that are defending the place...and a VIP that the Russians would love to get their hands on.
The Stingers and Sentry Turrets are a bit much, sure. But not if they were likely air dropped or in the cargo hold of the Sea Stallion when it went down.

Now, to make matters worse, the Russians have started their invasion of Washington, D.C.
You are immediately opened up to some huge buidling, like, parliament house or something, as a battlefield, complete with the trenches, which then makes me ask, how the hell did they dig those trenches so quickly? And under heavy fire no less? And why do the Russians now occupy this place? Of ALL places, that would be where Marine (and Army Ranger) forces be heaviest in numbers.

Do people really believe that the Marines and Rangers have nothing better to do than sit in DC?

And why is there graffiti on the walls directly in front of this building which is obviously important?
Anyway, putting that aside, it’s actually a really cool mission, and at the finale of the mission is a chopper gunner part, flying through Washington, DC, shooting a lot of Russian bad guys and finally being shot down.
Awesome stuff, if a bit bland, and at the end, what the HELL happened to all your spare ammo? I swear I had like, 8 full clips remaining by the time I got on the chopper, and when it downed, I didn’t even have a gun…

It's almost like going down in a helicopter ends up with people getting shook up.

Crazy right?

The next mission shows off you having to “retake Whisky Hotel”, in heavy fire. Charging through trenches, built by US marines…
And then another one! How could the trenches have been dug so quickly, under rain and heavy fire? Why was the White House allowed to be taken so easily?

"Allowed to be taken so easily"?
In all likelihood, the first thing done by the Russians was to drop on the White House.
Mustering the full might of the US military from to deploy, even just the forces in the States is going to take a lengthy amount of time. The first few hours of the air drop, the Russians would have been pretty unopposed outside of the police and Secret Service.

Most importantly(besides the amount of troops and the vast distance they're travelling) is the timing.

And when you know it's going to happen, you have all the time in the world.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying it's the greatest plot ever. I'm saying that all of the points that the Battlefield fanboys love to point at as "unrealistic" are far from it.
There's reasons that contingency plans were in place in case of an airborne invasion of the United States during the Cold War.
There's a reason why the first level you play as a member of Task Force 141("Cliffhanger") has you recovering the ACS module. In warfare now, the flow of information is key. If you can corrupt or disrupt that flow of information--you've as good as won. The ACS module was cracked before it was recovered.

That's why it's called a "Deus Ex Machina".

halonachos wrote:Melissia, you really need to play the console versions more often. People do that a lot less than the PC according to your experiences versus my own, seriously, the $400 on the console alone may be worth it.

No, I have no intention of being forced to aim using the inferior controls of a console controller compared to a mouse and keyboard.

Especially not the xbox controls. Ugh >.< I can't stand using the xbox 360 controller (I play with a friend occasionally) for FPS games.

I think the Modern Warfare 2 story is misunderstood. Realize that it was not written to be clearly accurate nor clearly convincing, but it was a means by which to put the player in a location for nice visuals. There were some clearly memorable visuals in MW2. For example: the green flares on top of buildings in DC at night, the cavernous opening shot to reveal the Favela and the O Cristo Redentor statue, the march through suburban DC with AA fire and paratrooping Russians overhead, the Gulag Castle escape, the nuke being fired from the Submarine, Soap pulling the knife out of his own body, etc.

MW1 had it's set of visuals as well. The nuke going off, the desaturated look of Soap's first mission, the SAS infiltration of the nuke base, etc. But, they aren't as nearly as numerous as MW2's simply due to the fact that we've seen these sort of missions many times before in both games and film. (Spec Ops team attacks enemy base, Marines fight in dense urban location, Mass helicopter assault, etc)

From a visuals point of view, I've seen the BF3 trailers and to be honest I'm not particularly hyped. I think the animations are astounding, but I'm being thrown in the same location that I have from many games prior to it. But, I'm sure the gameplay will be great fun and I'll enjoy it when I get my hands on it.

Indeed. I think ti's just fine. Realism in general kinda sucks anyway, I don't play the game to experience reality, but to play a fantasy. Sometimes it's a fantasy of a soldier, sometimes it's the fantasy of commanding an army, sometimes the simpler fantasy of building a giant structure. etc.

Melissia wrote:Indeed. I think ti's just fine. Realism in general kinda sucks anyway, I don't play the game to experience reality, but to play a fantasy. Sometimes it's a fantasy of a soldier, sometimes it's the fantasy of commanding an army, sometimes the simpler fantasy of building a giant structure. etc.

I concur. For me though, very realistic games IS a sort of fantasy. While realistic, these games put the player in situations that the average civilian simply wouldn't be in. Arma2 + Ace Mod is about as close to military combat as I'm going to see (I usually only play with my core group of friends, so I've only glimpsed at how terrible the community is). Rainbow Six and SWAT4 put me in the shoes of elite fictional operatives for some good ol CQB room-clearing fun without the politics.

Unless the realism gets in the way of the fantasy. Which is why I roll my eyes at the "omg women in fps games unrealistic" chaff that's tossed around every time that subject is brought up.

I was thinking more gameplay realism such as: health, bullet trajectory, sound immersion, user interface, aesthetics, etc.

Social issues like women in a fps game is whole other beast that really deserves it's own thread for discussion.

Let's not start that thread again It'd just attract all the little trolls out from under their bridges.

I'll buy because even the the game is the same just reskinned, it will still be fun to play online. Maybe all the little kids who play MW2 and complain about Black ops will move to black ops while all the stoners will move to MW3.