I've actually played the Battlefield games off and on since BF 1942, so BC2 wasn't so tough to get used to. I was simply reminded why I usually stop playing BF games.

And this game may be "beloved by its community," but it certainly isn't the popular choice...for obvious reasons.

It isn't the popular choice for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with its quality. Since when does popularity equal quality?

You call the game chaotic and a complete mess, but anyone who takes the time to learn the ins and outs should be having an extremely cohesive experience. The game is designed from the ground up to reward people on objectives and teamwork, and taking advantage of that fact inherently makes it more focused.

Sometimes things are popular because they're actually good. That's never been BF's case, unfortunately.

And I've been playing BC2 for weeks now, in preparation for this article. What, am I supposed to have played it for a year before stating my claims?

Don't play BC2, play Battlefield 2. Join a squad. Listen to what the squad leader tells you to do, watch his back, stay in cover, stay alive, shit your pants when a T-90 rolls past 2 feet from where you're hiding and you're the guy holding the Eryx.

I have.

They're the same game, dude.

I don't understand your problems with the BF games. Guns are too real? They are only a little bit harder to shoot than the COD games.. If you can't kill a guy who is far away with an MG or a pistol or whatever, it's you, not the gun. Yes there is a little lag and dip on bullets, depending on how far away the target is, but It's not hard to account for this, at all. This type of "realism" doesn't take away from the fun of the BF series. What DICE has done well is come up with a blend of arcade and realism, just like COD did, but put a little bit more focus on the latter. They added realism in a way to make things more fun and rewarding. Ever Snipe a guy off a jetski from far away? It's way more rewarding than a headshot pistol kill in COD, trust me. 

Saying COD is deeper than BF is just ridiculous. I fail to see much depth in COD games. You win games by mostly just running and gunning; sometimes camping the stairs comes into it. There is little to no tactics here, which is fine, and it makes it easier to just pick up and play. But where is this depth? BF on the other hand is mostly all about tactics. Running and gunning is going to, which apparently has happened to you, get shot in the back on the peripherals. Not sure why you think people killing you mostly there makes things chaotic and unorganized. The peripherals are where people will be trying to sneak around to flank, or find a good spot to gun down advancing troops. It's a very simple tactic. So if you get shot in the back, 90% of the time it's just because you simply aren't that good at the game, and don't exactly know what you're doing or you're supposed to do. Which is fine, this game has an actual learning curve and you actually have to think and plan. 

Now to the hype, popularity, and whatnot part. You say Battlefield 3 isn't really going to offer anything new from Bad Company 2 except  some small details, and updated graphics engine. This is probably very true. But let's be honest here, is it that bad of a thing? What other MODERN games offer what the Battlefield games do? What modern games have a similar feel? None. I say modern because let's be honest, Battlefield 2 is old and looks like crap by todays standards. Bad Company 2 is probably the only game that looks modern enough by today's standards. Maybe Bad Company 1, not sure, haven't played it. So while you're only mostly getting a graphics upgrade, and this is a very nice upgrade, plus more dynamics destructible environments, it's still a great game (based on the established idea that it's very close to being Bad Company 2). That's enough reason for the hype. It's new and they don't have the competition of a similar feeling game. (COD and BF don't feel all that similar even though they both are army shooters. They really are alternatives to each other.) Look at the Halo games, if you want an example. What differences did they make between Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3? Barely any. Was there massive hype? Hell yes, in part because it was a new game, with slight upgrades to it's predecessors, with no other real direct competition. If you look at COD, there aren't really any upgrades between the series. Barely any difference between MW, MW2, Black Ops, and now MW3. Add that MW3 looks and sounds exactly like the other CODs. That's why the hype is no where near BF3. Also add that COD has been the more popular game. Add that it is virtually unchanged. People are probably getting tired of this run and gun style and see BF3 as a really promising alternative.

I think we should leave out which game has more quality because that is purely subjective. One is simpler and one is a bit more complex, but neither thing is inherently bad. 

Also I think you should give Bad Company 2 another try, especially with your friends because that does make a big difference in communication and amount of fun you have. I just don't think you "get it". It's like you're still stuck in the COD mindset of almost mindless killing. Slow down, think things through a more tactical manner and try new things. The reason I say this is mostly because there are some gaping flaws in the Bad Company 2, flaws that I will be very disappointed if they don't fix in Battlefield 3, but you haven't even touched on any of them.

Actually BF2 isn't the same game as BC2 and BF2 was WAYYYYYYYYYY better than BFBC 1 or 2 ever were lol

Have you ever fired a real gun before, Joel?

I watched the trailer, and noticed the same issue I find with most shooters--rampant flagging of buddies. The first rule of firearm safety is don't point your weapon at something you don't intend to kill. Yet, in most shooters, Battlefield 3 included, you nearly always point your weapon straight forward--at enemies, at the wall, at buddies, at nothingness. I lost count how many times the guy in the trailer flagged his buddies. That's a big, big no-no. The only time you seem to carry your weapon in the low-ready position is when you're running.

Also, there'd be few, if any situations, where you'd want to fire a carbine in the automatic setting, because of how inaccurate it is (the recoil and shaking you see makes that clear).

And Ryan, I have to take issue with your assertion that it's easy to miss a target 20 feet away...maybe with a pistol, but with a rifle, anyone with 10 minutes of training should be able to hit a target 50-150 yards away, especially if they're using a CCO (BF3 appears to use the standard video game aiming mechanism that appears from thin air). Hitting someone 100 yards away with a pistol is possible, but to be able to do it repeatedly, with the same veracity as a rifle (or any other weapon) is just absurd. That's one of the many, many problems I have with FPS's.

The lack of realism sort of works in the favor of an FPS, though, don't you think?

I don't really get caught up in the lack of finer details (in fact, I hate them), because complete realism can sometimes completely undermine whatever fun the game hopes to produce.

Not to belabor the point, Ryan, but you keep saying that (realism undermines fun), yet I don't think you've really substantiated the claim. Not that I think you can, anyway. Fun isn't something easily quantified or qualified, and I think that's why you're getting such staunch disagreements within these comments.

You mention a "lack of realism" as it relates to the "popular" FPS's like Modern Warfare, but I don't think that Treyarch or Infinity intentionally set out to make an unrealistic game. The stories might be bombastic nonsense, but they clearly strive to get a lot of the finer details right (even if they ultimately fail). Black Ops hired military advisors, same as Battlefield 3.

I admit I've never played the BF series, but if the differences are as miniscule as recoil, then I'd say BF's realism (and conversely, Modern Warfare's unrealism) is vastly overstated. They're all more or less equally unrealistic. Watching BF3's gameplay, it didn't seem radically different from Modern Warfare or Medal of Honor.

If you want to prove that the general public prefers bombastic crap to realism, a more apt comparison would be Modern Warfare to a tactical shooter (like Ghost Recon). But I don't think a truly "realistic" shooter has ever been tried, and I disagree that the public would unilaterally reject it. I have a lot more "fun" watching a realistic military flick like Black Hawk Down than playing any FPS, b/c the FPS reminds me at every opportunity that it's fake.

Obviously certain aspects of "realism" can add to the experience. I never said it doesn't.

In terms of this particular gameplay mechanic (shooting a firearm), toning down the perfection helps the fun more than adding more gravity interference and recoil.

Making a gun in a video game more "realistic" makes it more difficult to shoot...and that's not really a good thing.

That's my argument here, not that overall realism makes a game shitty.

It sounds like "CoD vs BF3" is the military shooter equivalent of "Forza vs. Gran Turismo".  One is more willing to compromise some realism for fun, the other is more willing to compromise some fun for realism.

I've never shot a gun in my life except once during a summer camp (whatever), but I would still be interested in a game that gives me the real deal (not to say that BF3 is that game).  I don't agree that fun shooters take realism out of the equation to make it better. I agree with the Forza vs Gran Turismo metaphor.  MW is fun, but if you tell me another game let's me experience war at a more realistic level, I'll try it for sure.

I think the most 'realistic' shooting I've had in a video game goes to America's Army (which was their intent).

I like that.

Shooter wise, the BF series has never really been top pick, but there are a lot of other qualities/features that set it apart from others. The sound design is the one thing that I can honestly say is far, FAR superior to any other shooter I've ever played. BC2 doesn't even have foley, because it doesn't need it. The sounds of the players is all the game uses, and it works better than anything I've ever heard.

Rush is a great mode to me -- the only one I play, actually. That's probably because the battle is centralized and a little more focused. It's also cool to see the battlefield move around once bombs have been detonated and the defending team has to fall back.

64-player games is sort of a Battlefield staple. It's usually confined to Conquest mode. This is the mode that constantly reminds me why I'm not a huge (only semi-large) fan of the series. I would rather my death depend on my skill, not the circumstance of where I'm at and whether or not someone can shoot me in the back.

I actually don't care that much about either game, to be honest. I just find the hype for BF3 (and the lack thereof for MW3) interesting...and pretty much unfounded.

If the guns have had a "similar feel" as far back as 1942, and that original wasn't really complimented for its gun mechanics, then why is it a GOOD thing to keep that? It seems kind of silly to remain a lesser game just to distinguish yourself from the more popular (and more streamlined) competition.

MW3 is regarded as another yet similar game in the played-out annual franchise while Battlefield 3 is considered the successor to the highly regarded Battlefield 2 that came out over 6 years ago. Your argument that Battlefield is a lesser game is akin to saying that The Simpsons is better than The Godfather because Bart is funnier than Michael and the simple color pallet looks fresher to you.

That analogy you used made practically no sense, just to let you know. I'm not comparing two different things here. I'm comparing shooters.

And what makes BF3 so much more unique of a sequel than MW3 (besides graphics)? That's the argument I'm making here.

A couple of years ago, it'd be considerably difficult to find someone who said BF was better than COD. Now, everyone seems to be a convert. When in all reality, BOTH games are pretty unchanged.

A bit odd, ain't it?

It's a shame to throw graphics out the window completely because, it's a great new engine, Frostbite 2. I think everyone is excited at how well it renders and lights very large environments. The all new physics and destructibility it affords will be completely awesome. It's being touted as a staunchly PC-first title, not ported from console like the COD series is. All new maps. They're redoing the unit types, which should be interesting.

There is a ton to be excited about. The PC Battlefield fans have been waiting for the decent follow up to Battlefield 2 for 6 years now. The console games Bad Company  and Bad Company 2 were not that that follow-up we have been waiting for. 

Don't get me wrong, BF3 looks mesmerizing. I've seen it with my own eyes and I can say that none of the buzz surrounding the graphics is hyperbole. But being excited about immersion is one thing; being excited over a good EXPERIENCE is completely different. And 99% of the people who are already hailing BF3 as an amazing game and MW3 as pure shit are sort of pulling such conceptions out of their asses.

And what exactly sets BC2 apart from BF2? They both seem pretty damn similar to me, except one looks better.

By the common logic that has been used as of late, Bad Company 2 should be the best game is the series, right? It looks pretty!

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with the notion that COD involves no skill. Saying something requires no degree of skill simply because it's "unrealistic" would imply that every game -- every game -- requires no skill.

COD's gun mechanics are satisfying because you're given the opportunity (not the promise, as your implying) to feel like some badass gunslinger. If you're beaten by a five-year-old that easily, perhaps you should rethink your preferred genre.

No offense, I have yet to meet anyone in person who has openly stated their vexation with any game (other that fighters) due to having been beaten by a toddler.

I guess you have to go out there and meet more gamers then, huh? 

I have at least three extremely young cousins who play COD on a regular basis (Mature-rating aside). They like seeing things go "BOOM" and I do too, but COD isn't that game for me. 

Battlefield isn't realistic, but it's sure more grounded than COD is. I never, ever feel like I'm succeeding in COD when I play online. It never feels like a battle of skills; it feels like "whoever can hit the trigger button first wins". Explain to me how that is fun. Explain how that is rewarding, to know that you don't need to learn a game's deeper mechanics in order to become a better player. 

Well, if a five-year-old has been playing the game for a while, that's one thing. To say that any child can come in a beat anyone at COD is ludicrous. I know this sounds harsh, but anyone bested by a noob toddler really, really...really sucks at games.

You're telling me what these games "feel like" to you, and that's fine. The fact of the matter is that COD's shooting mechanics are built around precision (which can be directly linked to personal skill). BF is not. I typically play COD on my PC monitor because the resolution is extremely high and every little pixel matters.

And what are these "deeper mechanics" that you and everyone else speak of? You're implying that BF is somehow a "deeper" game by merely saying so.

Are you kidding me? Stop bringing up the whole "a child can't possibly beat anyone in COD" nonsense, because I've seen it happen MULTIPLE TIMES. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's non-existent.

There's a lack of precision involved in COD because there's little to no recoil on weapons, the shots don't always need to be lined up, there is no penalty for missing your shot or even dying. You can unload rounds and not be penalized for that. How is that satisfying? How is that fun? Because you can do that with the most basic weapon says how unbalanced the weapons are, not how good of a player you are. You don't learn a weapon. You don't learn the trajectory of a Rocket Launcher so that you can blow up a tank hundreds of yards away. You don't learn how to flush out people camping in a building by covering all sides or by knowing exactly what spots will, when shot, causes buildings to collapse. You don't even need to strategize with your teammates, because as long as you get a few headshots here and there, you can get a gamebreaking kill streak reward that'll win the game for you. Again, there's no skill involved in that. COD is basically "the pistol is fast! the shotgun doesn't shoot far! the sniper rifle takes long to reload!". Why would you want to play a game where everyone feels like a "badass gunslinger"? Why would you want to play a game where everyone has the same skill as everyone else, where competition is based not on skill but on who can press the button the fastest? 

If you don't like how the gunplay feels in Battlefield, that's fine, that's your opinion.  But to out & out say that Call of Duty is a better shooter because it has mechanics more strictly adherent to your preference is completely ridiculous. Speaking of "what are these deeper mechanices you and everyone else speak of" (and look, if everyone else is saying the SAME THING that I'm arguing, maybe you might want to look into your own flawed argument?), what is it exactly, thoroughly that makes you think that the BF series isn't about precision? Because that "Parkinson's disease" line tells me absolutely nothing except that you have a like for tasteless analogies. Is it because there's recoil? Because you have to learn the weight, trajectory & range of a weapon but you don't have to do so in COD? Just because you don't like BF's mechanics doesn't mean it automatically makes COD a superior game. 

I think you need to calm down. Obviously you don't understand the exactl definition of an "opinion piece," which is precisely what this is. The only difference is that I've played BF3.

"Just because you don't like BF's mechanics doesn't mean it automatically makes COD a superior game."

And just because you like the mechanics doesn't mean my argument is automatically void. I'm not the only one who doesn't like them (along with the other issues BF had). The numbers, at this moment, tend to back me up on this.

More people prefer being beaten by five-year-olds, as you imply, than learning bullet trajectory.

One more thing:

"Why would you want to play a game where everyone has the same skill as everyone else..."

Doesn't that technically mean everyone is equal? Everyone has is at the same level within the game, so personal skill is the defining factor between living and dying.

BF makes things considerably unfair at the beginning, and it takes a while to get everything to put you on equal ground with everyone else.

A friend of mine once said, "Once you get to level 15, the game starts to get fun."

Yeah...

"The numbers, at this moment, tend to back me up on this. More people prefer being beaten by five-year-olds, as you imply, than learning bullet trajectory."

 in COD's case more people ARE five-year-old's.  I was talking to some COD fans the other day and they actually believed that COD has realistic bullet time  o_O  No mate.

I used to play a LOT of COD, I used to own practically every game even when I was on a shit team.. But here's the thing. EVERYONE IS GOOD AT COD. after only a little bit everyone feels like a god at that game. Nobody I have met considers them self an average or medium cod player, they have reason to think that way because after a while they are going to get a great game, that's the way cod works..

COD is an easy game, pick up 'n play and its much more shallow than BF. that's a fact, undeniable is COD's simplicity. The only reason that COD is more popular is that it holds 60 FPS on console.... The noobs like this 'smoothness' as they call it. BF has much more depth (ammo packs, health packs, revival, repair vehicles, spotting ect.) It's a different game once you actually learn to play it properly, if you play it like cod you will get owned. And LOL at you complaining about getting shot in the back! That does not happen on COD with its broken spawn system, lol no not at all...../s

I still like a bit of action on MW2 now and then, but it can barely hold my interest for more than a couple of games.. It is no longer a viable online game for me, I see online gaming as a way to interact with people, but there is little to no interaction in COD. Just a bunch of immature kids sprouting racist remarks and insulting each other, something I rarely find in BF or KZ2. Games where you are actively encouraged to help you teammates and communicate for me bring out the true joy in gaming online, tagging people out alone no longer gives me any satisfaction, since it's so easy. COD gives you the feeling that you have skill, when it takes little more than mediocre hand eye coordination and practically no thought, tactics or critical thinking...

When was the last time you played Battlefield, Rob?

That would be around the release of Battlefield 2142. I didn't bother with the Bad Company series.

Well, if my aforementioned issues with the game are the exact reason you'd enjoy it, you might as well pick up any other game in the series.

You're really not going to get much different.

I'm interested in the promised fully destructible terrain, though!

There's plenty of that in BC2, actually. Haha

I've had an entire building collapse on me several times. They result in a suicide and loss of points. :(

Agreed!  Halo: CEHD can't come out soon enough.

And don't get me started on Borderlands 2... is there going to be one?!?

You'll get nothing but nods from me here, guys. The moment the Halo Anniversary release was announced, I knew I was going to buy it.

I have yet to play Borderlands, but Shoe had some good things to say about it when we had lunch the other day. I think that'll be my next game to play before the holiday rush.

Agreed. The comments section on Bitmob is starting to feel like an unwelcome place to even respectfully disagree with anything, else you get put on blast for it. Games are supposed to be fun!

Aso, thirded on more Borderlands.

*throws hands up*

You asked for the COD vs BF discussion when you mentioned one as having "ultra-refined gameplay" and the other not. It's even in your opening paragraph.. 

Also agreeing to disagree isn't always "respect". A lot of the time it's one party being much to stubborn to think outside their little box, which results in the other party getting frustrated and realizing that arguing their point further is just a lost cause. 

Respectfully Ryan, the point of your article is that YOU don't find BC2 fun, not that it's no fun at all. As has been proven by the outpouring of comments on this very page, there are a lot of people who like the BF franchise.

It's fine to stand up for what you believe in, but when you say a game is terrible and then make direct comparisons to it's biggest competitor, you're just begging to incite a war.

Which is pretty much what you got from the look at this comments section.

Ryan, please see my email.

Michael, I've been looking through your comments and the only other recent instance where the arguments have gotten tense was the 5HP video. Are there any other instances besides these two when you believe there's an unwelcome environment?

If you're looking at MY comments, yeah, those would look like the only two instances. But I'm not just talking about places where I've commented. Part of the reason you're not seeing more is because I've refrained from commenting on a lot of posts because of the tone of the comments section. That's pretty much the issue.

I'm not hijacking this thread into an anti-Ryan or anti-Bitmob debate, though. I don't have the specific examples off the top of my head that you're looking for, and this is a discussion better left to email. Thanks :)

Chase: I suppose I should have expect more opposition than I did. I find it a bit humorous at this point, but there is a part of me that thinks, "Damn..."

A friend of mine read the article through a Facebook link and went as far as offering me his PS3 version (because apparently it was "made for consoles"). And also so I could play as a higher level with all of the perks and equipment available.

I don't know how offensive this will sound, but I get a slight sense of an inferiority complex coming from some BF fans...my friend especially.

It shouldn't surprise me this much to have been so proverbially burned at the stake.

Biggest reason you've been proverbially burned at the stake is because your reasoning is very flawed. I outlined near the top of the comments with detail why it is flawed as well, though it is a huge wall of text. You really should read it. You use the word inferiority but that's not the case. It's the chocolate vs vanilla argument. It's all about preference. I don't suppose you get a slight sense of inferiority complex from some chocolate or vanilla fans?

I used to play COD, like a bunch of my friends, and I loved it. I quit Bad Company 2 within a week of getting it because it seemed stupid. I know a lot of people who either have done or almost have done the same. I came back to BF:BC2 over a year later because the COD people I played with were switching over. I got it, I understood the game, something clicked. COD was traded in at the very next opportunity even though I just shelled out $15 or so on new map packs, which were really well done by the way. It's not just coincidence that people have been doing this. People aren't that stupid. There is quality that you refuse to see. 

I re-read the article and comments, and cannot for the life of me see what was so offensive about it. Did I disagree with Ryan? Yes, vehemently so. But that's nothing new. We always disagree.

In debates, it often boils down to a difference of opinion, and no stats or figures will sway either party. In this case, Ryan feels that too much realism spoils the experience. I disagree. Many others do as well. But in the end, it's a difference of opinion. And Ryan isn't the first person to make this argument.

If the author got some fact wrong, I'd call him out on it (and I did with regards to his firearms quip). But otherwise, the "realism vs. fun" debate is a very old one, and this article isn't especially offensive or derogatory. Provocative, yes, but that's the point. Then again, I love meaty debates, and I love stirring the pot and defending controversial opinions (even if it's me vs. the world, which it often is). We tend to forget how professional Bitmob's community is vs. the majority of internet sites. There is virtually no trolling here, which is unheard of elsewhere.

This isn't really a realism vs fun debate. It's about this being a very poor opinion piece that seems to be written with the intent to stir the waters. It's using poor and even false information to do so. It's not about someone having a differing opinion. Thing is, opinions aren't all valid; there needs to be a solid foundation backing the opinion for it to be taken seriously and respected. 

I love how the comments are quickly devolving into an us vs. them debate. Of course, I probably should expected such a response with game franchises like Call of Duty and Battlefield.

I agree with Jason that this is a well-written argument that wasn't really offensive. I often agree to disagree with him, but it's not like I ever try to stab him with a pitchfork.

Bitmob is also much more professional than people expect from a gaming website. I'm really glad that this article caught all the CoD fanboys' attention. I have to give props to Ryan--this article has even more comments than my angry review of Pearl Jam's most recent album.

I really need to think of some more controversial story ideas. Ryan and Jason are beating me in the number of hits on their stories. Lol.

I believe it was likely caused by "Modern Warfare is a good shooter. Bad Company 2 isn't."  It's a black and white argument at the beginning of the article that colors the rest, and will be sure to agitate anyone who doesn't agree.

...except for people who don't care about either franchise. I honestly feel like both franchises are going to burn out in a fiery explosion, based on the constant rate at which developers are churning out military FPS games.

Those people wouldn't respond to an article about these games regardless of what was said- because like you stipulate- they don't care about either franchise.

That's actually one of my biggest problems with BC2, although I coudn't make the comparison because I don't know any details on BF3's leveling system. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same, though.

Part of the draw with COD is the variety of rewards and choices you get while leveling up. That, and everything is so well balanced that a beginner can still do good.

BF2 starts you with close to nothing. It doesn't even start you with means of aiding your team (ammo packs, health packs), and it's a team oriented game!

Since I just like shooting things, I figured assault would be my best class. Well, not only is the weapon you start with incredibly inaccurate (the second is loads better), but it also takes forever to get most of the weapon upgrades.

People who are level 20 and above have so many things that give them an edge over beginners, it really makes things a bit unfair.

I actually solved the unlock issue, for me at least, through the Battlefield Veterans program thing.  Basically I just went and made an account and played a match or two of Battlefield Heroes, and it considered me having played a previous Battlefield game and threw me a bunch of unlocks for the classses.  

I still had to travel through their unlocks in progression, but I had them from day one.instead of waiting for them to unlock.

If you haven't put much time into BC2 yet, given you have older battlefield games, the might qualify for it.  I was only a level 1 veteran, there are higher levels.

How you can say BF is harsh on beginners without mentioning CoD's ridiculous killstreaks and perk system is confounding...

I can because I never had an interest to play online for more than a few matches.  I simply never delved into it enough to talk about it.

Why would they be making something different if they are the only ones making this type of game? Dev's are expected to cater somewhat to their fans and they have a clear fan-base with pretty clear demands on what they want. 

BF2 and Bad Company 2 aren't all that different to begin with. It was pretty obvious at the start that BF3 wasn't going to be something revolutionary and different.

Like I said, I love the Bad Company series. Battlefield is not the same. There are differences. Ask any Battlefield fan. If you pick up Battlefield 2 and then Bad Company 2, they feel different. They are not the only ones making this type of game either. You should try Arma, or Operation Flashpoint.

If they wanted to make another Bad Company, they should have done so. Making a Battlefield game that does not have the Bad Company name attached to it means a lot to Battlefield fans. The devs have absolutely no expectation to cater to Bad Company fans here. This isn't Bad Company.

Bad Company fans have Bad Company. Battlefield fans should have Battlefield, not Bad Company 3.

I think that fans of "realistic" shooters might enjoy this, the EST 2000 :-) Too bad it's not for civvies.

Jason, I've never seen an actual, bonafide "realistic" shooter until you showed me that picture. Lol. It makes me think of those old virtual reality games. Or better yet, like Sierra's old Driver's Education simulator.

Lol. Sorry, I just had a bad flashback there. I'll try not to get too carried away.

As he is a CoD fanboy, so are you a BF fanboy.  Neither will admit to the other game having positives, only negatives.   Point is, true gamers play games.  Fanboys take sides.  The best CoD player would get owned by a BF player in BF, just like the best BF player would get owned by a CoD player in CoD. 

Just a tribute to how broken COD is. 

There has been some discussion, but it's mostly been people angry about Ryan's choice of words.  Some of them then do themselves the disservice and take it personally, insulting Ryan.  This is because Ryan made it clear he doesn't believe there is 'more Than one great shooter', only one, and it is CoD.   It's understandable that people would have issue with this 'fact'.

Also I had no idea CoD had peer hosting, that's pretty bad.  Dedicated servers are the way to go.

Yeah, this went from legitimate criticism of the article to childish insults rather fast. Unfortunately, at this point it doesn't seem like there's much of a debate to be had anyway.

I think it just has to do with the number of CoD/BC2 fanboys. Or maybe the general qualities of any hardcore fanboys in general. It tends to happen with articles that get people vehemently fired up.

I actually want to try a CoD game, but Activision releases a new game every year. I'd jump on the bandwagon if I had a better idea of which version is the best. Right now, it seems like the franchise is in the stages where publishers are milking as much money as they can out of it.