Usually I agree with you, krellin, but prepare to ranted.

Call of Duty is the shittiest series of games on the market today. The graphics blow dick, the storyline is about as realistic as Harry Potter or Twilight, the gameplay is terrible and as unrealistic as the storyline, and last but not least the gaming community around CoD sucks dick as well.

I am an Xbox enthusiast. As a tasteful, mature gamer Call of Duty represents everything I hate.

I do not enjoy competing with screaming douchebag 12-year-olds who have the reflexes of a 12-year-old who is jacked up on Monster and pizza rolls and have absolutely no knowledge of real-world weapons, tactics, and strategy, not to mention the assholes who run around doing unrealistic douchebag-y shit in order to get the shot for their montage video.

I do not enjoy slaving my way through a fantastical storyline that was obviously written by a couple of 20-year-olds with no knowledge of either history or current geopolitical conditions.
__________

Instead, I prefer games with a semblance of realism. For singleplayer, I'll go with Medal of Honor (2010) and Medal of Honor: Warfighter (2012). If I'm feeling multiplayer, I'll go with Battlefield Bad Company 2 (if I feel like sniping) or Battlefield 3 (if I feel like vehicle combat)

Medal of Honor (2010) - Storyline based on a true story. Realistic levels and insane graphics. Realistic weapons and loadouts. Realistic gameplay (you won't last more than two seconds out of cover even on Easy, and you have to fire and maneuver to get anywhere)

Medal of Honor Warfighter (2012) - Same as above but with more levels and great music.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 - Admittedly shitty singleplayer, but I'd throw MoH back in if I wanted singleplayer. The only reason I play BC2 is for the sniping. BC2 has the best multiplayer sniping maps know to Man.

Battlefield 3 - For close quarters or vehicle-based multiplayer, and occasionally singleplayer. M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Destructible environments. Realistic weapons and modifications. All in all, realistic multiplayer. 'Nuff said.

Eh when in doubt we just play Goldeneye here. Nothing beats a Bond game.

Except Medal of Honor. Best shooter series EVER

Ever play Team Fortress 2? Love that game. Haven't played much MoH honestly.

I was a Halo 3 fanboy for a long time before I discovered the mind-numbing thrill of MW2. I played Blops 1, skipped MW3, figured I'd skip Blops 2 as well and just content myself with Halo 4, but broke down and bought it the day after release. I was too busy to bust it out and play it until last night, but boy am I a satisfied customer. Realism be damned, the game is fun as all hell. This "League" thing seems promising, too.

meh i'm more of a counter strike kind of guy. i have global offensive, its really fun. What i don't like about CoD is the infinite health, where you always regenerate.

My username is a damned Medal of Honor (2010) reference

Gunfighter - I'm not looking for realism or a history lesson - I'm looking to escape in to a good competitive shooter when I get home from work. I'm looking for the next perk or unlock to give me a reason to do well, and I'm looking to occassionally have 44 year old bragging rights over a 12 year old jacked up on Mt Dew (or whatever) because I played intelligently instead of twitchy.

I started in first person sims back with Doom on my Commodore 64...haven't played them all, obviosuly, and only recently migrated to console gaming, but I am quite pleased. I like the absurd story line line - again, if I want a history lesson, I'll pick up a history book, though the use of history in the story line is amusing and let's me start conversations with my kids about real history.

I can't comment about the graphics as compared to others, but they are fine to me as I have no comparison on the xbox. don't really care about vehicle combat, and if I want to play on a board full of snipers....I won't play, because watching your head explode becuse some guy (or guys..)found the perfect spot is lame to me....not competitive, it just means you know every inch of the map better than I do. I like the map sets so far becuse they have good flow - better than pat maps when I was playign earlier versions on PC, and frankly because the perfect sniper spots seem rare, and are only good for a short while.

Thoroughly enjoying my COD BO II. :)

"I'm looking to escape in to a good competitive shooter when I get home from work."

Except it's not competitive because of the horrible community playing the game.

"...I played intelligently instead of twitchy."

It's impossible to play intelligently in Call of Duty. It is 80% reflexes, 20% weapon choice and 0% tactics.

"though the use of history in the story line is amusing and let's me start conversations with my kids about real history."

So play a historically accurate game like Medal of Honor (2010)

"I can't comment about the graphics as compared to others, but they are fine to me as I have no comparison on the xbox."

That's what I said before I got into Medal of Honor and Battlefield. Call of Duty has been using the same engine since Call of Duty 2 and the graphics look like cardboard cutouts compared to the Frostbite 2 engine used by Medal of Honor Warfighter and Battlefield 3. Why limit yourself?

"don't really care about vehicle combat"

In Call of Duty, you earn killstreaks. In Battlefield 3, you *ARE* the motherfucking killstreak. Need an airstrike? Hop in a jet and lay down some precision-guided munitions, and do some dogfighting while you're at it. Need tank support? Get in an Abrams and start fucking people up. Need to get from Point A to Point B without getting killed? Get together with a bunch of other guys in an APC or utility helicopter and reach the objective in comfort, safety, and style. Try vehicle combat sometime.

"I won't play, because watching your head explode becuse some guy (or guys..)found the perfect spot is lame to me....not competitive, it just means you know every inch of the map better than I do."

I snipe in Battlefield 3 and BC2 all the time. First, it is nearly impossible to engage a moving target or a target behind solid cover. Second, snipers are extremely vulnerable to counter-snipers (especially since most snipers in BF3 and BC2 are too stupid to move after every kill) so if you get killed by a sniper you can get your own rifle out and pick him off next time. Third, snipers have very little chance in close combat, so most usually set up 600-800 yards back from the hot stuff, once again making moving targets impossible. It is very competitive, and just like a real war you have to keep moving or stay in cover or you will be shot.

I dare you to rent Battlefield 3 and play multiplayer for two weeks. Similarly, I dare you to rent Medal of Honor (2010) and see what a REAL campaign mode is.

Fact: Medal of Honor 2010, and Medal of Honor Warfighter absolutely blow dick.

If you want a more 'realistic' shooter, just play Battlefield 3.

"It's impossible to play intelligently in Call of Duty. It is 80% reflexes, 20% weapon choice and 0% tactics."

Clearly you suck at it then. Intelligence always plays a role in any game you play against other players. Just because its an arcade shooter that is super hectic doesn't mean there is no intelligence involved...(also look at other game modes...tactics clearly relevant)

I am going to win this thread: Gunfighter wants a game that is as close to real war without acutally risking his life. There is nothing like that, but I suppose MOH and Battlefield are the closest. Krellin wants a fast paced, arcade style, yet still competitive shooter, to hop in and out of at will. 2 different games for people who want 2 completely different things.

I agree with Tom. I can run around like a maniac and die repeatedly, or I can play in coopeation with others, back each other up, look for good ambush points, etc. Gunfighter clearly is playing a different game than I am playing. My 44 year old reflexes are still good enough to score top three in some matches. As for weapon choice...that's a no brainer. Of course different weapons will prove better...and some weapons are better on some maps than others. what you are admitting, without realizing it, is that they have accurately differentiated one weapon from another...

As for Battlefield...I've played it. I've landed on the beaches of Normandy in Medal of Honor and played the "band of brother's" scnenarios and looked up old photographs that actually matched the game I was playing. It was impressive and it was good game play. I get it.

I also think COD BO II rocks. It's my personal opinion, as this entire thread is personal opinion.

That being said...I'm looking for another game for Christmas -- I'll totally look in to Battlefield, because I always like options.

Anyone play Borderlands II yet? I also enjoy BL on the PC...want to knw how the new one is on XBox.

"...so if you get killed by a sniper you can get your own rifle out and pick him off next time..." Like I said, not looking to play a boring sniper combat game. You counter by saying that it's hard to snipe moving targets, snipers are vulnerable, etc....so either it's a great sniper game....or you are playing with a bunch of dumb asses that don't know how to stop a sniper. Therefore, your criticism of COD players is counteracted by your admission that BF players are stupid.

If you liked Borderlands, you will love Borderlands 2. Its an improvement on the first game in every way, while still getting the same run and gun, looting style as the first one.

Anyone like zombies? I love the zombies in blops2.

And COD has tactics. But you dont really have as much team work as you would in say Halo. In Halo if everyone is working as a big unit your team will almost never lose. Unless your versing like a halo god or a better team.

Riphen, I have played boards in COD where the other side was miked up and coordinating. It was a slaughter. when I play split screen with my daugher, we will try to follow and coordinate with someone we see...

I don't know how communication works in these other games, but unless everyone has a headset and a common comm channel, how does this tactical coordination play out?

Well i feel like teamwork isnt really key. It does help of course but its less important in cod. If im doing very very well usually how good im doing influences my team via killstreaks.

I agree it isn't key -- but if you are in a room with widows on different walls, or multiple entrances - it's good to know someone's got your back.

Haha me and my brother put our tvs in the same room and play right next to each other.

If you want to add me your more than welcome. Gamertag = Stimulatenit

Lol

@ Tom Bombadil

"Fact: Medal of Honor 2010, and Medal of Honor Warfighter absolutely blow dick."

Do you have any firsthand reason, either subjective or objective, to dislike these games?

"Intelligence always plays a role in any game you play against other players. Just because its an arcade shooter that is super hectic doesn't mean there is no intelligence involved."

False. What is intelligent about equipping a Jesus gun like the SCAR-H in MW2 or the AK-74 in Black Ops and managing to hit the trigger a fraction of a second before the other guy. Even the best maps have only one or two flanking routes and those are usually killzoned by the opposing team. Most of the cover is indestructible and the light machine guns suck so covering fire (and therefore fire/maneuver) is out of the question

"Gunfighter wants a game that is as close to real war without acutally risking his life. There is nothing like that"

Actually the Arma series for PC is pretty damned realistic. Unfortunately, I don't have a gaming computer, so I have to settle for MoH and Battlefield.

"to hop in and out of at will"

Battlefield game lobbies are just as fast as Call of Duty lobbies, but I will admit that the matches are longer.

@ krellin

"As for Battlefield...I've played it. I've landed on the beaches of Normandy in Medal of Honor and played the "band of brother's" scnenarios and looked up old photographs that actually matched the game I was playing. It was impressive and it was good game play. I get it."

Rent Medal of Honor (2010), beat the campaign, and post about it on here. As a MoH veteran you should know enough to give the new one a chance.

"Like I said, not looking to play a boring sniper combat game. You counter by saying that it's hard to snipe moving targets, snipers are vulnerable, etc....so either it's a great sniper game....or you are playing with a bunch of dumb asses that don't know how to stop a sniper. Therefore, your criticism of COD players is counteracted by your admission that BF players are stupid."

If you don't want to play a sniper game then don't snipe. You can flank around and take the sniper from behind with your favorite assault rifle, because the maps are big enough to allow for real maneuvering. Battlefield is not a sniping game. Most of the sniping is sniper vs. sniper, a la Enemy at the Gates, because most smart players are either in cover or moving. If you don't want to watch your head explode then use one of the tactics I just laid out, such as using a vehicle to remove the sniper, flank the sniper, countersnipe the sniper, or tell one for your snipers to countersnipe the sniper. Most people don't care to stop snipers because snipers rarely target mobile players or players in cover. And it's nice to play a game where you can coherently communicate with your team without muting half of the players for being screaming 12 year olds.

"Do you have any firsthand reason, either subjective or objective, to dislike these games?"

Yes. I played both of them. The 2010, I owned and played quite a bit. They are clunking with gamplay, and the maps are ok at best. They are gorgeous, I will give them that, but graphics are pretty bottom of the list of importance for me. To me, Battlefield 3 is just the much better version of MOH.

"False. What is intelligent about equipping a Jesus gun like the SCAR-H in MW2 or the AK-74 in Black Ops and managing to hit the trigger a fraction of a second before the other guy. Even the best maps have only one or two flanking routes and those are usually killzoned by the opposing team. Most of the cover is indestructible and the light machine guns suck so covering fire (and therefore fire/maneuver) is out of the question"

I hate answers like these. You are letting your fanboyism of MOH cloud your logic. I don't care if you come out and say that you don't like COD. That's fine. But to say that there is no intelligence is ridiculous. The guns are not that uneven, especially when comparing guns in each class. Maps are smaller compared to MOH and Battlefield, meaning that of course there is less flanking positions, but that doesn't mean flanking positions don't exist. Again, you argue that cover is indestructible, which is true, but I don't see how that is relevant to playing the game intelligently. You just have to play it differently compared to Battlefield where cover can be destroyed. Also, ever heard of game modes other than deathmatch??

I don't know. Its fine that you like the more realistic games like MOH and Battlefield, which are larger in scope and maps, but to say that COD only involved reaction time and not intelligence is pretty naive.

Was anyone else frustrated by the itty bitty text of BF3? Perhaps it was just my shitty non-HD TV, but I simply /could not/ read anything in that game.

You need to tell your mom to buy a new TV.

Sorry -- too soon?

I honestly find the call of duty modern warfare series kindof sickening. It just reeks of propaganda to me.

@ Tom Bombadil

"They are clunking with gamplay"

I won't disagree. Call of Duty has a certain smoothness to the gameplay, but I don't think you can hold that against MoH or Battlefield. In MoH and Battlefield campaigns you have to rely less on engaging targets as quickly as possible and rely more on picking targets off from cover. But to call the engine clunking is an exaggeration.

Don't forget the storyline either. Nice to play something that actually happened, isn't it?

"But to say that there is no intelligence is ridiculous."

A little ridiculous but not that ridiculous. Much less intelligence involved than MoH/Battlefield. You HAVE to admit that.

"The guns are not that uneven, especially when comparing guns in each class."

Look up the stats for the FN FAL and M14 in Black Ops 1. They fire the exact same bullet at a similar velocity and have a similar barrel length. They should be closely matched in stats. Not so. The FN FAL has much better stats for some reason, even though in real life the M14 is much more accurate and reliable. They just assign arbitrary stats to real-world guns that should be closely matched. Same thing with the TAR-21 and M4 in MW2, as well as the M4 and M16 in Call of Duty 4.

"but that doesn't mean flanking positions don't exist"

They do exist, but there's only two or three ways to get around a map, and those routes are easily killzoned if the team has more than five players.

"Again, you argue that cover is indestructible, which is true, but I don't see how that is relevant to playing the game intelligently."

There are very few materials that can stop a bullet or remain intact after a grenade or bomb explosion. It's bullshit that people can hide in a one-room corrugated aluminum shack and somehow be protected from a bombing run or an AC-130.

"Also, ever heard of game modes other than deathmatch?"

Yes. Objective games only amplify the aforementioned problems of smaller maps such as the lack of good flanking routes.

@ Sicarius

"I honestly find the call of duty modern warfare series kindof sickening. It just reeks of propaganda to me."

What kind of propaganda and what is the objective of that propaganda?

Not saying there is some kind of secret malevolent message, it just seems oddly.. jingoistic, ultra nationalist militarist etc. Just the vibe I get, and its something deeper then its war time plot, I mean I play medal of honor and some other games that had nothing similar. I'll admit its hard to place my finger on. Maybe its just cause Ive seen more than a few people who Im utterly convinced decided to join the military in large part to call of duty.

"There are very few materials that can stop a bullet or remain intact after a grenade or bomb explosion. It's bullshit that people can hide in a one-room corrugated aluminum shack and somehow be protected from a bombing run or an AC-130."

Again, I don't see the relevance here. So you are saying any games that aren't realistic aren't intelligent?

"They just assign arbitrary stats to real-world guns that should be closely matched. "

So what? Why does this matter?

I will not admit that MOH or Battlefield requires more intelligence. I will say they lend themselves to more coordination among teammates, which I understand you like. But the hectic nature of COD, as well as the often "every man for themselves" mentality leads to different kind of tactics. You may not like people who work the spawns on maps to hurt the team, but that is certainly an intelligent thing to do.

@ Sic: Thats kind of surprising to hear, because I feel as the COD is less realistic, and thus less nationalistic/jingoistic/militarist etc... COD is sooo 'arcade-y', and sooo unbelievable in terms of a campaign that I would think even dumb people don't think actual war is like that.

First, I find it hilarious that this community will have a heated argument about literally anything. These are games for people's enjoyment, and thus differing opinions are equally valid.

That said, Gunfighter is completely wrong. CoD, is fun. Mindless and unrealistic, sure, but still fun. There are tactics, there is teamwork, there is skill, and all of your bullshit about impenetrable cover is completely false (except for the banana leaves in MW2, but that was an accident). I'll concede that Battlefield is also a good game, but it's just as much about stellar reflexes and arguably more about map-specific gameplay and less about general tactics. Medal of Honor just sucks.

I also feel like this thread hasn't given enough credit to Halo, with the exception of the comment about what happens when "your [sic] versing [sic] a [H]alo god." I haven't played Halo 4 yet, but I hear it's great, and all of the previous Halos are as good as or better than their contemporary CoD and Battlefield installments.

I got a free download of bordelrands 2 when I ordered my GPU. Worth checking out?

@ Sicarius

Interesting observation. I think what you're saying is that Call of Duty goes too far in its glorification of war. The whole World War Three-centered storyline may be designed to convince the younger generations that global war is an inevitability. I will emphasize that this is most likely a coincidence and not, repeat not some sort of scheme by the military-industrial complex to boost enlistment.

On the other hand, Medal of Honor has been, is, and always will be about honoring and respecting fighting men and avoiding direct commentary on war or politics. Battlefield has no message. It's a kickass realistic FPS.

<the above is my own humble opinion, not based on concrete, objective canon evidence>

@ Tom Bombadil

"Again, I don't see the relevance here. So you are saying any games that aren't realistic aren't intelligent?"

Unrealistic games make for unrealistic tactics and decreased intelligence. Call of Duty by its very nature emphasizes weapon choice and reflexes. I've seen people get thirty kills with the right perks and a damned knife. Because you know, running around with a knife totally happens in modern combat and requires an understanding of modern tactics.

"You may not like people who work the spawns on maps to hurt the team, but that is certainly an intelligent thing to do."

No it's not. You can set up in the enemy spawn with a machine gun and fire at will. No intelligence or understanding of tactics required. You just need to know where the spawn is and how to operate the game controller.

@ ghug

"There are tactics, there is teamwork, there is skill,"

Where?!? Show me!

"and all of your bullshit about impenetrable cover is completely false"

I have all Call of Duty games between CoD 4 and CoD Black Ops (1). I have survived CARPET BOMBING by hiding in structures with the structural integrity of a doghouse, so no it's not completely false. "Indestructible" may be an exaggeration but it's a slight exaggeration.

"I'll concede that Battlefield is also a good game, but it's just as much about stellar reflexes and arguably more about map-specific gameplay and less about general tactics."

To win a match of Battlefield on any given map, you need a coordinated and evenly assigned team. Some guys provide armor and air cover, some guys secure objectives, some guys provide sniper and countersniper support, some guys sap enemy vehicles, and some guys clear buildings. If you don't have all of that, your team will lose. Reflexes and weapon selection matter in close combat but it is not nearly as emphasized as in Call of Duty.

"Medal of Honor just sucks."

Medal of Honor (2010) has an admittedly weak multiplayer, but Warfighter multiplayer kicks ass. The fire team system is revolutionary and makes for much more realistic gameplay.

In either case, Medal of Honor (2010) and Warfighter have the most realistic, entertaining, and gut-wrenching-emotional campaign modes on consoles today.

Have you played singleplayer and multiplayer for both of those games? Until you have, don't say stuff like that.

"also feel like this thread hasn't given enough credit to Halo"

Halo has a different feel to it than either Call of Duty or Medal of Honor/Battlefield, so it wouldn't be fair to compare it to those games. That being said, Halo is awesome. I only have Halo 3 but that game alone kept me satisfied for several months.

Posting for star. Will have something to say on this when I get home.

Well, before I address Gunfighter, I play Black Ops II on PS3. My PSN is corey1598. If anybody wants to play, just send me a PM on here or a friend request on PSN. And be sure to include a message you're from here otherwise I'll probably delete the request. I almost always have a full friends list from being in a clan.

"To win a match of Battlefield on any given map, you need a coordinated and evenly assigned team."

The same holds true in Call of Duty. If all 6 players just mindlessly run towards the objective, they aren't going to get it. They're just going to be slaughtered by the enemy waiting for them. You're saying tactics, teamwork, and skill don't exist in Call of Duty? That's asinine. I play in a clan and we are in constant communication about the ongoing match. Calling out enemy locations, telling each other when we're going for the flag and what flag we're going for.

You've written so much in just a clear anti-CoD mentality that it's hard to take you seriously and I don't even know why I bother dignifying your posts with a response. I can't help but feel your sole purpose is to troll.

And if we're going to complain the game sucks because it doesn't realistically portray what it's like to be a soldier or in a war, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. It's a video game for fucks sake. It's designed to be a source of entertainment, not a military tutorial.

Rocked on COD with my kid tonight!

@ TheJok3r

"If all 6 players just mindlessly run towards the objective, they aren't going to get it. They're just going to be slaughtered by the enemy waiting for them."

That's a lie. Just about every non-clan team in the history of Call of Duty does this every single game, and it works as long as the team has more total skill than the other team. Coordination not necessary. Or they could have one or two CoD freaks who get enough killstreaks to win the game on that alone.

"I can't help but feel your sole purpose is to troll."

My sole purpose is to defend the reputation of two excellent games that have gotten mixed reviews from all of the CoD fanboy critics.

"And if we're going to complain the game sucks because it doesn't realistically portray what it's like to be a soldier or in a war, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for."

I'm looking for games like Medal of Honor and Battlefield! That's the whole point of my responses in this thread.

I'm saying that Call of Duty sucks because the graphics are terrible, the campaign storyline is a laughable work of fantasy, the multiplayer community is awful, and the gameplay in both campaign and multiplayer is so far beyond the realm of realism that anyone who takes the game seriously should not be taken seriously as a human being.

Gunfighter, IAn not in a clan, and do not mindlessly run about. We get it, you don't like CoD, but you cartoonist and extreme characterization of play in CoD bears little resemblance to reality, and does little to contribute to any useful discussion.

You are one of those people, I will suggest, that tend to hate things that are the most popular, thinking if the ignorant masses like them, there must be something wrong with them. I used to feel the same about Steven King books - refused to read them. Now I love them, or at least his style of prose. CoD is *perfect * at what in INTENDS to be. Sales figures don't lie. Get over it.

By the way - ever play paint ball? Play with a bunch of moronic kids and it bears close resemblance to a live reenactment of CoD - it's great gun to now down wild kids with high velocity paint balls...hehe hehe...