COD haters are hypocrites

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well that's WickedSicko for you. He must really suck at FPSs and the CoD series was the only one that would give him rewards for mediocrity. At the way he defends it, you think it may be his way of life.

Wasdie

Your reward for being a good player is winning. If you reward for ever action in the game regardless of skill, ability, or difficulty of the action, there is no value to the rewards.

CoD's rewarding for kills makes the game an insanely addictive game to play.

I could agree that deathstreaks on the other hand are not necessary, but Infinity Ward looked for several ways to add new features, and it's a fun add that can be annoying sometimes (such as Painkiller + Commando).

I haven't bought a CoD game since 4.

I don't have a console and the series you mentioned in point 2 suck (except SSBB and GoW, but as I said I can't play them because I don't have a console) so it doesn't apply to me either.

Go play EYE Divine Cybermancy and see for yourself what hardcore means.

Your whole argument is a joke, the only hypocrite here is you.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"]

His thread title is right.

Idiots saying how they have Activision "boycotted forever" and will never touch any game from them again. Then that special month of the year comes and every one of them buys CoD.

ShadowMoses900

Of course you would come to spew crap about CoD being perfect, and anyone who criticizes it is wrong. Don't listen to this guy, he is the biggest CoD fanboy in the forums. You can't see anything wrong, outdated, or repetitive about the series? Can't see that it owes its current success more to marketing and appealing to unskilled players? No? Well then there you go, you are stupid. I haven't bought a CoD since WaW (CoD4 was great, so I thought the next one would b good,I was wrong) I have played a little bit of each new one at friends houses just to see if they changed...nope.

You have a skewed veiw of Battlefield BTW, when I play on most maps with 64, 40, or 32 players, there is very little waiting, its alot easier for you view CoD as the best if you know nothing about other games.

I'm not a COD fanboy, but whatever. Alot of games don't change much and people still buy them. AlsoI can't play BF with 60 people, I played it on PS3 lol. The sessions were always full (orjust about)but I rarely came across combat, and when I did I usually ended up getting shot. I got bored and sold the game, in COD I turn it on and play and there's action all around, I don't spend hours walking around looking at the secenery like BF.

Just as I thought, you play the **** version of the game, way tofairly compare. BF3 on 60fps, 64/40/32 players is FAR better than the console or PC versions of MW3. So you really can't argue whether BF3 is better than MW3, all you can argue is whether console BF3 or MW3 is better, which is pointless because those aren't the best versions of either games.

I'm a BF fanboy (I guess), however

Singleplayer: MW3>BF3

Consoles MW3-Equal or better than- BF3 BF can't be handled on weak consoles, even with far less players and highly downgraded graphics, it has an unstable, 20-25 fps framerate, no smoothness, and the low playercounts make the maps boring. But that's what you get when you try to make a cutting-edge PC FPS run on 6-7 year old hardware.

PC: BF3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PC MW3

just kill yourself op