EA has been releasing either a Battlefield or Medal of Honor every year for a while now, two different developers each pumping out a military FPS title every 2 years, just like CoD. You could even consider them the same series, with the crossover between engines and DICE doing the multiplayer for Medal of Honor. So in this regard, DICE and Danger Close are no different from Infinity Ward and Treyarch.

It sure looks cool, but what I don't understand is how it takes place only 8 years after MW3 yet the technology looks like it's advanced 30 years forward.

@bsmith12 You're the type of PC gamer that we have a problem with, talking about how people "shouldn't play Skyrim on consoles". Elitism, dear. Yes, the PC version is superior, no one is debating that, but there are still plenty of valid reasons why someone might choose to play a game on a console instead.

@mastergundam PC gamers are welcome here, the problem is when they start making proclamations about how "no one should be playing Skyrim on anything but PC" or talking down to the PS3 and 360 players who they see as "console peasants".

@Polaris-dono You're right that PCs are many times more powerful than current consoles, but you've got your numbers wrong. The 360 has 512 mb shared system/graphics RAM. The PS3, however, has 256 mb system, 256 mb graphics. Also, the sheer quantity of RAM isn't a measure of how powerful a gaming machine is. Other things factor in, such as the CPU; the processors in the PS3 and 360 are actually still fairly powerful by today's standards.

I used to be able to walk like you, and then I took a crossbow bolt in the knee :D

As dumb as CoD's gameplay formula is, Black Ops was a lot of fun. MW3, not so much. Since World at War, I think Treyarch has made better games than Infinity Ward. I'll consider getting Black Ops II, and cross my fingers that it changes up the CoD formula just -slightly- more than the past couple games have.

A lot of people here think that advanced graphics and innovative, quality gameplay are somehow mutually exclusive, and that if developers created better graphics engines for newer hardware they would always have to sacrifice gameplay. That's simply not true. I look forward to next gen consoles, but not because I'm a "graphics whore who doesn't care about gameplay". New console generations always offer more than just improved graphics, which people often seem to forget. And this guy's right, new hardware would perhaps benefit racing more so than other genres. Console racing game graphics this generation have come pretty close to photorealism (the cars look real, the environments not quite as much), but if next gen allowed for -true- photorealism then sim racers would be much more immersive. Realism in graphics is something that has always made a big difference with racers.

@Techn1c4l Kinect has those sensors, but you would have to drastically simplify Skyrim's gameplay to make it work with motion controls. For example, there would be no way to aim and move at the same time without it being super clunky. Kinect also requires 6 feet of space for motion controls, which sucks if you're not using a huge TV. The Skyrim update only having voice commands means I can still sit up close to my monitor like I normally do.

Hey, haters (and ScrewAttack editors who are also haters), listen! You may not like Halo, but there's no need to tell them to cancel the series just because you think it's being milked (or whatever other contrived reason). If you don't like a series, there's a simple solution, which you may or may not have heard of: it's called "NOT BUYING THE GAMES." You know, as an alternative to invading comment threads with "noooo no more gaylo plz!" and other such cancerous inane babble.