Also, I think it needs to be pointed out here that games DO need to be fun. Fear, suspense, exhilaration, sadness, all these things that games can make us feel, they make us feel because in the context and safety of a game, ***they are fun to feel and experience***. When you played Red Orchestra 2 and were terrified for your virtual life, you cannot say you weren't having fun with that experience. Fun is the goal of games, and to claim otherwise is nauseatingly pretentious.

Look Tom, I see where your argument is coming from at least, but you're blowing it way out of proportion to the point where it makes no sense. It's not a big deal. The SF personnel who are working with the studio are not offended, no one I knew in the military found games offensive (in fact they quite enjoyed a good round of CoD), and speaking as a former Canadian Army artilleryman, I am not offended. What is at least a little offensive, though, is you taking such a pretentious position on games and the military and then pretending to speak on the behalf of service people. Trust me, if a game comes out that belittles us, makes a mockery of us, we'll get our voices heard without your help, thanks.

Since they're designing for current generation consoles, which are practically dinosaurs in computer years (a paltry half a gig of total system memory for starters), there's only so much they can improve graphically without dropping below their framerate target. Designing a new engine would be a large investment of time and money, and doesn't make any sense right now with next generation console hardware on the horizon. I would implore those who think it's cool to incessantly bash Call of Duty to at least clam up until the next generation arrives. You'll see your new engine then.

And if you prefer to take a shit on the gameplay, then please just grow up and realize that lots of people like it.