>>16 CoD was ok until B-ops (Well, zombies was cool, but that's god damn zombies.) i mean, at that point it just became the same old formula with the same engine and stuff. They did incorporate a lot of new ideas into it, like the currency system, but i feel like that's just like making the same old thing a bit shinier. MW3 was a disappointment. it was just MW2 with some extra guns. that's it. It was worth playing through once for the story, and every once in a while i feel like some infected mode would be fun, but aside from that, it's just the same thing. Don't have an Xbox, so i can't necessarily vouch for Halo, but i feel like it may have the same issues with it.
The only CoD game with decent replay value (I have no clue what
>>16 is talking about. The Modern Warfare games have a pretty damn good single player story, but that's not what drives people back to the arms of this game, it's the multiplayer. also, better replay value than ANY other game? please. you must live in a god damn hole or something.) was CoD 4 because getting the intel actually was worth something other than a trophy/achievement (which PS3 did not have with CoD4, as it was before the trophy system was in place). As for BF, i hear that people already dislike it immensely, and i can not even fathom why.
I don't dislike the CoD series. i have spent waaaaay to much time playing those games to claim other-wise. it's just that the sudden rush of popularity and the publisher's demands to keep turning them out like cheap sluts did not help the quality of the games at all.
