Sorry for the second page being so long. The site decided to ignore the PageBreak prompt for no reason.

Edit: It appears to have fixed itself. Oh, and I'm tired and don't feel like mopping up the grammatical errors later on right now.

"Call of Duty is fun when you play it to have fun. Saying the campaigns are all the same (which you didn't but it's a common complaint) is just being picky, that very same argument can be made across most if not all military shooters. The genre doesn't have the privilege of having a vast pool of ideas to choose from. Just about every era has been covered several times, and military tactics haven't changed that much in the past few decades, the only real change is that the weapons and equipment used have been updated. However developers try to innovate as best they can while staying realistic, and those who try to enjoy games they play instead of looking at the negative notice the differences and can enjoy them. "

What you basically just said was that calling all the stories the same isn't valid because all of the stories in all of the military shooters are extremely similar. Okay, you've pointed out a common flaw in the genre. Doesn't really change the fact that it's a flaw now does it? Doesn't make the stories not all the same either. Plus, it's a video game. They could do whatever they want with it really, the pool of ideas is only limited to what to what they come up with. They already have people running around in EOD suits like they're meant to protect against gunfire, RC Cars strapped with explosives, and guys who can throw knives across a map. They could come up with a little something better in the story department.

"Your tirade against the insanity of newer games is also strange. I had no problem with the stories." I want you to read that second part, and then try and find a way that it applies to me. I can't find it honestly.

"Things were getting intense in MW2 & MW3 as World War 3 broke out. You could expect explosions and nukes everywhere in a war, you're basically saying the campaign was too awesome for you and that you couldn't take the steady action throughout. Changing characters gives you a different perspective of events, a neat angle that's been used in Hollywood several times in great movies (Vantage Point)."

Too awesome for me? Now there's a rich one. Although I do enjoy your attempt to speak for me, and apparently shame me for not being able to "take the stead action throughout", that's sadly not true. Too cluttered might be an apt description. You name things that were going on the game like explosions and character switching, but the funny thing about this is that you haven't once mentioned the stories themselves. No mention of a deeper more interesting thread and no mention of characters. To be honest, I've played every Call of Duty to date, MW2 and Black Ops multiple times through. I can name Woodson(sp?), Price, and Soap. Those are the only characters on my side in those games that I can remember. What's the point of switching characters if nothing else changes? Who cares if I'm fighting World War III with someone other than Soap and Price? It's still fighting World War III regardless. And what's the point of switching characters if there perspective adds nothing beyond a change a venue to continue slaughtering your enemies? Most of them die at the end anyways, so again what's the point? It's a predictable formula: Insert military dude who fights through all this stuff, swap back to main characters as they fight through stuff, swap back and watch the new guy die. The story is gone in recent games, it's just fighting. Nothing deeper. It wasn't too intense for me, it bored me. The lack of a change of pace and any sort of meaningful plot outside of fighting the war caused anything exciting to blur into a mush of loud noises and bright lights.

"The airport massacre had a point in that it showed a grotesque act of violence that was soon after blamed on an American, sparking a war." This is a perfect example of nonsense in the single player campaigns. The mission played itself, so forget about gameplay. That this event would spark war because an American was involved, despite the fact that there's absolutely no way they killed every single person who saw them, is the definition of insane. It ignores standard political procedure, it ignores an investigative process. Its like having a fender bender, but when you tap the other car it bursts into a fireball. It's an illogical response.

"Suburban warzones and firefights in New York City and at the Capital were meant to show how close to home, how personal a war can get." Okay, so what's the story of the soldiers fighting in these sections again? I think it's still just that they're fighting. And it's not the story of a battle or the soldiers, it's just a story of them shooting guys. It's like Blackhawk down without the personal moments. Come to think of it Blackhawk down is a perfect example of doing things right. The downtime makes the action better because we get a glimpse of the characters we're switching between. It allows elaboration on what has been happening and ads impact to the action moments. Modern Warfare 3 is the Transformers III of video games. Lots of spectacle, but nothing that can make you care because it's hard to follow and what's presented is nonsense.

"As for Black Ops, it used another great movie staple (flashbacks to tell stories), and I had no problem with it. I found it a unique and intriguing way to tell a story that I haven't seen in many games yet, and it reminded me of the classic film Forrest Gump in that he tells a story in flashbacks, eventually finishing the story in the present." Here's the problem though, the story of Black Ops is confusing. The story of Forrest Gump is not. Forrest Gump is not a hallucinating murderer, and does not have a gun shoved back in his hand before being sent on an everything or nothing mission. I will give it to you that there is actually a story in Black Ops that isn't just your guys shooting more guys, but it's not on the same level as Forrest Gump and there's a pretty absurd thread tying it all together.

"As for multiplayer, I'll give you the points on that many CoD games are just rebranded and many glitches/exploits that need patched are not (although these glitches are not game-breaking except for a very few amount of matches)." Those care package glitches seemed pretty game breaking when I had a B-52 dropping bombs on my head, dogs nipping at my heals, three streaks of napalm headed my way, a Blackbird telling my enemies where I was at on spawn, and a chopper gunner circling overhead every other match. Those grenade launchers, coming from people on the roof of the opposite building, keeping me from leaving my spawn on Highrise seemed pretty game breaking. That Javelin glitch seemed pretty game breaking when every single person was using it.

"But that's where my agreement ends. Game mechanic additions (theater, training mode, zombies), changes (weapons, equipment, perks, killstreaks, updated connection and voice chat protocols), new game modes (infected, one in the chamber, sticks and stones), new maps, and the insanely precise, tight gameplay underneath it all is enough for most to justify a new CoD purchase." Theater and training mode are things the game should have had years ago, they also don't change the core gameplay at all. They add a footnote at best. I'll give you Zombies, although it wasn't a new idea the game mode is fun. Weapons are weapons, it's something that should be expected. Ditto for equipment, although a lot of guns and equipment appear throughout the series. (Famas, M16, SPAS-12, tac insert, UAV etc). The Perks don't change, they just occasionally change names and swap effects. One counters UAV, one counters explosive damage, reloads faster, moves faster, carries more ammo, increases hip fire accuracy, increases melee speed, etc. The perks haven't changed since Modern Warfare 2, and even then it was an incremental change at best. The connection updates for Black Ops weren't noticeable, the connection updates for Modern Warfare 3 were objectively bad. Before they fixed it, MW3 actually made the hosts the slowest player in the game. It was impossible to win as host, people were punished for having good connections. Not that it really mattered because they made the guns kill so fast that most people wouldn't notice it. They attempted to mask a problem that they made worse.

"I have destroyed people who use "dominant" weapons in every game. Sure they may get one, maybe two cheap kills with weapons superior to most, but with skill and tactics these players can be taken down just the same as any other. It may be because I play on the PS3 and not XBOX, but I have run into very few children online. It is exceedingly rare for me to play with someone younger than 15 years old. This doesn't solve the problem of people being immature or getting mad when they do poorly (which is a problem in EVERY game that supports microphones), but it takes the very common complaint about annoying children and throws it out the window." I played an entire prestige with the Blops Enfield and kept my 2.5KD, doesn't change the fact that 90% of the people running the same weapons is annoying and imbalanced. It doesn't change the fact that those weapons get bad players kills they shouldn't get. The responsive movement in game doesn't change the fact that the host based system is broken or that cheap guns give people cheap kills. You'll notice I never said anything about how the game feels to play, because the feel isn't the problem. I didn't make a complaint about annoying children or angry people, so I'm not sure why you brought that up, or why you brought it up here. My point was actually entirely removed from that idea, maybe you should go back and read it again.

"One of the many huge changes Black Ops 2 is making is that players will be matched up with others on their skill level. This way someone like me who can average 20-3 most matches won't be matched up against newcomers or those who are less (or more) skilled, helping take away the matches where a team has no chance of winning. Also, ping-based gameplay will greatly reduce the advantage hosts or players with better internet have." This is Black Ops 2, no one has played it, it isn't relative to a critique of the series so far. We've yet to see if the skill level stuff works, it didn't work all that well in Halo 3 or Gears. It also will not affect parties of people playing together in pub matches. I can almost guarantee that find a game for a party of 6 people will take precedent over the skill ranking every time. Ping based gameplay won't change anything. Ping is just an indicator of connection, which the games already tried to detect with mixed results. Servers are the most balanced experience they're going to get, until then hosts will always be at an advantage... except when the developer ads in ridiculous systems to throttle their connection. Those with slightly less spectacular connections shouldn't be at a supreme disadvantage and those with amazing connections shouldn't be punished. Servers are the only way that happens.

"As for DLC, I've gotten mine free for most the games. I did however buy the DLC for Black Ops and the new maps, no matter how few there were, reinvigorated my interest in the game because there were new places to explore and fight in." Again you've explained why you enjoy them, but haven't addressed the issue of value. Activision charges $15 for content that is worth maybe $5. Just because you've gotten most of the DLC for free doesn't change the fact that $15 for 4-5 maps is an outrageous price.

"So yes, the gameplay does feel similar. However it's enough to throw me off for a few minutes if I go straight from an IW to Treyarch game, and even within the same series, the tight and satisfying gameplay that made Call of Duty what it is today is still fun for millions of people around the world." Again, that's nice... but you should really go back and read more carefully. I know it's long, but if you read the last sentence of the opening paragraph it's clear that this is presenting an opposite side. This is meant to address Dan's piece with suggests that there is no reason for anyone to dislike these games. To prove that there is another valid side.