@valknight @GamersKing84 Considering that fact that next-gen consoles are as powerful (An argument can be made for "more" with optimizing) as most current, high end PC's the yes, they will be able to handle it.

@valknight Well you can already shoot through thin cover such as plaster walls, so you'd still be able to rip through that guy.

I will agree with you, I'd like more destructibility in CoD, but destructibility that makes gameplay sense. It'd be awesome to shoot the edges of walls off or have grenade make small craters in the road, I'd definitely welcome that! But I dislike the idea of collapsing buildings and huge holes in walls on maps that are so small.

@Rayzakk @Duke_Dude I agree and I believe it's a very dangerous viewpoint. If we lived in a world of no ownership and only "sharing" ,which is just corporations allowing us to use their products for a once of fee, that would mean anything we have "bought" could be recalled at any moment.

I'd had to buy a TV for $3000 only to have Samsung say that I'm not allowed to own it anymore, I must upgrade again.

It's a pretty extreme example but corporate greed knows no bounds.

@valknight Have you ever really thought about BF destruction in CoD?

The small maps of CoD won't be able to handle that type of destruction, people would be able to shoot each other from across the map once all the buildings have been destroyed.

@spectreSE7EN This is a brilliant post, not like the two morons above.

I will agree, MW2 was brilliant and it is my favourite CoD game to date. CoD doesn't change much in each iteration but it does improve, make no mistake about it.

CoD uses an old engine and some people don't like that, I prefer Activision's mantra of - Gameplay drives technology. You won't find a silkier MP experience on current gen consoles.

I don't hate on BF (Love how the BF fanboys are coming out the woodwork now, lol) but as you stated, the killstreaks, perks and smaller maps make CoD the better game for me.

CoD targets casual to hardcore gamers with adrenaline packed action while BF targets gamers who go for authenticity and love huge maps.

@Rayzakk @Duke_Dude Since when? So does that mean that the shoes I buy I don't own? I'm just borrowing them from Puma?

Bullshit.

If MS has a product I want I fork out the cash to own (Keyword: own) it. Once it is mine I am not liable to MS in anyway unless I wish to use one of their services like XBL.

Sharing involves no monetary gain.

@Rayzakk This "morphing" of ownership is a fallacy. If I buy something, I own it. Simple. If I buy a video then I pay $15 (In my country) and then it's mine to do with as I please (So long as I don't pirate, which is fair.). Now if I want to rent a movie I pay $3 for it and I can only use it for a certain amount of time and I can't lend it to friends, something I agree to when I rent it.

So when MS come along and say you can borrow this game from us for a full $60 then I call bullshit. I own the game and can do with it as I please.

If MS came along and charged me $10 for play the game for a week and I accept that fee knowing I have it for a week only, well then that is a different matter entirely.

I play both Battlefield and Call of Duty but I am more excited for Ghosts than I am for BF4.

I prefer the experience of CoD with the smaller, more intense maps.

Both games can coexist though, they target two very different markets, just like Halo targets another.

Fanboys will always hate though...

The day that Xbox died.

The EA rep at Visceral must have been to shit scared to play the game and therefore told Visceral to remove all horror.

EA - Where douchebags go to work.