codmodernripoff

It is the best MMA game "ever" with a lot of great fighters and pride. the ground game is much better, same with the striking. only problem is it still kinda looks too "stiff" not as much as as the last 2 but ea mma showed how they can make fluid movements. Although this is not a big problem and the game still looks great and plays wonderfully. P.S cod ****

I dont know why people give it a 7 just cuz the campaign wasnt that **** the hell cares about the campaign **** like this. Both this game and mw3 have short campaigns that are very similar but they dont matter since 99% of the time spent with this game will be online... so, online is basically the best fps experience you can have today, great graphics, balanced guns and vehicles, and nothing seems "cheap". games can last up to 45 minutes which is just amazing and winning a game that goes that long just adds more fun to it. Also each game is different since dice gives you a huge map, and lots of possibilities to go through those maps (except the 3 maps that are more close quartered, dont get me wrong they are still fun just a little more call of duty ish). focus on teamwork is key in this game, so when you get that lone sniper complaining how bad the game is, its because hes just in it to get kills for himself, and isnt actually playing the game the way it should be played. Rush is a great gamemode and so is conquest, the others i dont really care about because they play on a smaller scale, and that is not why I buy battlefield games. overall its good, call of duty is bad, so deal with it

Well where do I start. I'm not even gonna talk about single player because ppl play that for a few hours and jump to multiplayer, which is the main reason anyone buys this. Maps are small...really small, and they also **** big time. cod4 had really fun maps and stuff, but now they are just ridiculously small and stale. (but hey they will probably charge you 15 dollars for a map pack of the same old maps again), guns are the **** exact same sounds and rate of fire and damage, only difference is they put a new skin on it to trick the young idiot fans. Quickscoping is still possible, same with dropshotting which are some of the dumbest things you can do in a shooter. now why does this game get a 0? well first its because the developers tweeted to give it a higher score, and i will not trick more people into thinking this game is any different than mw2. after comparing online reviews of this game and bf3, i saw a lot of inconsistencies... in some bf3 was criticized for being similar to bad company...when in fact it wasnt, but this game was given a 9 for "being super duper fun" well i dont know what kind of fun they are talking about. cod games always play the same, every map ppl will do the same thing they always do, why? because there arent many options, u can easily predict what will happen each time, where the snipers are, where the campers re, and where the rushers will go. as for innovation, there is none, it the same ****.SAME.GAME! so activision, pelase get ur priorities in order and stop dishing out the same game every single year. make something new perhaps try CHANGING THE ANCIENT ENGINE YOU'VE BEEN USING FOREVER, and try adding some physics to the game. why i like bf3 over this is because each game crazy stuff happens due to all the possibilities that are given. you never get the same experience. ive been hearing the problem with giving a game 0 is that cod actually works fine and is playable...well ya, but its also a full priced dlc, so i dont know why paying 59.99 for a texture change should not be a 0. it gets a 0 because its not even a game, its just a god damn add on.