It's whats popular with the kids these days.
Somehow, it's awful:
It lacks vehicles.
It lacks large maps.
It lacks balanced weapons (Knife > Sniper, M9-3 > M4A1?)
It has annoying kids yelling through their mic all the time.
It supports retarded tactics (Marathon Lightweight Commando, does better than hiding behind cover shooting enemies).
It lacks dedicated servers (Well, MW2 does).
It putsso much money into publicity and not actual content. No, serious. The reason they probably don't have balanced weapons and maps with perks, is simply because they're focused on getting everyone hyped up on it.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 is better.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 has more army-like perks, properly balanced weapons (And when they tell you it's mobility etc, it's actually accurate). Large maps (An outpost is easily the size of a MW2 map), vehicles, destructible ground (Aother fine missing of the so-called "thrill" of MW2).
MW2 is good for only one thing in my opinion - keeping the 12 year olds away from other games. I like Battlefield, I like Halo (When I play on it anyway, I don't often), because they have grown up people (For the most part, Halo has a few exceptions) and a much more enjoyable experiance. Halo with it's radical bullet bouncing, vehicles and exceptional maps are excellent for playing on (I would probably play it much more if it were on PC).
Battlefield boasts a lack of control, in the good way, attempting to hide from an APC as it smashes its way through buildings to you is incredibly more of an adrenline rush than either game.
But yeah, stop the bloody spamming, it's really annoying to see 6 threads on CoD which are just 2 pages long each (I actually wouldn't know since I never click them). Then again, it's kids you're talking to, they like rebelling the system for some unknown reason (I am a kid, I have no urge to rediculously spam the same thread which would ultimately come off bad than good), a little stretch but in either case it's usually made by them.
- H