Guess the BF team missed that memo then ;-)

I'm wondering why almost no one mentions two aspects of these games when comparing them:

1. Sound: Guns in BF sound like actual guns, in MW they sound like BB guns, no punch at all (and I don't need to tell you about the recoil...). Quite a disappointment that they never improve on that...
2. AI shooting: IIRC, in BF the bad guys lay down fire on you in a realistic way, whereas in MW they shoot in repeated bursts in a way too arcadey fashion (reminds me of shooters like Time Crisis to be honest) and I don't think I can remember them ever reloading...

I'd like to note that this is from someone who has enjoyed both games.

Will borrowing out all "copies" of a book prevent other users from taking them out unless you "return" your lender, like a real library? :-P

Telephony switches. DECT phones + a whole lot more.

... I thought it said "Watch Ben Affleck Hack a 360 and a Sega CDX" :-P

8 channel or stereo? Make up your mind :-P

I'm not debating the value of a crippling war/battle-ending strike nor that of deterrence, at least given the acceptance of war as a valid/unavoidable premise in human interaction.

My sadness lies in the fact that no-one (OK, few...) stopped to think that "wait, I'm not simply optimizing ways to end the life of a German/Japanese/Italian soldier, I'm assisting in the violent undoing of a member of my own species" and try to stop the madness.

I used to think the same, i.e. that war pushes technology way more than peace can, but I've come to reconsider. Can't help but wonder what would 've happened if e.g. the bright minds that worked on the Manhattan Project had occupied themselves with something non-destructive instead...

Not to mention the heaps of resources wasted that could otherwise be allocated towards infrastructure and general well-being.

Not trying to sound like a tree-hugging hippie, but did it occur to anyone that despite the fanciness of being involved in the first computing platforms, the Rosies (and all colleagues thereof, regardless of gender) were essentially in the people-killing business?

Granted, the conditions demanded it, but I can't help but find the science of increasing the probability of killing a fellow human with bullets and/or high explosives very disturbing...

Google, how about you solve some bugs/feature requests long overdue, for free (no bounty needed)? e.g. Word wrap for event titles in Google Calendar, lack of which has pissed off many a man?

• Almost no shading and piss-poor textures. They were sensible enough to release a patch for this. Patch had no bounds checking for disk space. If you had too little disk space, the installer would fail without any hint as to why.
• X-box key names. Imagine having to remember what key press you mapped the X-box key to when it flashes on the screen while trying to avoid certain death by a rolling boulder.
• No mouse support...
• Forced 16:9 letterboxed display

Despite their hard effort (or lack thereof) to make the game piss off PC owners as much as possible, the game was still awesome.

7.7 trillion...

What a waste, the immenseness of counter-productivity is mind boggling. So much annoyance and so much overhead for a problem entirely maintained by human idiocy.

When will they wise up and stop doing stupid shit?

Excluding the controversial mission (in which by the way I find it kind of hypocrite that you can get away with shooting only for self defense; if I were Makarov and one of my squad members showed less than zealous to participate in the "mission", I'd discipline them right away), there is one more basic question I have regarding war games:

How does it feel for people to play games where they have to mow down legions of soldiers of their own ethnicity? How come Russia is upset mainly for the terrorist scene, but I don't see anyone complaining much for having to wipe out wave upon wave of Russian paratroopers?

Mind you, I'm not questioning the fairness of defending against an aggressor (in a given premise), I'd just like to find out what Germans feel when placed in a position where they have to shoot German soldiers, etc. Is there still fun to be had, or does it feel weird or wrong?

Having said that, I can only think of Half-Life 1 as an example of US Forces being portrayed as the bad guys, and would certainly like to see games or movies present matters from another viewpoint, for some balance.

+1 to games offering the opportunity to explore boundaries we would not dare or want to in real life. Am I the only one that had a blast killing scientists in Half-life, or Mudokons in Abe's Odyssey in every way imaginable? Wasn't the kill-ability of NPC in HL one of the coolest aspects? And was I the only one who thought the twist of the USMC soldiers being bad guys in HL was immensely intriguing? I for one would be most interested in playing a game where you get to be a black ops operative, silencing witnesses and going to extreme lengths to cover up a conspiracy. The game could have a tragic ending with the player realizing the error of their ways, going rogue, or something like that, to somewhat balance out the evil done in the first part. In real life, eggs get broken to make an omelet, the good guys and non-combatants take casualties, there is friendly fire, and hostage-takers do execute hostages. So vote with your currency, whine all you want, but let games and movies stay free of politically correct BS.

Whoops, I stand corrected. The difference a missing '2' makes :-P