I love Call of Duty. To many people, the franchise has only been going downhill after Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but to me, the Modern Warfare series has only improved with time. Although most people preferred that broken mess of a game – Modern Warfare 2 – to the latest installment, I like Modern Warfare 3 a hell of a lot more. I firmly believe there are some improvements that Infinity Ward could continue to make to the formula. But above all else, I still think that the franchise is doing a terrific job.

Now, there are many people who feel that Call of Duty is simply a repackaging each year, and there is a bit of a ring of truth to that, but not as much as they’d like you to believe. When I look at “Complete Editions” on store shelves – that’s re-releases of games with all of the current DLC included – and Capcom’s extremely shameless repackages such as… f*cking… Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, I have to wonder why it is everyone goes after Call of Duty first.

I have had debates with people over Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, where people told me “durr, well the game is cheaper, herpaderp.” This makes no sense because this implies that I wanted all of the DLC at once, rather than just one or two characters in the bundle. Considering the game has better balancing (so I’m told), and f*cking Spectator Mode, both of which should have been in the original release, I have to wonder in which fallacious world it’s okay to defend something like this.

This brings me back to Modern Warfare 3, the unspoked god of re-releases, so many gamers would have you believe. You’re probably wondering how this is different. Well, besides people defending Capcom instead of Infinity Ward and Treyarch (because apparently Capcom is slightly less guilty for giving you better deals on games or something), I will say something that may blow your mind. Ready? Take a deep breath.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 does enough to feel new again.

Yes, you heard me. I feel that the formula has been renovated enough to be fresh again. Of course, the campaign is feeling familiar – something I feel could use a little work such as with the grenade-spamming enemies, and enemies that seem to have faster rates of fire or deal more damage even with the same gun (or alternatively, turning every time you peak out from cover into a crapshoot as to whether or not you’ll die). However, Spec Ops Missions and Survival mode are certainly places that you’ll find your money’s worth. I enjoy Spec Ops more than the Multiplayer. However, having played the Multiplayer mode, I can easily say that it is a huge improvement over that unacceptable garbage from 2009. “Noobtubing” is much less of a problem – to the point that it’s almost eliminated, guns are far more balanced, and for fuck sake, you can’t dual-wield Model 1887 shotguns. Killstreaks have also taken on an overhaul, and weapon levels have been added in the Multiplayer. Several things have been done that make me feel like it’s a game worth $60, and if you still don’t think that, then go buy it on sale. At the time of writing, this game is less than $50 on all platforms on Amazon.com.

And yet, it’s these fanboys that constantly rag on Call of Duty for being repackages every year, presumably because it’s more popular than whatever they’re playing. When I say fanboys, this can extend to a number of groups, but the most endemic of them is the Battlefield 3 fans. Oh, it makes so much sense.

If people were to simply tell me that they preferred Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3, I would have nothing against them. I still don’t. My beef lies with the fans that constantly rag on Modern Warfare 3 for being a repackage, insulting people who dare say they like it, and trying desperately to plug Battlefield 3. They make several (fallacious) points as to why Battlefield 3 is better, and every time I have to put up with this fanboyish zealotry, I feel a sharp pain in my head like I’ve been impaled by rebar. It’s their childish attitude that upsets me above all else.

They argue that Modern Warfare 3 has tiny maps, is a repackage of the same game (because we know all sequels are an entirely different game), and is full of run-and-gunners. Having played both games and previous Modern Warfare games, I feel I can safely say that the “tiny maps” argument is easily false. Though I can think of a couple of maps that are clusterfucks depending on the game mode you play (make a multiplayer map that accommodates to every single game mode in Modern Warfare 3 and tell me how easy it is), I am more than happy to say that most of the maps are great. I dare say that they’re even better than in Modern Warfare 2. Especially that overrated clusterf*ck Terminal.

As I’ve said, I’ve played Battlefield 3 (and I still own it… for now). So here are some of my complaints with the game: its campaign is an atrocious, dull corridor shooter with cheap thrills that constantly resorts to trying to be like Call of Duty (and I dare say, ripping off), with repetitive missions even by the standards that people set for its rival. Furthermore, you’ll constantly be scrambling to find cover that isn’t destroyed by the same bullet that one-hit kills you, because apparently they wanted to add the destructible terrain into Battlefield 3 as well. But it’s so sparsely used that it’s just one big needless gimmick that takes away from the game rather than supplementing it.

Oh, but all the effort has gone into the multiplayer, right? Well, Battlefield 3 does have some incontestably massive maps that are barely populated by games with 32 players… and yet they still have the worst spawning systems I’ve ever seen in a game. On multiple occasions, I have spawned literally within arm’s reach behind an enemy, only to have the perfect opportunity to assassinate them. How can you have maps that enormous and still have a spawning system this trashy? I once spawned in front of a sniper’s crosshairs on Modern Warfare 3 on the map Mission and that’s still better than all of Battlefield 3.

Starting guns are hideously underpowered such as the SVD (Dragunov), all to make the later sniper rifles look stronger in comparison. It takes five to six bloody shots to kill someone with a Dragunov, and for any sniper rifle, that is unacceptable. As for the vehicles… haha, what vehicles? I’ve seen only two in my time that I’ve played Battlefield 3, and I have played many matches. As for the immersion that people can brag about in the game, the animations that character models go into for crouching, proning, and other actions, it does nothing but slow the game down and turn what tries to set out to be a tactical game and utterly fails at into an earnest and shallow experience.

People have told me stuff like how Battlefield 3 is not a run-and-gun game, and yet every single game I’ve played has involved absolutely no teamwork. So the arguments that I hear are incredibly fallacious. And because I feel like throwing a couple low blows here, Frostbite 2 is a terrible engine. Apparently “realistic graphics” means to add an ugly blur to everything and have textures pop in from the aether. Second, Battlelog is Electronic Arts’ pathetic attempt at emulating Call of Duty: ELITE and making the game feel more like it belongs on Facebook. Even if you don’t feel that it’s like ELITE, it’s still pointless.

I don’t like writing reviews for games, but when arguing with BFanboys (as I call them), I feel I need to level this bullshit playing ground that they exaggerate in favor of Battlefield 3. There’s a reason why I like Modern Warfare 3 over Battlefield 3, and that’s because they’re better. This is the point where I expect someone to discredit my opinion by saying “well you shouldn’t compare games!” Which would be funny because besides Battlefield 3 shamelessly trying to clone itself from Call of Duty – and it shows in the single-player – they actually have a lot in common. Comparisons should be drawn to a small extent, but I feel that I have made a minimum of them when talking about Battlefield 3.

I’m not saying that there aren’t things wrong with Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward, or Activision. I would be acting exactly like the fanboys trying to ruin my delights to deny such a thing. Call of Duty: ELITE is a disgustingly overpriced service for anything other than acting as a season pass for future DLC, and it would be nice to see Infinity Ward and Treyarch touch up their previous games by actually dealing with the hackers that populate them. I have a feeling that Activision is holding back on their choke chain. However, this is less a problem with the game itself and more a problem with the companies pulling the strings. If you don’t like it, just play something else. Nobody is forcing you to pay for Call of Duty: ELITE (unless you like clans), and nobody is forcing you to play Modern Warfare 3 to begin with. Part of the reason that the game is still selling well is because it’s good. Not everyone is the same mindless drone that you accuse them of being, BFanboys, and don’t let yourselves – or anything else – tell you different. Call of Duty fans, don’t feel pressured by the fanboys who rag on your games for not being games. You have every right to continue enjoying the game, just as Battlefield 3 players can enjoy their own.

Disliking Call of Duty is okay. Insulting the people who like it is not. Next time you want to sell someone on your game, fanboys, make sure your argument consists of more than “you’re an idiot” and “it’s a repackaging! Wahh!” Maybe then, I’ll be willing to at least hear or read what you have to say. Until then, I’m going to go dropshot some noobs on Modern Warfare 3. Trololo.