Everyone hates the Strike Force missions. They were horrible. Why would you even request something like Strike Force DLC? A lot of those ideas were pretty cool, but honestly, I don't think you've got the right game. If anything, those should just be put into a brand new title. Perhaps you could find a bunch of buds and start a new franchise or something. =p
Helmets don't stop bullets, they stop shrapnel. Nothing is going to stop that sniper's .50 cal BMG round from going through your skull if he wants it to.
I agree on the door thing, but in general, the maps need to be a little bit more interactive. Maybe not on the "by the end of the round, you're fighting in a rubble strewn parking lot" level, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to bust open a few new routes or collapse a wall/ceiling onto a camper.
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s166/Ionizer_1/squirrel.jpg Carrier of Squirrel Flu
Was not a bad read...but you realize the entire popularity behind cod is the simplicity of it all right? Take games like battlefield, ghost recon, rainbow six vegas, and hell even team fortress....a little more in depth games right? load outs, customization, and strategy....they are never going to be as popular because the average player just wants to jump in and shoot something.
Fair enough but a quick question: If a major developer with a significant fanbase (let's say Bethesda) made a shooter that was equally simple or even more simple than CoD, would that shooter overtake CoD? In other words: if a company made a CoD clone down to the very last piece of code and aesthetic minutia, would that clone garner success like CoD?
In a more direct approach: are we an idiocracy (prefer simple games) or a CoDocracy?