I have never really liked COD 4 SP or MP.

Battlefield BC's SP was pretty lame too but I found its multiplayer superb!

I find the COD games old school, I mean that in a good way. I totally get how and why people like it but its not for me.

So obviously I am expecting BF BC 2 to be much better than COD MW2. Still COD sales will be massive their is no doubt on that!

I love the big environments, multiple vehicles (land, sea and air), destructible environments are now a must, squads and classes. COD has not offered any of these (YET)

STILL Lots of details to be confirmed for both of the new games!!

I have a quick question. When you buy MW or BC, are you guys looking forward to the SP or the MP? When I bought BC, I played the SP to get used to the controls, but thought that the SP sucked balls (the enemy were so fucking accurate, that even if I did take cover, as soon as I took a peek I'll get a dozzen bullets slamming into my face), although the characters and writing were nice.

If they could just make the enemy less accurate and make it feel like I'm actually hitting something in SP (as opposed to MP) then SP will be OK.

MP, holy shit was that fun. IDK much about MW, but lets say you have a search and destroy thing (just like the multiplayer trailer showed). If it was inside a building, normally what would happen is everyone will just crowd around in a room, and cover every doorway with a shotgun (holy shit I hate Search and Destroy in KZ2, I feel like I'm ruining my KD ratio by being productive, and that I'm like a human shield). Basically camping.

With BC, you can create a breach point anywhere. So nobody can just sit in a corner and wait for you to enter the doorway.

You don't have to go through the usual street and alley, covered by snipers, but blow holes through walls and go your own path. You can create a vantage point anywhere, by blowing a hole open.

You have to be aware of the enemy if both of you survive the first burst of fire because he's probably prepping either a grenade launcher, or a mortar strike, making your cover moot.

Vehicles can really help a team if they use it right. If I'm in a chopper, and I kill the enemy chopper, for a while, or the rest of the game, my team has air superiority, and I can quickly go to flags that are being attacked, support a 1 on 1 tank battle, and look out for snipers.

The openness of the map make you more reliant on common sense and awareness of your surroundings, squad, and flanks than on twitch skills. No matter how good you may at be at getting a head shot, it's worthless if you just stand out in the open, or if you keep rushing through the same main gate over and over, instead of using stealth or creativity (attacking from a different side).

These games should be about Multiplayer. Single player you will definitly get bored after about 5 play trhoughs. A good Multiplayer game you can play for over 15 days easily.

FPS are increasingly becoming more Multiplayer based. I wasnt a great fan of BFBC multiplayer as it seemed unorganised laggy and the maps were to big. CoD 4 seemed better structured.

Your comparing 2 completely different game styles. BC is more open world while MW is linear

BFBC was ....Meh... The camera was TOO close to the gun..and the fact that the guns miss when the target is on sight,like the sniper for instance would go WAY off course,then again the PC version did the same..

PC version of BC?  There was no PC version

No i mean the Battlefield games on PC in general,were like that,the scope would stay still but the target would still miss.In CoD the sight moves and the bullet goes where the scope is,alot better than the scope not moving and the bullet going wherever.

In BC you have to aim infront of the moving target which makes it more difficult to snipe

MW2 because Infinity Ward is making the game. :)

Either way will play both and no doubt in my mind both will be solid.