I don't like : here's a gun , shoot this . Shoot that . Toss a frag... And the only thing i get it from bo3 is if i didn't do this or that . THE TRAIN WILL GO BOOM!! . Sorry for caps.

I think BO3's campaign is better that AW.

First things first, both games had a limb/limbs dismembered of of your body. AW doesn't make sense and pretty much just bad karma. BO3 does makes sense and you lost limbs because your character didn't make it to the chopper in time and the robots ripped you apart. The boost jump and abilities are different depending on what game situation it is. BO3, you can customize your cyber-abilities to whatever fits you and you can still use a boost jump. BO3 has a boost meter so you know how much boost you have whilst AW doesn't have.

On AW, you can't run on walls, have extended oxygen while you are underwater.

The boost on BO3, you have more agility and control on your jumps.

I think the Campaign on BO3 is more intense. When I complete an objective, I have the urge to do more. The story is really well done and I really like the ending of it.

Thanks for taking the time reading this post.

If we take out the stories completely, aw was incredibly better. The campaign had structure to the levels not just run and shoot the whole time. There's was like one bo3 mission where it wasn't running around shooting with nothing else and that was the one where you destroyed the aquifers in the desert. But even so it was recycled from previous cods where was aw had the last mission cruizing down the river with Goliaths, the one where your in the prison, and some other that made the gameplay that much more fun. Bo3 is litterrly run forward and shoot which is boring. Bo3 was the most visually impressive campaign ever because of the frozen forest levels where the ground disappeared and stuff. But once again it was run and shoot.

Never playing it again lol.

*SPOILERS*

Bo3 campaign is A LOT better than AW imo, all these sequences like entering WW2 was interesting. Also really enjoyed the journey finding out what the corvus virus actually was, and how it got created. Imo, you got really motivated to play through the campaign, as I felt that you really wanted to stop John Taylor from doing all these evil things, but then finding out that it's actually not him, it's the virus controlling him.

AW on the other hand, everything was just boring, there was nothing interesting, just kevin spacey starting a war against the world, and you have to try stop him, that's how I felt at least.

What I'm saying is that I liked the way BO3 was "less realistic", not sure how to explain it, but in AW, everything was so serious, stopping a bad guy from "making America great again". While in BO3, there wasn't really an actual villain, it was a virus.

BO3 also had better characters than AW, I mean come on... in the first mission, your best friend dies, I didn't care anything about it. And then they actually put in a sequence where you are at the funeral for your friend that you didn't know anything about? I would care if they told more about him and have more missions with him.

in the first mission, your best friend dies, I didn't care anything about it. And then they actually put in a sequence where you are at the funeral for your friend that you didn't know anything about? I would care if they told more about him and have more missions with him.

I can see what you are saying a little bit, but how much table setting do you want them to do? They talked about you & Will Irons during the intro and then you proceed to do a mission together where he gets killed. The story isn't about you and Will, it's about everything that happens after that and his death is really just used to fuel the rage of Jonathan Irons. The story doesn't hinge on your attachment to Will so I fail to see why we'd need anymore relationship building than they already gave us.

The BO3 story is presented to you in such a way that it sounds like I tried to explain the movie Inception to my 95 year old grandma with Alzheimers who then tried to explain it to the rest of the slumped over brain dead shufflers in the nursing home and then someone wrote down what one of them thought the movie was about - and there you have the BO3 story.

But this is all my opinion.

I can see what you are saying a little bit, but how much table setting do you want them to do? They talked about you & Will Irons during the intro and then you proceed to do a mission together where he gets killed. The story isn't about you and Will, it's about everything that happens after that and his death is really just used to fuel the rage of Jonathan Irons. The story doesn't hinge on your attachment to Will so I fail to see why we'd need anymore relationship building than they already gave us.

The BO3 story is presented to you in such a way that it sounds like I tried to explain the movie Inception to my 95 year old grandma with Alzheimers who then tried to explain it to the rest of the slumped over brain dead shufflers in the nursing home and then someone wrote down what one of them thought the movie was about - and there you have the BO3 story.

But this is all my opinion.

on point +1.

The story doesn't hinge on your attachment to Will so I fail to see why we'd need anymore relationship building than they already gave us.

But I play COD for the sentimental relationship building and emotional character development dammit!

But seriously when I'm shooting wave after wave of endless AI bots I want to know I'm doing it for the right reasons; I'm not just a mindless killer murdering everything that twitches. For example in 'No Russian' in MW2 I only shot the civilians who were looking at me funny.