Yeah, not sure if you've heard of Frostbite 2.0, the revolutionary lighting system, revolutionary sound engine, the increase in player count to 64 on larger maps, the inclusion of jets etc. Spent 500 hours playing MW1, 450 or so playing MW2, 220 hours playing BC2, and 495 playing BF3 at a reasonable level (see battlelog stats), so I understand the differences between them. I'm not a partisan fanboy though; I've not played BF3 for a month now (after having played it since release) because the latest patch amped the suppression effect to the point where I thought it lowered the skillcap of the game too much. Once they revoke those changes in the next patch, I'll pick up playing again. At the same time, it seems pretty clear to me which franchise has innovated and which hasn't. If you're suggesting that the progression of MW2-->MW3 is equivalent to BC2-->BF3 I'd have to assert you were most likely blind and deaf. There's a difference between subjective evaluations by which you rate a game and whether you enjoy it, and objective facts regarding the technology used in the end product.