First off, you should know a few things about me: I've been playing CoD since MW2 (which is still my second favourite previous-generation game, behind Arkham City) and have played all of it's successors. I started playing video games back in 96' on the PS1, with Crash Bandicoot and Spyro. As I grew older, I started playing other games, like Combat Evolved in 2001, Jak and Daxter, and Pokemon. I eventually started playing CoD in 2009. Now that that's out of the way, let's move on. Since 2009, Call of Duty has been the best-selling video game on the market. Making tiny, incremental changes from MW2 onwards. All of them have been based on Cod 4's simple perk-and-killstreak system, which was revolutionary for the time. And for years since, people have been complaining that it's the same damn game. Every year. Yet it makes billions. And that is solely because Call of Duty is a [b]good franchise[/b]. It is. They have their core mechanics nailed. You might not think they make enough changes from one game to the next, but is that really something to complain about? Halo 2 was a bad successor to Halo: Combat Evolved. Halo 4 was a bad successor to Halo 3 (arguably). You want to know why? Because they added unecessary elements that just didn't make anything better; only worse. Let me paint a picture for you: If Bungie had created Halo 4, created a new campaign, Firefight, and multiplayer maps, but left the core mechanics of Halo 3 intact, people would be drooling at the mouths (or, most people. I'm not apart of that group, I really didn't like Halo 3, but that's beside the point.) I've seen multiple threads on the forum alone that stated things like 'Would a complete Halo 3 remake be that bad?' No, it wouldn't. Call of Duty gets better every year. And now, they're only going to keep getting better. Think about it: they have the funding. They have the resources. They have connections. And now, they have the extra time. For those of you who are unaware (whether it be because you don't care, or otherwise), Call of Duty is moving to a 3-year development cycle. With Sledgehammer entering the fold (I believe they handled the campaign of MW3, which wasn't too shabby), this gives the big gun (Treyarch) and their less successful counterpart (New Infinity Ward) a full extra year to develop and flesh out their games. That's 3 years. That's how many years it took for Arkham City to be made. This can only be a good thing.