My experience is that it's slower then MW3. I agree with Monkeylord that in MW3 you could rush and kill 4-5 enemies with your akimbo.
Nah I didn't mean that I meant you could put people on the map and keep yourself off it. Recon pro was a rushing assassin using pac-mans best friend and with the fact that there was a limited number of routes of travel in MW3, between flashbangs, C4s and launcher of choice you could rake in a load of kills.
BLOPs 2 has more places you can be hit from there's ledges,windows sneaky outcrops and you can climb across most maps pretty fast plus given that you can no longer keep yourself off the map anymore slowing down the enemy and pinning them down in areas means you stand the best shot of winning the gun fights.
~shrug~ personal view MW3 was fast hit and run BLOPs 2 is more mid-pace controlled engagements with more shots being exchanged.
BLOPs 2 is more mid-pace controlled engagements with more shots being exchanged.
YUP great way to put it! I have always prefered a game that forces good exchanges, some people are very creative when they need to be.
To me it feels a lot like MW2 there's even that map that has the buzz of a refined afghan plus they did a good shake up of KC. Also by making the leaderboards irrelevent it makes it easier to eat thoese sucky rounds.
It's a rough launch but the games got a lot of promise.