Obviously, the majority of consumers are more interested in the multiplayer for both titles in question. That's clear.
And I would imagine there will be a lot of comparing and contrasting going on between the multiplayer action in Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Medal of Honor: Warfighter . For now, the general consensus is that BOII will end up with the superior multiplayer. People seem to adore it already.
However, that's not the question of the hour: Which do you think will boast the better single-player experience? There are several factors to consider going in: For Warfighter , many are probably hoping for, perhaps first and foremost, a longer campaign. The single-player quest in Medal of Honor was good but it was definitely on the short side (3-4 hours). Secondly, one can turn to the Frostbite 2 engine and see what a difference it makes; Treyarch can say they've managed to extract a huge amount from that older Cod engine, but it's just not the same, is it? Lastly, with developer Danger Close tapping real-life Tier 1 operators for Warfighter , we should expect an authentically intense adventure from start to finish. Like, riveted in your seat the whole time.
For Black Ops II , you've got Treyarch at the helm, a team that has consistently delivered great campaigns for the franchise. In the eyes of many, they've been of a better overall quality than the Modern Warfare campaigns by Infinity Ward. Some will argue that World at War is still the best CoD campaign, and let's not forget that the Black Ops single-player was pretty darn solid. The final verdict will also depend a little on personal preference, as it's likely BOII will feature a less realistic, more arcade-y experience, while MoH might be a borderline simulator. You never can tell, though…maybe Treyarch will surprise us, although that aging engine makes one wonder…how much can they really do with it?
So, what do you say?