K now that I have the time, let me tell you why you are wrong.
First off, your primary argument against CoD is that is uses an engine from CoD2. Even if this statement were not blatantly wrong, its a pretty shitty argument in of itself. CoD 1 and 2 both used slightly modified versions of an unnamed build of the idtech engine. CoD4 branched out with its own engine which was a more modified version of previous engines, and was named the IW3 engine. MW2 used an even more updated version called IW4 engine.
Now that you know that they have not been using the same engine the whole time,let me explain to you why it would be a bad thing for them not to. The idtech engine (and its successors IW3 and IW4) are incredibly stable and easy to work with. Adding in new features is easy, and making gameplay changes is simple. It also has the ability to run on many many computers, with still acceptable graphics. People dont have to go out and buy new parts just to keep playing the game at the same graphics every 4 years. I have two other computers in my house that would get shit on all day by my current gaming rig that can still run every CoD game. And not only does the game play on older gen computers, it if anything is simply for the sake of consistency. If one game used the IWX engine, and the next game used the Unreal engine, there would be major difference between the games which would cause a big damper on fans of the series.
So no, they have not been using the same engine, but rather, taking the original one and building on it every year to crank out nicer graphics, more stability, and the ability to play on pretty much any midgrade computer out there. If you ask me, that far outweighs the ability to shoot holes in walls and cut down trees. Which btw, none of the BF games support
full destructible environments. afaik no game out there currently does.
Using the argument that your games take longer to make just seems kind of silly. I just took a big shit that came out pretty quick, but I can assure you that it smelled no better than one I could have sat around hours for waiting for, if you catch my drift. Because by your logic, Duke Nukem Forever would be > every game ever seeing as how it took 14 years to make.
As for the rest of it, particularly as to what parade said, its all a matter of opinion. I made the comparison a while ago that comparing MW3 and BF3 is like comparing Sonic and Super Mario. They may be the same genre, but thats where the similarities end. They are two completely separate games, that play, look, and feel far different from one another. If you like one than fine, but you can't say shit to anybody else when it comes to their opinions.
And as a personal note, CoD fanboys about 2-3 years ago used to be really annoying online and everywhere else, but it seems that now that they have stopped being so annoying, the BF fanboys took it upon themselves to be twice as annoying as any CoD fanboy ever was. Not one new article dealing with BF3 or MW3 doesnt have a slew of comments from BF3 fanboys droning on with their usual drivel: "HUURRRR YEAHHHHH BATTLE FEEEEEELLLLD YEAHHHHHH COD SUCKS BF3 ALL DAY HURRRRRRRRRRR YEAHHHHHHH" with drool flying from their mouths while hitting themselves with any nearby hard objects.