EA has recently decided to a show a little faith in their developers by publicly detailing their master plan for gaining ground on, and eventually overtaking, the Call of Duty franchise. It was a nice gesture, but one ruined by how flawed the plan is itself, which is really no more than to 'make a better game'. It sounds logical in some respects, since everyone knows that a consumer will always be willing to jump onto another product if it's superior, but on the same page it lacks a certain logic of its own. What exactly determines what kind of game would be 'superior' to Call of Duty? How does one accomplish that? Naturally EA has all the answers, which boil down to one game: Battlefield 3.