1: Too much clutter, everywhere.
2: Maps seem to have been DESIGNED for flanking. Too many pieces of seemingly random cover have enterances facing them DIRECTLY, meaning that if you stop behind a car to reload behind cover, you WILL be seen because there's a doorway 30 feet away facing DIRECTLY towards your side of the car from either of the sides (or behind)...
Which makes the maps very hard to learn, because you can't settle for learning the layout, but NEED to memorize the clutter-positions and where you're safe for two seconds and where it's not even safe to stand and reload for 2 seconds behind cover.
3: SMGs is the go-to weapon for every map and every game mode unless you plan on playing Oh So Defensively.
In which case, you may consider using the MP7 instead of the ACR anyway.
I even liked the DLC maps in MW2.
Salvage was loads of fun - for me that's an example of a CQ map, which is very anti-boosting, but isn't too full of junk and still allowed different playstyles.
It's like MW3 went for that style of map but just got it a bit wrong. That's probably because all the good CoD4/MW2 map designers now work at Respawn Entertainment.
But all time fave is Afghan - what a ******* epic map!
totally agree with u guys...
but my personal problem is that the maps don't fit the expectations. e.g. block (mw1) this was a russian scenario and it really felt/looked like that. well it took places in prypjat and there was that big wheel, which is really there (not just in the game). everythings dead there and nature stroke back. everything was/is there... they'vr done their homework. well this map was f***** authentic, like all other russian maps (pipeline, downpour, countdown...) they all had a russia feel to it.
the same's with afghan/irak/mideast maps. i just say crossfire, backlot, strike, showdown they all fitted to mideast scenarios, but now seatown is the only one and it only claims to be one...