The last few days I have seen about ten threads with discussion about CoD. Most slamming it, but some are either neutral and the minority are praising it. Now, i've seen threads that go into deep discussion about the games campaign, would we be seeing those threads if CoD was the shovelware title that many people point it out to be. Look at all the CoD games, there hasnt really been one that was universally accepted as bad. Im not saying bad as in, its ruining the games industry because no innovation! Im saying bad as in proper bad, bad controls, bad gameplay and bad graphics. There hasnt been one.
Look at the recently released Battlefield 3, it had a single player campaign. It was as generic a single player game as there can be. It is just a way to show off the graphics without the frustrations of multiplayer. There has litterally been no threads yet discussing the single player campaign, none talking about the characters and none talking about what happened. Whereas i'll bet that when MW3 comes out there will be threads discussing the characters, the plot and the set pieces. That is because CoD is a good game, people can give it flack for not innovating but when you get down to it. There would never of been CoD haters, CoD defenders and Battlefield fanboys attacking CoD if CoD 1 and CoD 3 were unmemorable and bad games.
You see people asking why there buying MW3, but you never see threads asking why people buy Sniper Ghost Warrior.
My question to you escapees is. If CoD was a technically terrible franchise, would any of you even be talking about it?
[EDIT] Deleted so I can keep my sanity.
[EDIT zwei] People seem to be missing the point, this isn't a piece of logic that can apply to anything, its a piece of logic that applies to CoD and CoD only.
[EDIT drei] tl:dr. If CoD was a crap game, would it be discussed and hated upon as much as it is?
