Objectivity

EA GAMES Objectivity

   Actually, this is a pretty good definition of a moron; someone who can see that something is obviously, fundamentally flawed, and then declares it a good product. Do you work for EA, by chance?

Firstly, aside from the obvious things like not finishing the game, major bugs, and pretty much everything EA does, it is difficult to declare a game objectively bad. Duke Nukem Forever, for example, is objectively a good game. Most people slag it off, and I myself would say it is a 6 or 7 out of 10 game at the very best, but objectively it does nothing wrong. The mechanics work, there's no major bugs that I encountered, the narrative structure is cohesive in its own way... so all the criticism, all the stuff that makes it a good, bad or mediocre title is subjective.

Call of Duty is obviously going to go the same way, but the fact that you dismiss any critique as an example of 'douchebag' behaviour suggests that you shouldn't call your kettle black, Mr Pot.

Popularity does not make something good, it makes it popular. Kim Kardashian is never going to be anything more than an embarrassment to the Darwinian process no matter how many people watch her TV shows. That fact does not change just because her ratings go up.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a terrible game. It is terrible both for its own failings, and for the fact it has single-handedly dragged the First Person Shooter genre into the lowest depths it has ever sunk. To its credit, and this can be taken as a positive only in the most back-handed way, it is not as bad as some of the trash that followed it. It is playable, certainly, but the fact that I lost any desire to actually finish the game after mission one speaks volumes of just how bad a product it is.

And no, you cannot play the Strawman card of "You just don't like realistic shooters!" I loved the Medal of Honour series back when it was respectable. Do you remember those games? The ones where we first saw real weapons, where they had consultants and experts helping them design the look and feel of every aspect of the game so it was as realistic as the Playstation One could allow? Do you recall Steven Spielberg being on board with the game? I played the shit out of that game. I wouldn't now, because in my opinion FPS games of that era have aged terribly on the consoles, but at the time it was a damn fine game.

Now let me come to the final, and most amusing point; you don't seem to be able to actually counter my points. You are employing the age old American tactic of "insult, dismiss and strawman to win". You don't "win" an argument with those tactics. If you cannot disprove the fact that Call of Duty is bad because it's racist propaganda disguised as entertainment, then your opinion is meaningless and the fact stands.

As for "Realism", I have to balk at that notion right now. Since when is it "realistic" that a man can be shot multiple times at close quarters, be struck by shrapnel from a frag grenade, and be back to fully fighting fit in a manner of seconds by hiding behind a bush? This is not realistic. No health system is. In many ways Fallout 3 has a more realistic health system than Call of Duty; you can break limbs, crack ribs or suffer a concussion and these injuries don't go away without treatment. Yes, the treatments are unrealistic, but the mechanics are a step forward.
So, let's dismiss that silly little claim, and look at how the "realism" of CoD plays out. Well... it doesn't. The moment you get shot your screen turns blood red and your camera bounces around to the point where you cannot return fire. This, in essence, reduces the game to a "one hit and you're dead" scenario unless you cling to cover, at which point the enemy begin sharing their infinite grenade supply with you. This is not realism. This is not even good game play. CoD forces you to play slow, campy and stealthy, and then punishes you for doing so. Poor, poor design.