IW Studio Heads fired by Activision.

[Deathmineral]

I'll blame Activision. They ruined IW and Respawn will bring back the old/awesome creativity that IW used to be. Activision became too involved and put LOTS of pressure on IW. There's no other explanation for MW2. IW puts out PC friendly CoD, CoD2, and CoD4:MW, and suddenly puts out the out-of-place MW2? Popularity is the result of marketing in this case, not a quality product. Kind of like Apple; their products are hit and miss but they have a huge fan-base because their marketing is absolutely top-notch.

 

Personally, I'm looking forward to hearing about Respawn in a couple years when they put out their first game. With EA publishing for them I'm confident quality will win over quantity/deadlines.

 

For now, you can bet I won't be touching anything with "Activision" on the cover. They don't deserve my money, IMO. I swore them off the second I read about the lack of dedicated servers. I would bet that decision was forced by Activision.

Have to agree here, I mean some of this relies on IW too, they didn't really stand up to their publisher with this game but I think the problem is activision for the most part, it's pretty clear now that some of IW didn't actually like MW2 that much, I just hope they go for something completely new for them with Respawn, I'm going to be kind of disappointed if they just start rolling out more FPS games, they would have to be some pretty revolutionary games to win me over, but with EA's supposedly new policy of quality over quantity... we might see something.

 

I feel exactly the same about activision on this though, I pretty much made it a goal to never buy any of their games again.

[Fogel]

Glad you guys know where to lay the blame.

My boss is related to the executive producer of the game and even I don't know who to blame for some of the stupid decisions they made.

 

I agree with Dm that the single player campaign is pathetic at best. Like him I don't like how they jump around and characters had no meaning behind them. The whole story felt like a cheezy porno - nothing but a lame excuse for action. Felt like I was just doing small menial little tasks to see the next cut scene.

 

But that's where I stop agreeing. And honestly I really love how people who never even played the game somehow magically know its crappy game and know exactly who to blame. That's some friggin insight right there. And yes, that is directed @ you hiero.

 

If people don't want to play the game, fine. But why do people feel the need to pretend they know what they are talking about? Did you work on the game? Were you a part of the workplace environment when the game was being created? Did you attend the meetings and know exactly who mentioned each idea and who supported those ideas?

 

If you people don't want to buy Activision games, so be it ...the rest of us don't care one bit. Though some of us would really appreciate it if we don't have to see this boring rhetoric in all the other threads. "I'm not gonna buy StarCraft or ANY Blizzard game because Activision screwed over MW2!!" "I'm not gonna buy another Valve game because they are partenered with Activision who totally screwed over MW2!"

 

That's gonna get old very quickly. In fact, it already is.

 

 

PS: Activision bought Treyarch in 2001 ...which is before even the 1st CoD was made.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Fogel

[Deathmineral]

Glad you guys know where to lay the blame.

My boss is related to the executive producer of the game and even I don't know who to blame for some of the stupid decisions they made.

 

I agree with Dm that the single player campaign is pathetic at best. Like him I don't like how they jump around and characters had no meaning behind them. The whole story felt like a cheezy porno - nothing but a lame excuse for action. Felt like I was just doing small menial little tasks to see the next cut scene.

 

But that's where I stop agreeing. And honestly I really love how people who never even played the game somehow magically know its crappy game and know exactly who to blame. That's some friggin insight right there. And yes, that is directed @ you hiero.

 

If people don't want to play the game, fine. But why do people feel the need to pretend they know what they are talking about? Did you work on the game? Were you a part of the workplace environment when the game was being created? Did you attend the meetings and know exactly who mentioned each idea and who supported those ideas?

 

If you people don't want to buy Activision games, so be it ...the rest of us don't care one bit. Though some of us would really appreciate it if we don't have to see this boring rhetoric in all the other threads. "I'm not gonna buy StarCraft or ANY Blizzard game because Activision screwed over MW2!!" "I'm not gonna buy another Valve game because they are partenered with Activision who totally screwed over MW2!"

 

That's gonna get old very quickly. In fact, it already is.

 

 

PS: Activision bought Treyarch in 2001 ...which is before even the 1st CoD was made.

Okay, the way you say it makes it sound like it's very unclear who is to blame for a crappy game, do you honestly believe that it is more reasonable to blame some imaginanry person and not the developer and publisher of the game? Activision and IW are at fault for this game, to say they are not to blame is like saying they weren't involved in the making of this game, that's why they are getting the blame here, they are the ones that made this game, valve didn't make, EA didn't make it, bioware didn't make it, IW and Activision made this game, that makes them to blame.

 

I don't see anyone pretending to know who made this game, it's pretty clear on the front of the box that it was activision and IW. I know some people are blaming bobby kotick more than the rest of those companies but it was a team effort, I personally think both companies are to blame for it. I mean sure, there were people that didn't really have a say in the game's development but it should be clear that I'm not talking about secretaries.

 

I don't think anyone here that claims they won't buy from activision anymore has asked the "rest of you", whoever that might be, to care about it, if you are upset about seeing those words to point where you feel like you have to twist them into larger sentences that claim no more buying from activision includes blizzard and valve, maybe you care a little too much, it's not even that big of a deal.

 

As far as Blizzard and Valve goes though, I do plan to continue buying valve games because I really like valve because they make quality games, care about their community, and price their games appropriately. I won't be buying from Blizzard anymore though, because of their following a crappy always online DRM and raising the prices of their games.

 

How exactly does the time of Treyarch being bought come into all of this? They didn't even release a call of duty game til 2005.

[Fogel]

I don't see anyone pretending to know who made this game,

(snip)

How exactly does the time of Treyarch being bought come into all of this? They didn't even release a call of duty game til 2005.

Let's take a flash down memory lane... oh look at that... only need to go a couple posts back!

 

I'll blame Activision. They ruined IW and Respawn will bring back the old/awesome creativity that IW used to be. Activision became too involved and put LOTS of pressure on IW. There's no other explanation for MW2. IW puts out PC friendly CoD, CoD2, and CoD4:MW, and suddenly puts out the out-of-place MW2?

Read that quote - no really, read it. It is pretty clear which side of the fence blame is being put on. In case it's not, I went ahead and bolded it for you.

 

You asked why the timeline was referenced. See the part of the quote above I am highlighting in Orange. Activision has been the publisher for ALL the CoD games. The two major developers for the CoD series been IW and Treyarch. Does it really take a non-CoD fan to inform the CoD fans whose has been their Pimp all along? It's been Activision. All those CoD games you guys loved in the past were published by 1 common denominator - Activision.

 

IW is the developer. Activision can make some demands but ultimately the developer (IW) is the one who codes limitations into the game. If you've never been a part of a team where software is being developed than I can see where people might think everything is cut and dry, but its not. And honestly, big wigs on the top of the chain typically don't know anything of what's going on. They typically stay at a high level and don't get into the weeds. May be different in the gaming world. May be different in the Activision world. Unless someone that works there speaks up, none of us can truly point out who is responsible for some of the bonehead decisions that were made.

 

Have to agree here, I mean some of this relies on IW too, they didn't really stand up to their publisher with this game but I think the problem is activision for the most part, it's pretty clear now that some of IW didn't actually like MW2 that much, I just hope they go for something completely new for them with Respawn, I'm going to be kind of disappointed if they just start rolling out more FPS games, they would have to be some pretty revolutionary games to win me over, but with EA's supposedly new policy of quality over quantity... we might see something.

 

I feel exactly the same about activision on this though, I pretty much made it a goal to never buy any of their games again.

Really? IW didn't like MW2 that much? Where did you find that out from?

That was a pretty good long run-on sentence btw...

 

Who needs periods anyway? Commas FTW!

 

So now we are making excuses for the ones who had real control of the game? (IW) Oh its all Activision's fault for getting in IW's undies and IW just plain lost interest. Rather than taking pride in their work, they were manhandeled by Activision. Nevermind the fact that Activision properly published a CoD title whether it was developed by IW or Treyarch. It is unthinkable to propose that its possible IW got a swelled head or possibly the software architect did.

 

Okay, the way you say it makes it sound like it's very unclear who is to blame for a crappy game

Your opinion. Maybe shared by a few but still an opinion. There are still many who who completely disagree with this statement here. For some reason you are like some bitter Ex-Girlfriend when it comes to this game.

 

I know you want to believe with every fiber in your being that this was the worst game ever published. It has been proven both by sales figures and many happy fans, some of which who post on OCC, that its not a failure. It's not perfect and it definitely has faults but you are wrong about it being crappy. See Krazyxazn's post... he doesn't like MW2 at all but even he won't call it a failure. It's like Halo for me. I can't get into Halo at all, but I won't call it a crappy series as it was obviously very successful for a reason. I can't get into Mass Effect AT ALL - it bores me, but just look at the Mass Effect thread. Some people REALLY love that game. I can't deny its success, nor do I want to. Successful games keep the developers in business so they'll make more good games.

 

I honestly fail to see why people take so much offense to a game they don't like being successful. Maybe some day Activision will fire on all cylinders and create a game you'll love. Maybe IW -> Respawn will do the same.

 

I think EA is the worst (major) gaming dev to ever develop a game, but I still look their way. Playing and enjoying Bad Company 2 right now - it's a fun game.

 

I don't think anyone here that claims they won't buy from activision anymore has asked the "rest of you", whoever that might be, to care about it, if you are upset about seeing those words to point where you feel like you have to twist them into larger sentences that claim no more buying from activision includes blizzard and valve, maybe you care a little too much, it's not even that big of a deal.

Because it gets old. There are non-MW2 threads where someone has to bring up exactly the same point they brought up in 20 other threads - that they hate MW2.

 

Just put it as your user title or in your sig somewhere. Then it will be in all your posts and you don't have to completely diverge from your train of thought just to say you hate MW2.

[Krieg1337]

Remember IW is the good guy here, the amazing game maker who has made the game that everyone cries about, but its all good with IW and activision who has published every CoD game is the evil guy here.

 

And for anyone who has not played MW2 and is crying about it, what are you doing here? Your useless, your posts are not wanted if you don't even play the game.

 

Treyarch was always my favorite maker, because they had the harder task making a WW2 game.(CoD WaW) and I personally liked it more than CoD 4 or MW2. Glad they are making CoD 7.

[Deathmineral]

Let's take a flash down memory lane... oh look at that... only need to go a couple posts back!

 

 

Read that quote - no really, read it. It is pretty clear which side of the fence blame is being put on. In case it's not, I went ahead and bolded it for you.

 

You asked why the timeline was referenced. See the part of the quote above I am highlighting in Orange. Activision has been the publisher for ALL the CoD games. The two major developers for the CoD series been IW and Treyarch. Does it really take a non-CoD fan to inform the CoD fans whose has been their Pimp all along? It's been Activision. All those CoD games you guys loved in the past were published by 1 common denominator - Activision.

 

IW is the developer. Activision can make some demands but ultimately the developer (IW) is the one who codes limitations into the game. If you've never been a part of a team where software is being developed than I can see where people might think everything is cut and dry, but its not. And honestly, big wigs on the top of the chain typically don't know anything of what's going on. They typically stay at a high level and don't get into the weeds. May be different in the gaming world. May be different in the Activision world. Unless someone that works there speaks up, none of us can truly point out who is responsible for some of the bonehead decisions that were made.

 

 

Really? IW didn't like MW2 that much? Where did you find that out from?

That was a pretty good long run-on sentence btw...

 

Who needs periods anyway? Commas FTW!

 

So now we are making excuses for the ones who had real control of the game? (IW) Oh its all Activision's fault for getting in IW's undies and IW just plain lost interest. Rather than taking pride in their work, they were manhandeled by Activision. Nevermind the fact that Activision properly published a CoD title whether it was developed by IW or Treyarch. It is unthinkable to propose that its possible IW got a swelled head or possibly the software architect did.

 

 

Your opinion. Maybe shared by a few but still an opinion. There are still many who who completely disagree with this statement here. For some reason you are like some bitter Ex-Girlfriend when it comes to this game.

 

I know you want to believe with every fiber in your being that this was the worst game ever published. It has been proven both by sales figures and many happy fans, some of which who post on OCC, that its not a failure. It's not perfect and it definitely has faults but you are wrong about it being crappy. See Krazyxazn's post... he doesn't like MW2 at all but even he won't call it a failure. It's like Halo for me. I can't get into Halo at all, but I won't call it a crappy series as it was obviously very successful for a reason. I can't get into Mass Effect AT ALL - it bores me, but just look at the Mass Effect thread. Some people REALLY love that game. I can't deny its success, nor do I want to. Successful games keep the developers in business so they'll make more good games.

 

I honestly fail to see why people take so much offense to a game they don't like being successful. Maybe some day Activision will fire on all cylinders and create a game you'll love. Maybe IW -> Respawn will do the same.

 

I think EA is the worst (major) gaming dev to ever develop a game, but I still look their way. Playing and enjoying Bad Company 2 right now - it's a fun game.

 

 

Because it gets old. There are non-MW2 threads where someone has to bring up exactly the same point they brought up in 20 other threads - that they hate MW2.

 

Just put it as your user title or in your sig somewhere. Then it will be in all your posts and you don't have to completely diverge from your train of thought just to say you hate MW2.

Originally I was going to take your post serious but now I can see that this isn't simply a discussion about IW and Activision and the franchise anymore, it's gotten to the point where people feel like they have to get extremely personal about this stuff by bringing up stupid crap like grammar, which by the way, you don't seem to be an expert on either.

 

If you've never been a part of a team where software is being developed than I can see where people might think everything is cut and dry, but its not.

 

Seriously, it really bothers me when people feel like they have to do silly things like that. Also, I don't feel any need to put "I hate MW2" in my sig, it's really not that big of a deal. I think a lot of people are mistaking this a little bit if they feel like I'm using another thread to voice my opinion with modern warfare 2, I'm not saying I haven't done it but it's definitely not always the case, there are times when I use it as a comparison because I honestly feel it is the worst game of all time, that is just my opinion though, I'm not saying others have to hate it as well.

[hierovision]

Fogel, I freely admit I have a personal grudge against Activision's management, and I'm likely over-reacting by not purchasing anything they publish, but I'm still bitter about all the reports I've read about the game. Of course I haven't played it, that's the point. I refuse to contribute to MW2 as a product.

 

Krieg, I'm here in this topic because it's not a "MW2" thread. It's about the IW heads being "fired" by Activision.

 

Why do you think every single MW2 design lead has left IW? They're contractually obligated to Activision, that's why. I don't know the specifics, and I don't know how much leeway there is for Activision to influence IW in their contract, but I do know that MW2 is NOT on-par with the other 3 games by IW. The decline in quality I will attribute to Activision's influence through deadlines or some other method, while considering there's maybe an 80% chance that's what actually happened. The other 20% is IW failed at trying something new for PC gamers. I like those odds.

 

Here's a list of my personal problems with MW2:

-No dedicated servers

-It's almost an exact port of the console

-No community mods

-No community maps

-18 player max

-Matchmaking system relies on best player connection (LOL), and it switches with a "host migration delay" if the host leaves or starts sucking... hah give me a break.

-Introduced $$ DLC in a much stronger way than previous games

 

Even if Activision had nothing to do with this (the other 20% chance) and IW was just trying out something new, it failed horribly as a PC game. I can't wait to see the next game by those developers... likely from Respawn... because as a result of the petitions and pre-order cancellations, they know it's worth the extra 5% effort to satisfy PC gamers.

 

This article sums up my feelings pretty well... and the reasons for my feelings: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/12/mode...are-2-pc-sales/

 

I hate that we're too small of a demographic to influence the big studios. When a big publisher/studio combination turns their back on my community, I'll blame the management until its proven otherwise.

 

I'm not up completely up IW's butt, I just really liked every other games they made... especially CoD4. I'm sure MW2 is a good enough game, but I still see it as a suggestion for other big publishers to start turning their backs on the goodies PC gamers USUALLY get.

 

IW is the developer. Activision can make some demands but ultimately the developer (IW) is the one who codes limitations into the game. If you've never been a part of a team where software is being developed than I can see where people might think everything is cut and dry, but its not. And honestly, big wigs on the top of the chain typically don't know anything of what's going on. They typically stay at a high level and don't get into the weeds. May be different in the gaming world. May be different in the Activision world. Unless someone that works there speaks up, none of us can truly point out who is responsible for some of the bonehead decisions that were made.

 

I understand pretty well what it's like. I'm a gov't contractor web developer. On every one of the projects I've been on my teams have had to take short cuts because the management or contract owners have a deadline that sits in direct contradiction to quality. It guarantees that somewhere down the line someone like me will be back to fix it or create a whole new product.

 

I feel like I'm rambling now so I'll leave this topic alone.

[Fogel]

Actually that was a really good post Hierovision - I at least have a better idea of where you are coming from now. You definitely bring up points I agree with on how they could have made this game better. I still think this is REALLY good move for both sides as well. It is very apparant there was some bad blood between IW and Activision. Activision doesn't need poison in their mix and Respawn will want to prove themselves so they'll want to produce good games. Either way it should work out in our favor.

 

Originally I was going to take your post serious but now I can see that this isn't simply a discussion about IW and Activision and the franchise anymore, it's gotten to the point where people feel like they have to get extremely personal about this stuff by bringing up stupid crap like grammar, which by the way, you don't seem to be an expert on either.

Honestly, 95% of my post was geared toward the IW and Activision conversation. Like I said in my post, I'm just getting frustrated with people saying "IW/Activision need to make amends for making the crappiest game of all time." No, no they don't. They easily could have made a better game. In fact, I think they had the chance to make an epic game because their game engine is really good. But it by far from something they have to apologize for. I can totally understand people not liking it for what reason(s) that's cool, but calling it a failure and saying IW/Activision need to be ashamed is taking it beyond personal preference.

 

Far as the grammar thing goes... Normally I'm the last to bring up grammar but I was trying to reply to your points individually and noticed you stacked up a few different points all in the same sentence and I had to break up the sentence to reply. That got to be too much work so I scrapped that, hence that comment.

[Deathmineral]

Actually that was a really good post Hierovision - I at least have a better idea of where you are coming from now. You definitely bring up points I agree with on how they could have made this game better. I still think this is REALLY good move for both sides as well. It is very apparant there was some bad blood between IW and Activision. Activision doesn't need poison in their mix and Respawn will want to prove themselves so they'll want to produce good games. Either way it should work out in our favor.

 

 

Honestly, 95% of my post was geared toward the IW and Activision conversation. Like I said in my post, I'm just getting frustrated with people saying "IW/Activision need to make amends for making the crappiest game of all time." No, no they don't. They easily could have made a better game. In fact, I think they had the chance to make an epic game because their game engine is really good. But it by far from something they have to apologize for. I can totally understand people not liking it for what reason(s) that's cool, but calling it a failure and saying IW/Activision need to be ashamed is taking it beyond personal preference.

 

Far as the grammar thing goes... Normally I'm the last to bring up grammar but I was trying to reply to your points individually and noticed you stacked up a few different points all in the same sentence and I had to break up the sentence to reply. That got to be too much work so I scrapped that, hence that comment.

I don't really feel like they need to apologize for their game, just that they need to make it better, they need to make it more balanced. The multiplayer portion of the game, as it is right now, really isn't very good and I just think they need to improve on things.

 

Things that I think could use some improvement are:

Maps - Make some bigger maps for once, surely I'm not the only person that feels they could make some bigger maps. Especially after that $15 map pack.

Asplsions! - I think they need to work on the blast radius, seems to me like you have to run half way across the map to escape a grenade.

killstreaks - I think some of these need to be toned down, or even gotten rid of. I say this for two reasons though, 1. stuff like the AC-130 is just way overpowered, and 2. It doesn't make sense, this game is supposed to have some realism to it, I don't think some random soldier guy could just call in a nuke like it wasn't a big deal.

Perks - As we saw in Krazy's video, some of these perks allow people to play the game in a very screwed up way. people shouldn't be allowed to use perks to sit in one spot and bomb people or to assist them in camping.

Voting options - Any good multiplayer game will have options to allow people to vote kick, to me this is one of the biggest flaws of the game.

 

By the way, I'm trying to mention points that are pretty solid to the game itself and not a specific version, dedicated servers is a big issue with this game but I don't see the need for them, I do think they are better than matchmaking without a doubt though.

 

That's about all there is to how I feel about the game. I still really dislike the game overall though but that's mostly because of the single player, that was just the important part to me. My policy on activision won't change either though, and really, not buying anything with activision on it may sound unreasonable but it was going to happen anyway, the only series activision publishes that is of any interest to me is call of duty. I never would have bought any of their other stuff anyway because I don't like games like guitar hero and blur.

 

I really am excited to see what respawn does though, I think with a fresh start the IW guys could definitely create a new and amazing game as long as it doesn't feel like a call of duty game.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Deathmineral

[Fogel]

I don't really feel like they need to apologize for their game, just that they need to make it better, they need to make it more balanced. The multiplayer portion of the game, as it is right now, really isn't very good and I just think they need to improve on things.

 

Things that I think could use some improvement are:

Maps - Make some bigger maps for once, surely I'm not the only person that feels they could make some bigger maps. Especially after that $15 map pack.

Asplsions! - I think they need to work on the blast radius, seems to me like you have to run half way across the map to escape a grenade.

killstreaks - I think some of these need to be toned down, or even gotten rid of. I say this for two reasons though, 1. stuff like the AC-130 is just way overpowered, and 2. It doesn't make sense, this game is supposed to have some realism to it, I don't think some random soldier guy could just call in a nuke like it wasn't a big deal.

Perks - As we saw in Krazy's video, some of these perks allow people to play the game in a very screwed up way. people shouldn't be allowed to use perks to sit in one spot and bomb people or to assist them in camping.

Voting options - Any good multiplayer game will have options to allow people to vote kick, to me this is one of the biggest flaws of the game.

Well you know where I stand. I really like the multiplayer so we'll just have to respect the fact we have differing opinions on that. It used to really annoy me till I figured out how people operate in that game.

 

I actually like the smaller maps. It allows me to get to know each map pretty well and know the little nuiances of the maps. Where as big maps (such BC2) there is so much ground to cover that sometimes you are more worried about covering the distance than watching your 6. It's kinda fun playing both games though because it mixes things up a bit.

 

Only reason you should have to travel far to escape a grenade is if someone has the Danger Close perk on - which I rarely see. If the person stuck it to you than there is no escaping that. I rarely ever getten taking out by a AC-130 but I also respect its power. I try not to make myself a target for it. And if I do go out in the open I look to see where the AC-130 is in relation to where I am on the mini-map. If there are no buildings the gunner can see the entire map and that really sucks ...so I have to switch my Cold Blooded Perk if it gets me. I don't know of many games that allow you to vote kick people - maybe because I've never been an admin on a server.

 

If i was designer for a day, things I'd drop kick off the game:

- Javelin (would make sense in BC2 - not MW2)

- Flash Bangs (really, really hate these things)

- Heartbeat Sensors (why, just why?)

- Thermal Scopes (would make more sense on BC2 where the maps are huge and snow/dust are always blowing)

- Machine Pistol akimbo range/accuracy (G18s, etc.)

 

By the way, I'm trying to mention points that are pretty solid to the game itself and not a specific version, dedicated servers is a big issue with this game but I don't see the need for them, I do think they are better than matchmaking without a doubt though.

 

That's about all there is to how I feel about the game. I still really dislike the game overall though but that's mostly because of the single player, that was just the important part to me. My policy on activision won't change either though, and really, not buying anything with activision on it may sound unreasonable but it was going to happen anyway, the only series activision publishes that is of any interest to me is call of duty. I never would have bought any of their other stuff anyway because I don't like games like guitar hero and blur.

 

I really am excited to see what respawn does though, I think with a fresh start the IW guys could definitely create a new and amazing game as long as it doesn't feel like a call of duty game.

Activision is pretty large and owns a lot of companies you may think are separate - such as Blizzard. It's a lot like EA. I really, really hate EA but if I swore of anything related to EA I'd never try games like Bioshock ...and obviously BC2. I do know where you are coming from though.

 

The guys that left IW will probably steal some devs from where ever they can and will probably get bought out by a bigger company - that's where they will profit. Should be interesting though - more competition is good for us.

[Deathmineral]

As far as companies affiliated with activision goes, I don't want to hold that against them because even though I really don't like activision... if I had the chance to work with them and make some big bucks, I would take it.

 

You do make some good points about how someone probably needs to know the game in and out to become better at it, I personally just don't feel like taking the time with because I feel like I've already done all this before with call of duty 4, I think if it had a completely different feel from cod4 then I might not be so hard on the multiplayer, but since the only things they improved from 4 to MW2 was everything I didn't like in 4 I just can't get into it.

 

I still think they need to toss the nuke though, the concept of some random dude on the field having that kind of power bothers me. Not saying the game has to be completely realistic, but I think the nuke is overkill.

[krazypoloc]

I might be wrong but I think what cainuke might have been saying and what I was saying was that as a game, MW2 fails, and sales don't really have anything to do with how well a game tries to push to the next level in it's category or in gaming in general.

Yes you are wrong.....game developers don't give a crap if everyone in the world likes the game or if a small percentage of people deem it a failure. They make money by people buying the game....thats how you gauge success in a consumer driven market. This isn't theoretical physics.....you can deem it a success because it puts up massive numbers for both sales and fan base.

 

I don't like the game either....nor do I like WoW, or any number of games that are wildly successful......doesn't mean they are epic failures in any way shape or form.