| theprof00 said: If you're going to be a semantics nazi, try looking up the word "tend". And yeah, if you wanna have a debate about cod vs mw3, show me one title that even comes close to those games. Dude the games are just bad, and on top of it, the whole draw of MW is the hardcore gamers. There's never even been a game remotely like MW on Nintendo going back ten years, and even then, goldeneye is probably the closest thing. CoD was a different type of game than modern warfare. Anyone who has played both can attest. They're completely different. CoD3 was able to sell on wii because it had a certain audience. Modern warfare didn't because of the audience. To top it off, MW is very much an online game, and I'm sure you understand the extent of the Nitnendo Online ability. |
Yes he said tend, so I provided some clear cut examples of how he is wrong. There is no tendency. You said this isn't a fair comparison. I could list out the huge amount of other examples, but it would simply take too long. So I used the best examples. THQ with De blob, sonic, no more heroes, lego series bla bla bla.
I'm sorry you are totally changing the issue. You said and I quote ''and MW did as well on wii as COD3 did.'' I demonstrably showed that this statement was completely and utterly untrue. And your argument now is errr well let's take a look. You are saying ''CoD was able to sell well on wii'' and ''Modern warefare didn't'' so I'm sorry are you going to stick with your original point that MW did as well as CoD3 did or are you going to go with your second and completely opposite point that CoD3 sold well and MW didn't? You know the second point which totally agrees with me, who you disagreed with =)
So yea you should probably decide if you want to stick with your point that ''MW did as well on wii as CoD3 did'' or your point that ''CoD was able to sell well on wii.......... MW didn't.''
