critics are fucking stupid, MW2 story made no fucking sense what so ever and was damn short, and the multiplayer is so fun/popular/and addictive because it's an effortless, skill less, meaningless, empty, hollow experience masked by challenges and tons of unnecessary bullshit to unlock, that even the most brain dead of gamers can be good at and feel a sense of accomplishment, why do you think every thing was put on a 10x multiplier for MW2... answer: brain dead gamers see 100 and go O_O oooo big numbers. COD multiplayer is literally fps for dummies, so now the casuals can say look I'm good, 

ok first fail is saying COD is realistic........ this is your first generation of gaming and you ARE an xbox owner for sure, ARMA is realistic, COD isn't even realistic in practice, even the mechanics(zero recoil, perks, teleporting knives) are casual, ohhh 2 bullet kills, yeah not meant for realism, it's meant because because noobs would suck if they actually had to lead their targets and hold a firing position.

second fail is saying cod 4 established the fps genre, are you joking, established it for who??? stupid new wave gamers who suck shit at shooters, and don't know a damn thing about them and honestly think cod 4 established the genre??? is so then I'm inclined to agree, but for someone who's been here since unreal and quake, and the realistic shooters of battlefield (not bad company) and counter strike, that's just f**king insult.

call of duty is below below average shooter, and a game that only noob to the genre and or people who have never ever ever ever ever played an fps before in their lives would find good, and this includes COD 4, but to it's credit, at least the story made sense.  and that's why it's so popular,  battlefield, and counterstrike and many other fps games weren't stupid enough to cultivate the massive idiot market the COD franchise is pioneering today.

edit: and to be completely honest, they have them, because as a true fps fan, we know there is no worse player than a Call of Duty fan playing ANY FPS NOT call of duty.

Sad as it may sound COD may remain popular until an extremely bad cod is released or something better and popular replaces it.

critics are fucking stupid, MW2 story made no fucking sense what so ever and was damn short, and the multiplayer is so fun/popular/and addictive because it's an effortless, skill less, meaningless, empty, hollow experience masked by challenges and tons of unnecessary bullshit to unlock, that even the most brain dead of gamers can be good at and feel a sense of accomplishment, why do you think every thing was put on a 10x multiplier for MW2... answer: brain dead gamers see 100 and go O_O oooo big numbers. COD multiplayer is literally fps for dummies, so now the casuals can say look I'm good, 

Hey, I agree with you, the story is stupid. The point is it's still better than 90 % of realistic shooters out there. Wake your brain up and remember : reviews are comparison guides, not absolute judgements that would transcend time and space. 

ok first fail is saying COD is realistic........ this is your first generation of gaming and you ARE an xbox owner for sure, ARMA is realistic, COD isn't even realistic in practice, even the mechanics(zero recoil, perks, teleporting knives) are casual, ohhh 2 bullet kills, yeah not meant for realism, it's meant because because noobs would suck if they actually had to lead their targets and hold a firing position.

Snap out of it. Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Counter-Strike, etc. are labelled realistic as opposed to Halo / Haze / Killzone / Doom / Quake / Unreal Tournament / Tribes etc.

Again, you have the point of view of a fanatic thinking in absolutes when it's about re-la-ti-vi-ty. Have you tried punching yourself ? That's a realistic game right there.

second fail is saying cod 4 established the fps genre, are you joking, established it for who??? stupid new wave gamers who suck shit at shooters, and don't know a damn thing about them and honestly think cod 4 established the genre??? is so then I'm inclined to agree, but for someone who's been here since unreal and quake, and the realistic shooters of battlefield (not bad company) and counter strike, that's just f**king insult.

since facts insult you - allow me to add these :

- VgChartz is about sales

- Counter Strike (2000) : 4.2M

- Counter Strike Condition Zero (2004) : 2.9M

- Counter Strike Source (2006) : 2.1M

- Lol

- Call of Duty 4 : 13M

- Call of Duty 5 : 11M

- Call of Duty 6 : 20M

call of duty is below below average shooter, and a game that only noob to the genre and or people who have never ever ever ever ever played an fps before in their lives would find good, and this includes COD 4, but to it's credit, at least the story made sense.  and that's why it's so popular,  battlefield, and counterstrike and many other fps games weren't stupid enough to cultivate the massive idiot market the COD franchise is pioneering today.

- and now you're saying COD franchise is pioneering the genre

edit: and to be completely honest, they have them, because as a true fps fan, we know there is no worse player than a Call of Duty fan playing ANY FPS NOT call of duty.

- you seem more than a true fps fan, "caricatural archetype" would fit you better.

well what other way were you expecting it to go, every cod player isn't going to die in a strange accident on the exact same day lol

kfine, I understand what you're saying. But, mainstream&hardcore in mind, isn't the point of all video games to chill out after your daily chores, with friends or not, to have a fun experience and, regardless of your efforts in playing time, have a rural minded point of dedication towards an end-game goal? CoD does this, as MMOs do this. Prestige 10 Level 70, (pointless IMO), provide hours upon hours of gameplay, and give you a reason to not have a need to purchase more games (for the mainstream&hardcore who only buy 1-2 games a year). Isn't that what both parties want? A fully packaged game? With goals (yeah I know its bs that its the same goals every set of prestige)? That has expansions (DLC)? Fuck critics, but its hard to lower the review scores of the game if you look at it from this view point.

CoD4 certainly did not establish the fps genre, it established the next gen bar-minimum of entertainment. Achievements (goals/barracks), rewards (new weapons), and rankings to show whose the better player (or just been playing longer). So, its a pretty important landmark of a game (not to mention an insane refresh from cod3 to cod4).

Then again, whats a balanced shooter, in your opinion? 
Edit: derp, sorry I had to reply to you cause your sig had me drooling. haha