Controversy didn't help it sell shit, I don't care what you think.  None of my XBOX Live friends who have the game even knew about the level until it came out.  I knew about it before just because of VGChartz, and didn't think it was a big enough deal to even tell my friends.  So cut THAT crap.

Yes, advertising helped.  But my point is solid - they didn't have to advertise anything like they did to still sell millions upon millions of copies, and still break sales records.  Were you sleeping when Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare was out?  Did you skip over the part about it selling over 12.11 million copies, not including PC?  Did you forget it's one of the most critically acclaimed FPS games of all time?  Did you overlook it getting more playtime on XBOX Live than the ultra-popular Halo 3?

All they basically had to do was let people know when the game was coming out, pay for a commercial here or there, and almost every gaming magazine, website or publication in the world would feature a front-page or cover story article about the game at some point.  Did Activision pay for all of that?  That's a big negative..the gaming media did it because they knew the fanfare behind the game, and knew it would attract gamers to their media venue.

Call of Duty has REAL hype.  Every kind of hype.  What do I mean by that?  It's not like Uncharted 2 that has media/internet hype.  People who don't use websites like VGChartz or read gaming magazines like GameInformer were hyped about this game without being told to be.  Call of Duty has been around for over 6 years and has always been an amazing game, picking up fans with every new iteration - fans like me, who didn't need to be convinced to buy the game.  It's basically reached a level of nostalgia that only games like Zelda, Halo, Mario and GTA have.  It's one of those games that will sell boat loads without any help at all.  Of course they're going to advertise the game to get the absolute most out it, but they didn't have to go to near the lengths they did in order for it to break records.  Plus, the sales it would have missed initially had that happened would have been made up through it's legs.

I can't believe you think the 'controversy' or advertisement for a game like this had that big of an impact.  I really am quite amazed.

Lol, you missed the point completely :p . He means, SPEAK no Russian, he wants Americans to be blamed so they all speak english.

Lol ! Indeed I missed it !

Hence: What plot? :p

Controversy didn't help it sell shit, you say? Well, if only "shit" were a measurable number. So what's shit worth? 100,000 copies? 200,000? A million? You're saying that the controversy didn't help to sell the game at all? I'm confused by your beginning paragraph. You make a "clever" comeback at me by rebutting me with my own words, but it doesn't matter at all. Cut that crap. And am I supposed to care about your anecdotal evidence of your friends on Xbox Live? For that matter, ALL of my friends knew about the controversial level before the game came out, so it's obvious that the controversy had an effect. That's how it works in your world, right?

Advertising definitely helped. Trying to minimize its impact is a foolish decision to make. And this is where you quote a bunch of accomplishments of Call of Duty 4, as if I haven't heard of them. I know, I'm not a fucking moron. I've seen how well Call of Duty 4 sold.  But are you really trying to claim that it had the biggest launch of all time, by far, without advertising? Just look at the massive advertising campaigns for Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV; those games didn't sell themselves on hype alone. Halo 3 had the biggest launch ever (at the time), much larger than Halo 2's, despite the 360 having a smaller userbase when Halo 3 launched than the Xbox did when Halo 2 launched. How did that happen, hype among a much smaller userbase? No, it was the massive advertising campaign. It was the hype train started by Microsoft, where Master Chief was featured on 360s and Mountain Dews, where every store in America was stocked with Master Chief action figures (exaggeration, of course, but still representative of the sort of hype the game had). It was because of this that Halo 3 had its humongous launch.

Did Modern Warfare 2 have by far the biggest launch ever just because Infinity Ward/Activision told the world it existed and ran a commercial or two? This kind of naivete is just embarrassing. There's no question that it would have tons of hype and be featured on the covers of magazines (and whatnot) even if there wasn't any marketing or controversy, but the original argument was that those two factors definitely contributed. And they did. Lots of games have had front page covers and exposure in tons of publications and websites, doesn't mean that they sell 8 million in their first weeks. And Modern Warfare 2's budget was 200 million dollars (about 50 million for the game's production, 150 million for production of disks and advertising, source). So even if the production and distribution of disks costs 50 million dollars (as much as the game's development budget itself), that still leaves 100 million for advertising, easily one of the biggest advertising budgets ever. Why would Activision and Infinity Ward spend that kind of money if the game could sell on hype alone? Why would any company spend any money on advertising if the games could just sell themselves on hype and word of mouth? Same for Apple, Nintendo, etc. These companies pay for advertising because they contribute to sales heavily.

AHH, BADASS! CALL OF DUTY HAS TEH REALLLZZZ HYPE! NOT LIKE THAT FAKE HYPE, BUT REALLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's good though, because I was getting sick of all those other games with fake hype anyways. Oh, now I see what you mean. Instead of being hyped on forums and in the media, it was hyped on forums and the media. Oh...wait. That's right, it had tons of hype on forums and in the media. Maybe not on Vgchartz (or some other forums), but plenty to speak of. And the next part made me roll my eyes. If it really picks up fans with every iteration, what about Call of Duty: World at War? It certainly sold less than Call of Duty 4. Or does the series pick up new fans with every Infinity Ward iteration? I'm confused on this part. Cmon though....nostalgia? A series that's 6 years old is being compared to Mario and Zelda and other classics? And again, what about World at War? That didn't have a crazy, record breaking launch, but it definitely had the Call of Duty brand name behind it.

I can't believe you continue to act so naive and continue to push out pretentious bullshit. I really am amazed.

does it matter. It sold well,that's all that count's.

It was the best level in the game in my opinion.

after playing it again, I think makarov leads a terrorist group dedicated to zakiehev (the russian terrorist in the first game)

He does the attack on the airport because he wants russia to go to war with the united states (they even say "... for zakievhev" right before you fight the russian riot shielders) And since russia is now controlled by a radical government, they won't hesitate going to war.

This part makes sense.

However...

Later on in the game shepherd betrays roach and ghost because he wants to be a hero, even though task force 141 works for him. So that completely makes no fucking sense. The only way it could is that he wanted to cutt off any loose ends (the people who knew from the inside about pfc. Allen and his short lived involvement in the CIA and task force 141)

Regardless it's all very confusing to understand because the game keeps switching from person to person (I think you play 4 people, not including the astronaut) and you almost never play as the same person after that level.

I don't think it was done for publicity, I think IW was just trying to hard to do something 'different' and 'controversial'(as in 'bad-ass') Most of the game feels like it was not much different from MW1, and they were trying to avoid that. (but yea controversial will inevitably drum up media coverage.) I actually think most of the levels in the Call of Duty series feel 'jumbled on,' they're still stuck in their old ways of when they were trying to cover all the big battles in WW2, rather than have a cohesive story to follow.

I'm not quite sure why they did anything in that game. It was a case of go here and shoot some people then we will send you to another place to do the same thing again.