Black ops is "better" than MW2

I will respond to your points in order. 1. Assuming the purpose of creating the game was to create an enjoyable experience for the most number of people and entice them to come back time and time again to use your product, what sense does it make to include the nuke, which essentially ruins everyone's experience because one person is doing exceedingly well. By the same logic it is insanely fun to scream at the top of my lungs in the library and scare everyone studying, but its looked down on because it ruins everyone elses experience. Further, you didn't specify which map you thought the spawn slaughter occurred on? I genuinely don't know because I believe that it could happen on any of them. 2. The customization of the guns in MW2 is based on the continuous monotonous use of the same gun, not on skill. A totally unskilled player will certainly unlock all the attachments for any given gun eventually. I believe you are mistaken about the use of the COD points. Once a gun is purchased all attachments are not in fact unlocked, they must all be purchased individually at different prices which can be done at the players discretion. The argument that you don't have to earn the attachments is faulty because the attachments are purchased with cod points, which are EARNED based on performance in games and wager matches. 3. It is true that in BO they reduced the effectiveness of shotguns, making them less potent than MW2, however, I argue in MW2 the shotgun was severely overpowered AND was only a secondary weapon. Also, the nature of any FPS is that some weapons will rise to the top in efficiency. In MW2 everyone used the UMP or the ACR, in BO most people use the AK 74 or FAMAS. This is realistic though. The vast majority of the worlds militaries employ one of two weapon platforms, the ak47 or the M4. 1. This is your opinion, with which I agree. I also think that the maps in BO are equally if not better designed. 2. This data is from TWO DAYS after BO was released, it is unrealistic that anyone formed a complete opinion in two days. At gameranking.com BO is listed as the 5th most popular xbox 360 title CURRENTLY. MW2 is not CURRENTLY ranked. 3+4. Respectfully, you are mistaken on the graphics quality issue. BO was the first COD game to use motion capture technology. Also, BO utilizes a frame refresh rate of 60+ per second while MW2 maximum refresh rate is 60. MW2 did not have the option to take advantage of these technology advances and is understandably less refined. Nuketown is designed to represent a 50's-60's era bomb test site and is intentionally cartoonish. Having never fired a famas in real life, I can't speak to how it actually sounds. I have however mowed a few lawns and no lawn mower I used ever sounded like that! The fact is that BO had the distinct advantage of building off of all of the successes of MW2 and leaving out many of the flaws. I appreciate you debating with me, despite being at the serious disadvantage of advocating for an obsolete product. :) In the first month of sales BO brought in over a billion dollars of revenue, a feat only accomplished by one other product in the history of entertainment. This smashed ALL OTHER SALES RECORDS including, MW2. In conclusion, BO is in fact more realistic, more user friendly, more enjoyable for EVERYONE and more played than MW2. http://www.gamerankings.com... http://www.bgr.com...