A game like CoD is not going to get a low rating, regardless of the quality of the game. That's just a given
It's not the best example, but.. Duke Nukem did. For what I consider was a relatively high-profile release, an average metacritic rating of 54 is an absolutely horrendous score. I realise the Duke franchise isn't in the same league as CoD, but it's proof that bad games will get killed by reviewers.
There's not a rule that holds true for every occasion though, and I wasn't trying to claim that reviews couldn't be bought. My point though, is that with an average metacritic of 86, coupled with the number of sales, the thought occurs that Modern Warfare 2 might actually not be a bad game.
If you want to make objective statements about "shit" games, that's fine, but the objectivity you're suggesting doesn't really exist.
So what, there are no good games and no bad games, no good movies and no bad movies... because it's all subjective?
I don't know mate, that seems a bit too much of a cop-out to me.
I find it all quite funny, to be honest. People show up in CoD threads, make jokes about taking a shit in a box or Bobby Kotick, nobody says a word. I mention average metacritic ratings and sales records, and half a dozen folks get their backs up.
McDonalds is massively popular the world over, would you take a date there for romantic meal?
If what you're after is a romantic meal with a date, then yeah, it's probably not the best spot to be.
But what if you're on your way home, don't have much time, want to grab something to eat at home, don't want to spend a lot and would prefer to not have to get out of the car?
Completely different ballgame now, isn't it?