That may be so, but I think the complete package should matter to the point where it shouldn't be getting such high scores. Furthermore, the multiplayer is really just more of the same with minor improvements throughout that only those that have played the shit out of the original would notice.
That certainly doesn't diminish its quality, but I do think it is scoring a bit high. It just doesn't seem to be as good as the usual high profile late year releases. They set their sights very low with this sequel and attempted nothing new. I was kind of hoping that all the popularity would have given them reason to try for something better. The literally fixed NOTHING with this new SP campaign. It's the same shit as last game.
Of course, I suppose there is something to be said for that. A lot of people were burned by Halo 2 and MGS2 for trying to do some really crazy shit, for instance. I LOVED what those sequels turned out to be, but they didn't work for everyone. IW took a different approach and didn't attempt anything radical or special. Just more of the same game that they've been making since Allied Assault.
I'm not so sure that money hats flew in all cases, however, as I do believe some people just REALLY like this game (as you can see by the popularity of CoD4). I mean, when Giant Bomb is all over this, I tend to believe that they genuinely LOVE the game. I kind of wish I could get into it to that same level, but I just don't think it's all that great. While playing it, I'm just thinking about loading up
Killzone 2 again (as I think that was a much better single player game).
...yet the game is not being docked for a mediocre/derivative single player component. The game still deserves reasonably high marks, but surely you can understand why some might feel it is scoring a bit TOO high overall.
It's just a shame that my least favorite companies (from a business perspective) these days are always on top (Activision and Nintendo).
