Mazty said:
No offence but I really don't need pointers - in fact I'm probably one of the last people on this forum who needs pointers in how to post.
I'm sorry, but please quit the pretentious bullsh*t (kernel, fallacies etc - this isn't a philosophy lecture and I hardly think you can use such phrases without being called pretentious in it's utmost meaning) and come back down to earth - my argument hardly is "because I said so".
I will cease pointing out your errors the moment you stop making them. The ball is entirely in your court.
As to your closing statement here...
Mazty said:
MW2 is a bad game because:
1)It is almost a carbon copy of a two year old game.
2)It's multiplayer is inherently unbalanced - it has weapons which can be classed as simply better than other weapons whilst rewarding a successful killing spree with the ability to get more "free" kills. This usually just creates a vicious cycle.
3)It's lobby system is dire compared to other games.
4)The game's field of view is very lacking compared to other FPS'.
1)It is similar, this much is true. You statement is simply "the game is similar to another game and therefore the game is bad". Unless you can somehow demonstrate this to be objectively true, your statement is one of opinion posing as fact.
2)The multiplayer is imbalanced - again I agree. You could probably ascertain that from the other posts I've written in response. Again, the problem is you leap from a statement that I can agree with (the game is unbalanced) and say "therefore it is bad". You once again inject an opinion into the mix.
3) The feature set of the lobby system is, in fact, comparable to many games. It is also lacking in features compared to others. This may detract from the potential fun for some, and for others, such as myself, it does not. Your initial statement is excellent - you inject just enough bias in the form of the inflammatory word "dire" that you make your position known without destroying the essential truth of the statement. But, in the end, you again fall into the same problem.
4) The game has an FOV that could be demonstrated to be smaller than that in some games and larger than the FOV in others. You do not like this therefore it makes the game bad - same story as the previous points, in that you begin with a statement that has merit and apply it to a statement that does not.
If you follow closely, you'll note something interesting. I am willing to grant that your arguments presented have a degree of merit and then get to watch as I discard them. Why? Because, you present your hypotheis "The game is bad" as a fact. If your hypothesis was "I believe the game is bad" then you will have constructed a perfectly reasonable argument. If you then managed to avoid rhetorical fallacies that only serve to weaken your argument (nobody likes being insulted afterall) you'd have a pretty good case. If you then accept that some people like the game for any reason you want to imagine I think you'll have a genuine golden post on your hands.
Mazty said:
The above are facts. These facts however do not mean that people won't enjoy the game, but they are still true whether a person enjoys the game or not.
Therefore this game can be said to be a "bad" game in the sense that it is nothing new to the genre (and is in fact the opposite), has an exceptionally short campaign, and has a very, very dated multiplayer system. Unless you want to try and tell me how the above makes MW2 a "good" game, I think I'm done explaining my thoughts on it.
If it helps you, think of it like "Snakes on a Plane". A shit movie, yet a lot of people enjoyed it regardless of it's "shittyness".
This last bit deserved it's own section because it's the best argument I've seen from you yet. As an added bonus I'll even ignore the part where you try to pass fact off as an opinon because it's been covered to death and I tire of the ordeal.
If the issue comes down to a question of semantics as it seems to, then we might have some room to play with. If I judge good and bad, not by the quantifiable number of hours of entertainment it brings me but instead use other, more nebulous factors, then the game can indeed be described as bad. For example, the storyline in the campaign is, upon reflection quite terrible. The atmosphere and other issues conspire to hide this realization for a time and the story itself is functional enough that it will help pull the player through the most difficult moments but in the end there is still a failure of writing. We may choose to quantify our definition of good and bad not by qualty of execution but rather through instances of innovation, in which case the game can indeed be called bad. While there are incremental advancements in gameplay, none of them are sufficient to be called "innovative".
If your argument is one of how do you define a good game and a bad game, then I think we can have some sort of accord. The problem is, of course, that even if we agree with one another, we can still come to widly different conclusions on the game if we use different definitions of good and bad. Using my current definition, MW2 is good precisely because I have been able to enjoy the game in spite of (and often because of) the foibles I see.
I will freely admit that my favorite movie of all time, Army of Darkness, is a bad movie based on the normal features one looks for in a classic work in the medium. But, since it is my favorite movie can I honestly call it a bad film? Based on classical defnition I have no choice but to say the movie was a pile of rubbish. Based upon a standard where I define good and bad by the amount of entertainment value the movie has delivered it is almost certainly good.
. 
