I thought the first CoD was a pretty damn good game, because it was probably the first WWII game around that really gave a sense of 2 armies fighting each other, rather than 'lone American hero takes on the entire Third Reich single handedly.' It also included the Brits and Russians in the campaign, which gave the campaign some variety, so one minute you're part of an elite squad of British soldiers going behind enemy lines, the next you're part of the Russian human waves at Stalingrad armed only with a handful of rifle ammo. Plus the game was very immersive.
CoD2 improved on this with better graphics and a more 'realistic' (I use the term loosely) health regeneration mechanic. CoD3 I never got around to playing but I was told it wasn't quite as good as the first 2.
CoD4 impressed me. A lot. Singleplayer was immersive, varied, and had a believable storyline. And multiplayer was simply a lot of fun.
As for MW2... truly a sell-out that completely intended to capitalise on the success of the first modern warfare. the Singleplayer campaign simply lacked what made the original so good. It's far too short and the story lacks believability. Mutiplayer is still fun, but really it's just an expanded version of the CoD4 experience. Maybe I was blinded by expectations, but when a game retails at £10 more than the next most expensive game out there you expect something truly epic, which Modern Warfare 2 wasn't. and then there's the map packs. another £20 for 10 additional maps? really? i'd rather just buy the entire Call of Duty back catalogue thank you very much.
