I'm sorry for responding in a front page thread a whole THREE DAYS after the last post. I wasn't aware this was TNZ, please pull your panties out of your ass and keep the sarcasm to yourself.
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point either. It wasn't the fact that you responded to the thread, it was that you responded to it in order to continue a disagreement that was nothing to do with you, and that hadn't been continued for 3 days.
And seven titles is a lot, quantitatively speaking, I'm not sure how you could make a plausable argument against that.
I couldn't give a shit what you're sure about. One CoD game a year isn't too much for me, and it obviously isn't too much for the millions of people who buy the title every year. Judging from the Black Ops pre-order numbers, that isn't going to change any time soon. The games aren't showing any drop in quality, and Black Ops looks set to revolutionise the franchise.
I'd get bored playing the same CoD game for 2 years, and that's not a reflection on the quality of the game, that's just the need for something new.
He said he was burned out on CoD because they've released so many games over the years and you basically said he was wrong.
Erm, no I didn't. I tackled his assertion that one game a year was too much by any definition, as opposed to one game a year being too much by his defenition. Now you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong, and that it is too much. It's entirely subjective, so you're wrong. Care to keep going in circles, or can we stop derailing the thread now?
Oh, and half the CoD games (especially 3) suck, so maybe releasing a game a year, different developers or not, was a bad idea.
That's your opinion. You're entitled to it, but I know a lot of people who disagree.