I guess you didn't play those games long enough to actually get into it(I could be wrong)
Yes, you're wrong I'm afraid. I've played CoD 2 since release, both competitively and casually, and still do. That doesn't stop me thinking it's a steaming pile though. I play it because some of my friends play it, that's it. That means I've had years to build up a
really seething hatred of the game and it's "features" (not to mention years of vCoD before that).
Also spent plenty of time in DoD: S. I paid for it and I waited years for it. I was getting a return on that investment if it killed me. But no matter how hard I tried to like it, it didn't get any better and honestly is a disgrace to the DoD name. Had they marketed it as a different game then fine, but they didn't. They chose to use the rep of existing title to engineer sales and honestly, the Steam stats tell the tale:
Game ---------------- Players -- Servers -- Player Minutes/Month
Day of Defeat --------- 5,489 --- 1,866 --- 206.699 million
Day of Defeat: Source 1,586 --- 2,531 --- 134.962 million
Source has double the servers but only 1/4 of the players. This does fluctuate, but I don't remember the last time Source had even as many as half the players of DoD 1.3. The only other game I know of where a sequel has been this badly outshone by its predecessor is (funnily enough) CS.
The reason I'm posting all this is simply to try to make you understand, I'm not a solitary voice claiming that my opinion should be everyone else's and certainly my opinions on the aforementioned games is not one based on ignorance. The fact is though, I've been bitten as badly as anyone else when it comes to shoddy games and I've lost count of the number of times I've been suckered by pretty graphics or a cheap gimmick, but finally I learnt my lesson. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. These companies kept bringing out crap and I kept buying it, as did many others. But we learnt and now we treat everything they bring out as crap because history has a habit of repeating itself. Maybe the games will be good, but I'm not about to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially not EA with their track record.
Also, I said BF2 would be a
decent game, not a
good game. It still has its share of gimmicks, namely ironsights which have just as much conefire as regular shooting, therefore why bother having them? It's little things like that which drag a game from being "stupidly unrealistic and proud" (BF1942, the best of the series) to "psueorealistic, but not really! *snicker*"