You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
And this game's competition was released one week after it came out. Or did you think Black Ops being number 1 on both lists was a coincidence?
Just because a game is number one on a list doesn't mean it's any good. I get absolutely NO enjoyment out of Black Ops 2, only frustration, but there are people who still play it. I actually keep tabs on my friends who play the game (I'm usually in xbox LIVE parties with them, they get so upset and mad and angry at the game, and they never sound like they're having fun, yet they continue to play it like it's some sort of drug).
Nowhere did I say Black Ops was a good game. I'm pointing out that the original argument implies that Reach's "success" by staying above #4 longer than Halo 4 did was because of its competition, not its flaws, whereas Halo 4 is falling quicker because it's not a good game. However, it doesn't take into consideration that Halo 4's big competition came out only a week later.
Personally I liked the MW games 1-3. Any more, I think would be pushing it. And BLOPS 1 got boring except for playing w/ bots and a friend locally since he sucked too bad and didn't like playing online. I don't think I even finished the campaign in that one. The best mission, I felt, was the first one with Castro. Everything after that wasn't very interesting and just felt like more of the same, but for no reason. MW's storyline was good as it was somewhat realistic. The whole "Red Dawn" type of story has always been something I've liked. That's why I also liked Homefront so much, until I got to the MP. It's MP was ok, but not very populated and definitely took some getitng used to with its "Buy a tank next time you spawn" system.