Well the reviews that I'm doing for that website I mentioned earlier were met with some... disagreement
I asked if I was doing reviews on the basis of what the games look like today, in 2013... because they're being written in 2013
I was told "Yes, compare graphics and whatnot to now and other things"
So I did that
I was then told not to do that when I gave CoD4 a 4/10 (now 6/10 because well, I've been told to make the change)
Reasoning? Gameplay was simple, run and gun. It varied little throughout singleplayer, except for one occasion. Campaign was great in the sense of events that happen (and the Chernobyl level was awesome), but short. The story was okay, but generic. Graphics on a now basis leave them looking terrible, but I did mention what they were back in the day (which were pretty good). Multiplayer was something else, smooth, easy to get in and out, and that was great. It just didn't explore anything new
Replayability was also zero
Don't tell me to do one thing, only to say "bad" and tell me to do the other thing
Also, don't tell me to send you the reviews so you can look at them, and just don't read them and say "it's good". A great deal of things could be fixed IF YOU JUST READ IT
****. I do people a favour and work all the templates out, only to have the one I discussed it all with say I did wrong