I liked BO2 but as I stated, it's nowhere near the level MW2 was at, nor was it good as it was claimed to be, not as balanced it's claimed to be. But as stated (and as you stated, as well), people seem to forget how bad the hit detection/lag compensation, spawns and maps were.

The members on here only like to nitpick IW's games. And the like for 3arc's games just come off as a regurgitated opinion. For example, they like to complain about Commando (which I agree was completely broken) but it's forgotten how bad the knifing mechanic was in BO that it felt like Commando never left. But guess who gets a 'pass'...? I even remember some commentators (although it's just another person's opinion) who stated BO didn't have that entertaining factor MW2 - some even complained about the bad spawns and off hit detection. Yet when it comes to this subreddit, BO/BO2 didn't have any issues.

And this may sound like stupid logic, but if your K/D or SPM isn't that good than I think you have no place to try and state your opinion on the game, or try and pass off opinions as facts. What I mean by that is, I've seen members on here who state there's no issues in AW but they'll state their K/D is .80 - why would I take your opinion serious if you're not good at the game? I'm not saying those players can't notice issues in the game or don't have valid points, but if you're no good at the game than I think your points are less valid.

I've seem members who've stated their K/D in MW3 was something like 1.20 and their K/D in BO2 was 1.18 but they'll claim BO2 was a "great game with no issues" and MW3 was a "boring game with just issues." It's like, your K/D are basically the same (one game where you claim is nothing but bullshit and the other where you claim is nothing but balanced). That's when I don't take anyone serious on this subreddit because they're too biased to see the issues in one game and not the other.