so ive been thinking about this, people complain that CoD has been the same game for the past couple of years since CoD4, now these games do change, slight graphical changes, little mix ups in game play especially in the multiplayer part, adding and removing weapons and perks, ect. however i feel that it is unfair to the franchise to say that it hasnt changed, i think that the changes are too small, that many players dismiss these changes, also i dont think many people keep in mind that it isnt the developers choice to release a yearly sequel, it is activisions decision, now, lets look at this decision from 2 perspectives, first is a marketing,in a game like this, you cant really change too much at once other wise its not the same game any more, and thus that leads to less purchases, because it has become unfamiliar, Halo does the same thing, with each sequel relatively nothing changes as far as game play feel goes, they dont change too much and for the most part even keep the same set of weapons from game to game. the second perspective is a business standpoint, CoD makes millions every year, so why should they make major changes? it makes sense.

so now lets continue with the original statement that CoD is evolving, Evolution is a gradual process of change over time, this is exactly what CoD is going through, now the average player may not see the differences between Black Ops 2 and Ghosts, or even MW3 and Ghosts, but compare Ghosts to CoD4, and youll find that they are almost completely different games, because of the limited freedoms by activision, the game franchise is only allowed little changes over time, i think not many players realize this when they attack these games for not changing much between sequels, so next time you judge the game, dont judge it for seemingly lack of changes, instead focus on wheater theres a lot of bugs in the multiplayer, or complain about lack of character development in the single player

any thoughts on this? tell me what you think