SpunkyI think we can all agree, however, that CoD4 more than earned the awards it got. I would have named it best game of the year, because honestly, it's an incredible game.

Actually, I was immensely disappointed with COD4. I'm a huge fan, and veteran, of COD2, and expected much more than what COD4 had to offer. The music in COD2 was epic, to say the least, and COD4 was average there at best. The storyline was poorly written, broken, and ended lamely (twice). Furthermore, Soap?!? What kind of name is that?

That said, my biggest gripe in COD4 was the length of the SP game. On normal it took me ~4 hours! Anyone complaining about how "short" Crysis or Bioshock was should look no further.

I would say the only improvements COD4 made over it's predecessors would be enhanced graphics, adding the ability to shoot through some walls, and the short mission where you play gunner of the AC-130 Spectre. Not nearly enough to make it "Best Shooter".


But I digress. I can't complain about an award given on Spike. If it were not already obvious the entire spectacle was setup up for $$$, just ask why they have an award for "Most Addictive Video Game Fuled By Dew"...

Spike Video Game Awards wins "Most Utterly Pointless Awards Show Ever Conceived".

I would of picked World In Conflict over Bioshock not that Bioshocks bad or anything