Over the life of this game I can't help but notice that alot of the things people are complaining about now, are the EXACT things they said they wanted during BO2.
When BO2 came out, first and loudest complaint was about all of the maps being too small and that everyone wanted bigger maps. Well you got bigger maps, now the maps are too big.
BO2 people complained about the knifing abilities, now you have a butter knife and plunge that is sure to get you killed 9 of 10 times if multiple targets are around.
BO2 it was EMP nade spam, now you have this terrible 9 bang that even if you cook it all the way doesn't destroy equipment.
BO2 it was claymore/betty heaven, now the ONE OR TWO IED's are considered OP even though they cannot be replenished.
BO2 the shotguns were considered SOOOO OP, now you have TERRIBLE shotguns with pretty much only the bulldog being the consistent shotgun of choice.
BO2 the spawn trapping was terrible and people were trapping on the 3 path maps, now with multiple flank routes you are upset.
BO2 the pistols were too OP, now they are complete trash (P226 is decent at best).
BO2 noone wanted the perks in sections anymore so they could have more control, well you do have more control now but you still don't want to use anything but the same set of perks that the other 99% of people are using.
BO2 people hated the target finder, but on this note IW made their version even more OP somehow and came out with the Tracker Sight that provides a highly visible and detailed chalk like outline around players.
So with all of that being said, is it a doomed situation for the developers to even attempt to satisfy such a broad and varying playerbase with a one size fits all approach? Should they just focus on a style of gameplay that is generally fun and appealing to a majority group without bending every which way for every possible suggestion that gets a bit of traction?
I don't think the OP is making any assumptions, I've personally heard, read blog posts or made some of the comments he pointed out. Ghosts gave people what they said they wanted only to have people say they really didn't want it. It must suck, at times to be a game developer especially dealing with the fickle nature of this community.
Ghosts and Black Ops 2 were both extremes. Ghosts maps strayed too far away from the 3 lane pattern and have too many flank routes. Black Ops 2 maps were too simple. The maps function best when there are 3 lanes that aren't parallel and have power positions and buildings within them. I think a perfect example of that would be firing range from Black Ops 1.
Myself I have played COD from World at war and imo Ghosts is simply brilliant, the best by a very long way.
Things I do not like about COD in general?
* Zombies... What? Really? Just appalling imo and that goes for Aliens on Ghosts and any dark dismal map like 'Fog'.
* Wave upon wave single player stuff... blah... just seems so pointless to me.
* Multi-player - Because it is a fully miserable experience if you're not one of the fan boys or an expert or just plain cheat
What I really like a huge amount
* The C130 plane on COD4MW
* Arcade was OK in COD4MW... though I detested 'Museum' on COD2MW, again all that rushing about like a head chicken
* Combat training in Black Ops 1 & 2
* Local play in Ghosts which is just fantastic. The bots are very good at what they do and it is great fun.
Personally I am not interested in the campaign at all and as there is really no way to either control Multi-player or apportion players so they are REALLY evenly matched... not interested.
I bought Ghosts hardcore edition last week off Amazon for £30... just fantastic value for money. Also very happy to see Favela map is returning, one of the best bits of COD2MW
As for some people not liking Ghosts; Oh well, there ya go.... never mind