I'm the other way around – I get games for the campaigns, and if they happen to have some nice multiplayer, I'll check that out too. I prefer tactical challenges and linear progression over running around like it's goddamn Quake. CoD has better multiplayer than any other game I've played in that respect, however.

Speaking of Nazi Punchin, I'm playing Company of Heroes – an incredible WW2 RTS that Relic made between making Dawn of War and Dawn of War 2. I'd say it's tactically deeper than either of them, and relies more heavily on cover. In cover or not, a giant bug, overgrown Ork or walking tank of a Space Marine can take a hit. Fleshy little Nazis aren't so lucky. When you kill heavy weapons teams you can take over their guns and use them too, which is awesome. Vehicles become cover when they blow up and buildings are far more important, since they're not death traps like Dawn of War II. DoW 1,2, and CoH all have places in my heart, and I love them all.

Even if it's WW2, I still prefer the tactical challenges as opposed to those in every sci-fi run and gun game. Brothers in Arms is great as it's almost more like a puzzle game in how you get by a situation. If there's a German MG nest at the end of a street, you can't just charge it like a frothing mad berserker. You have to flank, hop from cover to cover, and use pinning and covering fire to deal with the problem. Meanwhile, in Halo you run around punching everything, but it's still under the guise of being tactical.

Either make it full on tactical or revel in the ridiculousness of it all. That's why I love Painkiller and CoD games, but not Halo.