You're right that quality should not be discounted, and largely it is not totally discounted, however your initial statement is key - the disproportionate importance of marketing means that a lesser percentage of effort is placed into quality as a result.

In games, as in film (and music), an attitude is starting to dominate: Why spend extra millions making the game/film better when you can make it average, and spend a lesser amount on marketing, to give you the same sales? This is why we see the ever increasing trend of subtle, but usually more important, features losing out to flashy and easy to market features - c.f. increasing proportion of high spectacle yet shallow blockbuster games/films. It's all about profit margins and is a basic example of the ever increasing shift towards economics dominating artistic integrity.

Didn't know Len Goodman was moonlighting from Strictly Come Dancing and reviewing games these days!

What are peoples' feelings on the single player campaign?

Personally I am a little disappointed with it - yes the set pieces can be very spectacular but I thought it was a little too short and I don't think it gives the same feeling of being in the middle of a warzone or on a special mission as the first MW did, not that it was ever a simulation (which I wouldn't want anyway) but it seems to have strayed too far into feeling like a "game" to really grip me like the first MW - although I appreciate that it's still very good relative to most games. I haven't got round to playing Special Ops or MP yet so I reserve judgement on the game as a whole package.

This is true, it is becoming a bit of a cheap shot. However, the problem is that the definition of a Fanboy could be one whose loyalties follow no rational reasoning, which is why, no matter how well constructed the argument is, they normally never admit to the pertinence of it and simply retort with an illogical/irrational reply. That's why the ridiculous arguments proliferate and the notion of a Fanboy button is not necessarily a bad idea - if it wasn't for the fact it would probably be abused by those very people.

Hear hear.

The only time graphical differences should be important is if they affect the gameplay (as in the shift from 2D to 3D) or if they significantly affect the game players' immersion in the game world. Whichever console has the better graphics, the undeniable fact is that the differences are not huge - certainly not significantly affecting gameplay and/or immersion. In which case, stop stressing over whose consoles have the slightly better graphics and just enjoy the games.

A gradual and consistent improvement in graphical fidelity is a good thing. However, the obsession with graphical fidelity, particularly when it displaces attention from gameplay and actual artistry, is one of the major problems in the game industry at the moment.