I dunno, maybe I'm overanalyzing. I mean, part of what makes a game "great" is its ability to entertain the gamer, right? So if a person played a game and didn't enjoy it, that game really was "bad" in their eyes, even if they look at it objectively. I suppose this is where we reach the fruition of the problem that lies in making a list of this nature - it's literally impossible to be 100% accurate because even the fundamentals are opinion based.
Oh well, I think it's at least going well so far. If Call of Duty is the only casualty we have, I can live with that. Besides, this first part isn't nearly as important as the second part, which will be actually rating and ranking the games once we're down to 100. That, since it will be more merit and discussion based, should at least provide us with reasonably accurate rankings within that group, even if a few titles didn't make the top 100 that we feel should. I honestly think a lot of us will be surprised at how acceptable our list is when it's all said and done.