Call Of Duty MW3 Dev Begs for Help With Low Metacritic User Score - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;33226349]If you're saying there's no significance in users rating the game down, then what's the problem with the dev wanting it to be rated up? If it has no significance as you claim. I think that if a studio such as Sledgehammer Games wants to be seen as successful, it's important not to have an overwhelmingly negative popular vote. They have to make games in the future to be approved by publishers and if they're getting 90% of respondents posting a score below 2 then it's going to harm their image.[/QUOTE] They deserve it if they made a game that makes people feel that way.

[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;33226373]They deserve it if they made a game that makes people feel that way.[/QUOTE] Sure, but you can't argue that he shouldn't have to ask his fans to help boost the score (which realistically isn't accurate at all), because many of them wouldn't have voted on Metacritic otherwise.

I love how all these threads attract presumptuous "mainstream defenders" who assume all criticism of something popular is incoherent nerd rage and it is their duty to judge all of Facepunch. Reality Check: if you read those reviews like poster #51 in this thread did, people are realizing the series is very formulaic and milked, and sold for a very large premium for what they feel is an expansion pack. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] TF2 has had more changes over time than several of the recent CoD titles. Did I have to pay for TF2 five times since 2007? Nope. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;33218984]so what's happening is basically a whole group of nerds turn into bullies as an outlet for how they've been bullied in their childhood. that's nice.[/QUOTE] I love how you ignore this one [img]http://i.imgur.com/XVsyZ.jpg[/img] [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;33219254]nstead of wasting your time arguing about which gray-ish shoot-person game is better than the other gray-ish shoot-person game.[/QUOTE] Did you just, Like really wtf, you think that's what this is about? Do you even browse these forums or just post? Maybe you are some experimental chat bot that can sorta understand forum posts.

[QUOTE=Reimu;33213642]Actually no mw3 ended up not being a repackaging of mw2 after all. Weapons with recoil, new unlock system, huge knife nerf, huge shotgun nerf, huge nade nerf, huge perk nerf, new maps, new gamemodes (which is huge for CoD), Elite, new weapons, etc. [/QUOTE] And yet every free-to-play shooter on the market gets all of those once a month at no cost. Game modes more sparingly. How does releasing new weapons, standard game balancing, new maps, and new modes warrant an entirely new game? They could have done all of that in less than 6 months - probably less than 3 months considering their resources - and updated the game. Maybe charging 5USD for a map pack of 3 or 4 maps.

[QUOTE=Rocko's;33223144]Typical fanboy, why can't CoD players accept that both are just games and to move along?[/QUOTE] I didn't start this, the BF3 boys did. And I have both games by the way. MW3 is just better.

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;33227659]I didn't start this, the BF3 boys did. [B]And I have both games by the way. MW3 is just better.[/B][/QUOTE] rofl sure as shit isn't reviewers in the game media are and always will be massive cock suckers. The rating it got regardless by the users who hate it shows how shit it really is, and reviewers are blindly saying "Its the best game ever" because they accept deep throat submissively, and swallow. not only that, but how fun it is isn't relevant, the fact is, its the same thing as MW3, that's why its hated so much. If its funner, that's because its basically an overpriced expansion pack for the last game.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;33216745]you're kidding me right? all the HL2 episodes added nothing different other than maps and story. everything gameplay wise was the same. im not saying that means that they are shit, but like valve, if its not broken why fix it?[/QUOTE] Are you an idiot, the HL2 games and Episodes were expanding on the [b]same story[/b] so why do you need fancy new textures and gameplay elements when you already have solid gameplay. And don't say that it can go the same for COD games, as they are multiplayer-based games you play over and over as not a Half-life game you play once or twice and then play the other multiplayer games that came with it.

Asset reusage is one thing, all but copy-pasting an entire game and tossing aside all but one advancement (Theater) from Black Ops and then tweaking it for alternative balance is another. Yeah, the gameplay is solid, the guns work fine and so forth; but the entire game is way too high-priced for what is essentially comparable to Super Street Fighter IV (same base game, new characters and balancing; replace characters for MW3 with guns, perks and streaks). I honestly feel this is mostly because of the 'new' Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Studios either being unsure of how to innovate things so they simply took MW2 and retooled its balancing, or simply being lazy. This isn't bandwagon hate, this is justified distaste for rehashing - like I said, the gameplay's solid and the new balance is enjoyable, but it feels like it's [b]bullshit[/b] to be paying $60 for so few real changes, singleplayer aside.

[quote]I think ultimately Modern Warfare 3 should be ranked alongside Fifa and other sports games in as much as, it's better than last years, but it will deliver a very similar experience. People say they want innovation and change and difference, but in the same way that Fifa can't break out of the fact that it's a game of football, CoD is so successful now, it can't really break out of its model, it is constrained by its very form. If you consider it as a sports game it becomes more logical[/quote] Pretty true if you look at it like that.

[QUOTE=mixshifter;33227966]Pretty true if you look at it like that.[/QUOTE] No it's not, sports games are like that because the rules of the sport don't change that much.

[QUOTE=mixshifter;33227966]Pretty true if you look at it like that.[/QUOTE]An online near-future shooter can do whatever it wants since it's fiction and innovate more than a sports game that has to follow the rules of the sport that argument is beyond dumb, in that a serious sports game will always have to follow the rules of the game but CoD can change it's gameplay style or rules whenever the developers want to [editline]11th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Medevilae;33227832][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/nov/10/modern-warfare-3-internet-hatred[/url] The guardian defends MW3.[/QUOTE]I'm amazed at how much they don't understand they pull out this professional sounding defense but in reality it's complete bullshit

[QUOTE=Medevilae;33227832][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/nov/10/modern-warfare-3-internet-hatred[/url] The guardian defends MW3.[/QUOTE] Idiots are defending it.

On the guardian page I finally found the comment I was waiting for: [quote=][b]This could be a really elaborate astroturfing excercise by EA.[/b][/quote] [I]it's all a conspiracy guys, everyone is secretly in love with the game![/I] Finally though I found at least one intelligent comment: [quote]The most conspicuous disconnect between reviewers and gamers is the financial outlay. Most reviewers, like yourself, will have been sent a copy of the game at no cost. Those people who buy it after following the hype or reading the overwhelmingly positive reviews, realise that they have gone and wasted £40 because they have already bought the game before. If I see a film at the cinema, like The Hangover 2, and I come out feeling like it's just a rehash I don't feel terribly angry because I only lost 3 quid and I got a couple laughs out of it. When I spend £40 on something because I've been convinced through publisher hype, media reviews that it's an excellent product, it's to be expected that the sense of guilt and disappointment turns into anger. Not only that, but the target market isn't necessarily the most cash laden. The players feel, for lack of a better word, conned. Yes, fifa is just football, but there isn't anything anyone would want to change about it, so why should the game change? It can only improve on its emulation of the sport. But war games like CoD are fantasy, and with that fantasy comes freedom to do whatever you want. I don't want a game that's sole purpose is improving the art of virtual murder and explosive setpieces. I want a smart game, one that tells a story, uses some innovation that captivates the player and draws them into a world. In some ways, the actual shooty stuff becomes a secondary consideration. And CoD doesn't care about those things, it's just too damn lazy, too narrowminded, and too concerned with making money, while at the same time saying it isn't. Those are only some of the reasons people are annoyed.[/quote] Nice to see someone understands part of it

[QUOTE=Da_Maniac_;33229456]No it's not, sports games are like that because the rules of the sport don't change that much.[/QUOTE] So you think it's justified for Madden to release a full-priced game every year in which it's the same exact game, just with an updated team roster?

[QUOTE=Medevilae;33227832][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/nov/10/modern-warfare-3-internet-hatred[/url] The guardian defends MW3.[/QUOTE] The Guardian is ridiculous. A bit off topic, but they're the same site that managed to spew out six articles in seven days about why the new Tintin movie is bad (while everyone else keep praising it).

I'm pretty sure everyone has the message that they need to do something new to CoD. Even looking at the critic reviews, it hasn't been all praise, I think I saw GameSpy gave it 70 or 80, and isn't the critical response on MetaCritic around 80ish?

Actually, I like the game. It's a very good game, if not in gameplay then in storyline. I'd personally gove it an 8, not only cause I thoroughly enjoy the game, but cause I'm not on the hate bandwagon. I think it deserves higher scores than it has.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33227750]rofl sure as shit isn't reviewers in the game media are and always will be massive cock suckers. The rating it got regardless by the users who hate it shows how shit it really is, and reviewers are blindly saying "Its the best game ever" because they accept deep throat submissively, and swallow. not only that, but how fun it is isn't relevant, the fact is, its the same thing as MW3, that's why its hated so much. If its funner, that's because its basically an overpriced expansion pack for the last game.[/QUOTE]OPINIONS. Actually, they aren't. If they are massive cock suckers, the haters are those "critics" who are only happy when the shit comes from their own ass, and if it doesn't, they rate it down negatively with not even 1 positive point. Which isn't a review at all. On top of that, user reviews shouldn't even count because their based on people's experiences, which 90% of the times come out biased because the game didn't run on their 10 year old computer or because they found a bug somewhere in the "dark corner of the game". To add to that, users are the most inconsistent beings ever. Either they want graphics, and then don't want graphics and want gameplay, then they get gameplay and want graphics, and then they want something else. For that matter, I could say BF3 is getting to be the same thing as CoD. Designed to be a best seller, designed to beat CoD, very generic and below average singleplayer that gets boring 30 minutes in the game showing NOTHING new other then pretty graphics, multiplayer thats basically BC2 with pretty graphics, slightly bigger maps, different weapons (which many might perform the exact same) and addition of jets, just to say its different. Deep down you know its true, and you just want it to be better then CoD. Guess what, none of those games is a breakthrough and probably none of them deserve the recognition they got. I find it funny that BF3 and MW3 got the exact same score in all platforms in IGN. Just shows that mw3 might not show anything new, but bf3 doesn't shows anything new either. But whatever, user reviews really matter right? Unbiased at all.

Thats not what Wiki says. [quote=Wikipedia]Modern Warfare 3 received critical acclaim from critics, currently holding aggregated scores of 89% for the Xbox 360 version and 88% for the PS3 version on Metacritic.[68][69] The Daily Telegraph gave the game's Xbox 360 version 5 stars out of 5, stating, "The series has always been renowned for elements like the excellent sound design, the gloss, polish and compulsion of its gameplay, but with Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games have created a game that not only lives up to the brand hype but exceeds it. A game where the mass appeal is justified, and the expectations are met."[72] IGN gave the game's Xbox 360 version a 9.0 out of 10.0, pointing out that the game offers "great multiplayer, [a] fun campaign, tons of content, but [also] a forgettable story."[71] GameSpot qualifies the game, stating that "the series' signature thrills have lost some of their luster. Modern Warfare 3 iterates rather than innovates, so the fun you have is familiar" but concludes its review by affirming that, "Fortunately, [the game is] also utterly engrossing and immensely satisfying, giving fans another reason to rejoice in this busy shooter season."[70][/quote]

signed up for meta just to neg it. :v:

[QUOTE=dass;33231437] But whatever, user reviews really matter right? Unbiased at all.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Folgergeist;33231562]signed up for meta just to neg it. :v:[/QUOTE] 1 hour later [QUOTE=Folgergeist;33231950]I've never even played, or seen someone playing call of duty. what the fuck is so great about it?[/QUOTE]

Not big surprise

I was ridiculed by my friends for sayin MW3 sucks, I thought the game was proof enough of this fact, but now I got dis!!

Keep selling the same game over and over again and see what happens.

[QUOTE=Chekko;33234348]Keep selling the same game over and over again and see what happens.[/QUOTE] 9.3 million sales in first 24 hours. Average of 9/10 from professional critics. Ayup.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33234446]9.3 million sales in first 24 hours. Average of 9/10 from professional critics. Ayup.[/QUOTE] Most, if not all, of the "professional critics" are far from what I would call professional. But yea, there's far to much hype around Call of Duty, among other factors, for them not to sell a massive amount of copies.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33234446]9.3 million sales in first 24 hours. Average of 9/10 from professional critics. Ayup.[/QUOTE] Professional critics can't be trusted. They rarely rate any games lower than 6, anything with massive marketing? Expect a 8 or 9. In fact, don't trust reviews at all, try and get a hands on demo yourself. Critics can be payed off to make the game look better, you can't.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;33234924]They rarely rate any games lower than 6[/QUOTE] Holy fuck, six!? That's WAY lower than anything I've ever seen. Least I've seen is a seven, and even then the publisher throws a massive hissy fit.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;33235071]Holy fuck, six!? That's WAY lower than anything I've ever seen. Least I've seen is a seven, and even then the publisher throws a massive hissy fit.[/QUOTE]Except for PC Gamer, and that's why I like them if a game is terrible they'll give it a 3 or 4, they're not afraid to rate games low

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33234446]Average of 9/10 from professional critics.[/QUOTE] Modern professional critics are a joke. Remember when that one guy got fired because he gave a game a low score, just because there was advertising for the game on the site?