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

[QUOTE=Shibbey;33235157]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?[/QUOTE]source please?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33234446]9.3 million sales in first 24 hours. Average of 9/10 from professional critics. Ayup.[/QUOTE] The PC version has a Metascore of 81.

Okay. So not including the 30+ reviewers who thought it was a good game, the same reviewers who are paid money to review every other game that isn't Call of Duty, the same reviewers that gave Battlefield 3 and Skyrim glowing reviews. Activision still sold 9.3 million copies of the "same game". [editline]11th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SnowCanary;33235320]The PC version has a Metascore of 81.[/QUOTE] It was 90 when I last looked at it. 8/10 then, atleast on PC.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33235181]source please?[/QUOTE] I remember it. Irc it was a gamestop reviewer who got fired for giving Kane and Lynch 1 a negative review....allegedly. [url]http://www.shacknews.com/article/50157/cnet-denies-external-pressure-caused[/url]

$60 DLC at it's finest [editline]11th November 2011[/editline] Awesome pageking

[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] I believe the lowest I have seen a review in the Playstation Magazine earn recently is around a 3 for a truly abysmal game, so abysmal that anything higher would have incited readers raging. But almost all other games get around a 6 if they aren't actually good. Anything remotely good gets a 7 or so, and anything AAA tends to just get rated 9 for the sake of it. "Professional" critics aren't very good. You can always agree with their opinion, but don't take it as fact, and don't use it to judge whether a highly rated game is actually worth it. You just get Call of Duty otherwise.

[URL=http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html]In my opinion, Gamespy had the fairest review of the game out there.[/URL]

[QUOTE=SnowCanary;33235427][URL=http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html]In my opinion, Gamespy had the fairest review of the game out there.[/URL][/QUOTE]I think it's very fair and truthful but that it deserved a slightly lower rating, like 3/5 maybe.

The real problem with Journalist reviews is that the actual review and the score/summation section often say two entirely contradictory things, with the latter being positive since that's the only bit the audience/publishers genuinely read.

[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] That argument could work both ways.

[QUOTE=SnowCanary;33235427][URL="http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html"]In my opinion, Gamespy had the fairest review of the game out there.[/URL][/QUOTE] No core gameplay additions? The point streak system is the biggest change since CoD4 brought killstreaks and create a class. As far as AI goes, it's nothing special but is it really, noticeably worse than other games? I saw some grunts in BF3 go full retard plenty of times. Rest of review is fine tho.

And while people are throwing shitty/awesome reviews about the game, I'll just play it without giving a fuck if anyone likes/dislikes it.

[QUOTE=TehWhale;33221905][img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1439918/Pics/2011-11-10_1725.png[/img] [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] yeah okay[/QUOTE] The Game Chronicles is wrong, it should say "Year to come" not Years. CoD games only last a year before they are re-released.

[QUOTE=nightlord;33236623]The Game Chronicles is wrong, it should say "Year to come" not Years. CoD games only last a year before they are re-released.[/QUOTE] A shitload of people still play CoD4, Black Ops, and MW2.

[QUOTE=SnowCanary;33235427][URL=http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html]In my opinion, Gamespy had the fairest review of the game out there.[/URL][/QUOTE] I feel they hit the nail on the head at several points. [quote]t's easy to imagine how a Modern Warfare 3 Multiplayer design meeting might have played out. Keen Young Designer A suggests that the game should now include a mounting ability for machine guns, allowing players to prop their support weapons on ledges for added stability. Executive Producer B thinks it's an ok idea, and commissions a focus group test where 100 hardcore COD players put the new mechanic through its paces. Ninety-four of them respond with the complaint that it slows the pace of the game, and encourages "douchebag camping." Corporate Accountant C steps in with the opinion that to change the gameplay so radically could endanger one of the company's primary sources of income, and Executive Producer B cancels the idea. [b]Keen Young Designer A gently cries himself to sleep, wondering why they bother with designers when the company is so afraid of screwing with its billion-dollar recipe.[/b] I can understand why Modern Warfare 3 has changed so little in the last four years, given that so much money is resting upon its shoulders, but that doesn't make this developmental stasis any more forgivable. If Activision doesn't allow its developers to experiment with and evolve the Call of Duty experience, instead forcing them to pump out an endless cycle of yearly clones, it risks turning another of its most successful brands into a Guitar Hero-sized catastrophe. Yet for many, Modern Warfare 3 will be exactly what they expected from the series, delivering the same experience they've been enjoying for the last four years. All they want is a set of new maps, and a few tweaks to the unlock and ranking system, and that's exactly what Modern Warfare 3 delivers.[/quote]

Left 4 Dead 2 even copied and pasted less from it's previous game than MW3 (before the Cold Stream update, of course).

[QUOTE=Ridge;33214850]Is the campaign really only 3 hours long?[/QUOTE] Yep. And I thought Portal 2 was short.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;33238256]I feel they hit the nail on the head at several points.[/QUOTE] Wait, if a mechanic is genuinely unpopular and damages the gameplay, why the fuck would you add it in? I think that the issue isn't as they described it, where an mechanic is introduced and genuinely doesn't work. Rather, they realize that they can push out the same game over and over and over again and don't go through the effort of thinking up and testing new ideas because it's unnecessary when it comes to their goal of making a massive profit.

I think this is also proving that at the end of the day, just because a game is the typical commercial blockbuster, doesn't mean it's good. Look at movie reviews, lots of big sellers get horrible ratings, an 80% is godlike for most movies, the typical comedy gets like 30% or some abysmal score, and guess what? It deserves it. Just imagine if someone went up to Roger Ebert and forced him to give [I]The Hangover 3: This time in North Korea[/I] a 5/5 and "the best movie of the eternity!"?

That sounds like a great movie, what are you talking about?

The game isn't great but it isn't bad... It runs well, they delivered their promises (SDK/dedicated servers I believe) and yeah, I don't blame the guy posting to vote it up because it's all a bunch of fuckin' idiotic kids that are like "BF3 IS BETTER LOL".

[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;33243028]The game isn't great but it isn't bad... It runs well, they delivered their promises (SDK/dedicated servers I believe) and yeah, I don't blame the guy posting to vote it up because it's all a bunch of fuckin' idiotic kids that are like "BF3 IS BETTER LOL".[/QUOTE] Promises of dedicated servers? Oh please, you can't even rank up on a dedicated server.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;33243081]Promises of dedicated servers? Oh please, you can't even rank up on a dedicated server.[/QUOTE] I don't blame them. Last time, MW2 modded servers popped up, I killed a random guy and got like 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999exp

[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;33243092]I don't blame them. Last time, MW2 modded servers popped up, I killed a random guy and got like 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999exp[/QUOTE] And BF3 doesn't have dedicated servers with working ranking? Why can't the cod series have them? Black ops had them, it worked fine.

My other complain is graphics. Unless you're going for a cartoon shooter, graphic is equally important. I mean imagine watching James Cameron's Avatar with the graphic looking like Call of Duty 1. If you say graphic isn't important, then i guess you won't mind living in a house painted pink all over.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;33243101]And BF3 doesn't have dedicated servers with working ranking? Why can't the cod series have them? Black ops had them, it worked fine.[/QUOTE] Well yeah they could really secure it up but then again.... We're talking about Infinity Ward's amateur developers. They hired guys off the streets to replace the Respawn guys. [editline]12th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=BCell;33243153]My other complain is graphics. Unless you're going for a cartoon shooter, graphic is equally important. I mean imagine watching James Cameron's Avatar with the graphic looking like Call of Duty 1. If you say graphic isn't important, then i guess you won't mind living in a house painted pink all over.[/QUOTE] When people say that graphics don't matter, they're usually defending games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, yeah it can be argued that they would be more enjoyable, immersive experiences if they went with a better aesthetic look but they're great games already.

[QUOTE]Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (PS3) Nov 8, 2011 2.7 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (X360) Nov 8, 2011 3.1 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (PC) Nov 8, 2011 1.7[/QUOTE] It's a bit boosted and still overrated but hey, at least its not at 9.

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;33227659]I didn't start this, the BF3 boys did. And I have both games by the way. MW3 is just better.[/QUOTE] dude what how can you compare the two, one is solo play the other is team based, why don't people understand this

I've always liked the Modern Warfare series, and CoD alike, but now it's getting really repetitive. Maybe a 5 or 6 would be reasonable.

See people are idiots for making BF3 and MW3 competitors. The Battlefield community used to be great(back right before Bad Company so around BF2/2142) and now I hear some kid calling other players faggots and all this crap through chat. It's terrible.