Call Of Duty MW3 Dev Begs for Help With Low Metacritic User Score
444 replies, posted
Copy/paste last game with added weapons and maps/short campaign =! Year(s) of work.
Why is there a CoD hate bandwagon? What the fuck is wrong with it? And instead of clicking box and running away, can someone actually explain, because, Ok, it looks pretty much the same as MW2 but
a. An FPS is an FPS, you can't change it dramatically
b. MW2 was so popular anyway, why would they need to change it?
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33258656]Why is there a CoD hate bandwagon? What the fuck is wrong with it? And instead of clicking box and running away, can someone actually explain, because, Ok, it looks pretty much the same as MW2 but
a. An FPS is an FPS, you can't change it dramatically
b. MW2 was so popular anyway, why would they need to change it?[/QUOTE]
Because it's CoD4, yet again. Yeah, the singleplayer is [I]fun[/I], but the franchise has turned from being an innovative game changer to the video game equivalent of fast food.
[QUOTE=wewt!;33258680]Because it's CoD4, yet again. Yeah, the singleplayer is [I]fun[/I], but the franchise has turned from being an innovative game changer to the video game equivalent of fast food.[/QUOTE]
Ok, but does it need to be changed that much? If it's so popular still, after all this time, I'm guessing no?
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;33258627]Seem like you missed the focal point of his criticism entirely: what he meant was that while the game HAS had years of work put into it by proxy, everyone already gave them $60 for those years because this game is mostly recycled content.[/QUOTE]
What everybody seems to miss is that just because the grahpics are pretty much the exact same, there are lots of new features and should not be dismissed as MW2.5 just because it looks the same. What about all the Assassin's Creed games? Those, honestly, are more recycled than MW3. Maybe I can't compare two different genres, but seriously, there are games out there that change a few things, compared to MW3 where it shouldn't even be considered recycled just because of the graphics.
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33258694]Ok, but does it need to be changed that much? If it's so popular still, after all this time, I'm guessing no?[/QUOTE]
From a business perspective? No.
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33258694]Ok, but does it need to be changed that much? If it's so popular still, after all this time, I'm guessing no?[/QUOTE]
Well your videos are popular, but they need to be changed so much because they fucking suck and only appeal to idiots.
Just like CoD.
[QUOTE=killz2much;33259047]Well your videos are popular, but they need to be changed so much because they fucking suck and only appeal to idiots.
Just like CoD.[/QUOTE]
LMAO, that's not the real rubberfruit. And apparently generalizing the whole cod community as idiots makes you ~edgy and cool~
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33258656]a. An FPS is an FPS, you can't change it dramatically[/QUOTE]Yes you can
compare Portal 2 and MW3, both FPSs but totally different
there's a difference between not wanting to change and not being able to change
[editline]13th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33258701]there are lots of new features[/QUOTE]Like what?
last time I saw your post describing what made it different described what most games consider a free update or maybe a 10$ DLC
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33259286]
[editline]13th November 2011[/editline]
Like what?
last time I saw your post describing what made it different described what most games consider a free update or maybe a 10$ DLC[/QUOTE]
are you honestly that stupid. seriously. the one and only time i described what they added was when I stated what there was new in the game. every new thing in MW3 compared to MW2 should be FREE? okay seriously, you ARE that stupid.
[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33259341]are you honestly that stupid. seriously. the one and only time i described what they added was when I stated what there was new in the game. every new thing in MW3 compared to MW2 should be FREE? okay seriously, you ARE that stupid.[/QUOTE]Or are you stupid and not understanding what I just said?
I said that the last time I saw one of your posts describing what made MW3 a new game you described minor multiplayer balances, a few multiplayer addons like poitnstreaks and gamemodes, and a new (short) campaign
for most games this would be $10-15 DLC but somehow it justifies a full $60 game, for example Bioshock 2's Minerva's Den DLC is only $10 and it adds a several hours long campaign that has new weapons and enemies and another few updates to Bioshock 2's multiplayer were free, introducing new weapons and gamemodes
and I never said it SHOULD be free I said for some other games (like TF2) it WOULD be free
Learn to read next time and stop calling people stupid when you're not even reading right
[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33258701]What everybody seems to miss is that just because the grahpics are pretty much the exact same, there are lots of new features and should not be dismissed as MW2.5 just because it looks the same. What about all the Assassin's Creed games? Those, honestly, are more recycled than MW3. Maybe I can't compare two different genres, but seriously, there are games out there that change a few things, compared to MW3 where it shouldn't even be considered recycled just because of the graphics.[/QUOTE]
The difference between Assasins Creed and CoD?
One is a single player focused experience, where a new story is written every game, that lasts over 6 hours from what I've heard, with new features to make playing it both easier, and more immersion, while still retaining the difficulty that makes the game a challenge. The engine also gets some nice improvements along the way to the graphical capabilities as they are needed, and the AI actually gets work done to make it partially competent.
The other is a multi-player driven experience with a tacked on "continuation" of the previous plot, that makes little actual sense and has more plot holes than a Heavy Rain writers wet dream. The engine is barely changed, with the graphical capabilities between titles barely even changing (instead they'd rather just change the style for assets), and the AI is still retarded after about 4 games since the last big-ish change. The features added made the game easier to play, and fairer for some people, but removed all difficulty from the game. Rather than craft spacious, interesting levels, they just lift and rehash levels from the campaign, with some changes to make it "playable".
Guess which one is which. And which one actually had a good effort put into making it better than the predecessor.
idk about you guys but I buy video games (objects designed to make my free time, a luxury, fun) because they are enjoyable experiences. I don't sit down and analyze which game has had more "effort" put into it because A) I definitely am not in a position to say which developers put my effort into their game (and none of you are either, unless you work there) and B) I frankly don't care. If a fun game is made with zero effort then I will buy it and play it over a boring game that took 8 years and 7 billion dollars to make.
Honestly, I don't see why this is a big deal. Anyone who sees a 1/10 rating, and instantly goes "NOPE NOT BUYING" shouldn't be playing games. A normal gamer will look up videos and screenshots of the game, perhaps play it at a friend's house, or ask around before buying it.
I have fun with Call of Duty, and play it when I'm looking for a very quick, fun gaming experience. It's not an immersive, beautiful game like the Elder Scrolls, nor is it a ultra realistic, engaging game like ARMA II. It is what it is, and it is an arcadey game, that is fun in short bursts, and is great in a Michael Bay explosion kind of way
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33261437]idk about you guys but I buy video games (objects designed to make my free time, a luxury, fun) because they are enjoyable experiences. I don't sit down and analyze which game has had more "effort" put into it because A) I definitely am not in a position to say which developers put my effort into their game (and none of you are either, unless you work there) and B) I frankly don't care. If a fun game is made with zero effort then I will buy it and play it over a boring game that took 8 years and 7 billion dollars to make.[/QUOTE]
Duke Nukem Forever took 12 years and i think its a more compelling experience than MW3 is.
Although they are the same because both games should be bargain bin price.
Finally some realistic use of the 1-10/100 scale. I'm piss tired of the 69-99 scale. It's bullshit!
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33258656]Why is there a CoD hate bandwagon? What the fuck is wrong with it? And instead of clicking box and running away, can someone actually explain, because, Ok, it looks pretty much the same as MW2 but
a. An FPS is an FPS, you can't change it dramatically
b. MW2 was so popular anyway, why would they need to change it?[/QUOTE]
a. yes you can, watch
[t]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/835/835031/resident-evil-the-umbrella-chronicles-20071113051922489.jpg[/t]
[t]http://gnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Portal-2-light-bridge.jpg[/t]
[t]http://img.interia.pl/gry/nimg/STALKER_Clear_Sky_2296073.jpg[/t]
[t]http://storeimages.impulsedriven.com/product_gfx/mirrorsedge_ss6.jpg[/t]
b. because then you might as well buy MW2 and save 30 bucks
[QUOTE=Clementine;33212704]A few = 900~?
This hurts sales, it's as easy as that, why wouldn't they care about that, they worked hard on this product and to lose sales because of the parent company's reputation is devastatingly terrible for them.[/QUOTE]
Good, they deserve a loss in sales, their shit doesn't deserve money.
rate me late but...
I predicted this before this game even released.
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33258656]Why is there a CoD hate bandwagon? What the fuck is wrong with it? And instead of clicking box and running away, can someone actually explain, because, Ok, it looks pretty much the same as MW2 but
a. An FPS is an FPS, you can't change it dramatically
b. MW2 was so popular anyway, why would they need to change it?[/QUOTE]
If they didn't need to change MW2 they [U][B]shouldn't have made another game.[/B][/U]
*Registers to rate MW3 PC 0*
I remember when I first started playing the Call of Duty games. MW2 was out, but I couldn't afford it, so I went for MW1 instead, for the time being. I went over to my friend's house to play it.
After playing a bit of that, they popped in MW2 to play it themselves.
It took me a while to get the difference.
This is just beyond pathetic
[QUOTE=Juniez;33266876][t]http://storeimages.impulsedriven.com/product_gfx/mirrorsedge_ss6.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
You can't compare that to an FPS.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33268344]You can't compare that to an FPS.[/QUOTE]
But it is technically an FPS.
Regardless of scores, if it looks fun, I'm willing to throw away money to play it. Its a rehash, but if I like it, I got my money's worth.
The only Call of Duty I liked was Call of Duty 2, because one sequel is more than enough for me. I'd rather play a new game.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33268344]You can't compare that to an FPS.[/QUOTE]
Your avatar is so very true.
FPS. First-Person Shooter.
Last I checked, you could pick up guns in Mirror's Edge, and shoot them, in first person. It's not the main aim of the game, but if we're going along technical lines here, it is most definitely a FPS.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;33268082]This is just beyond pathetic[/QUOTE]
Which part?
The part where the developer asks fans of the game to leave honest feedback because he feels the user rating on Metacritic is being abused?
Or the part where people on Facepunch confirm that theory by outright telling us that they are registering just to zero it, and, ironically, invalidating the very essence of the user rating system by rigging it?
