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

They don't need to complain about it since it'll go up later on its own. Now that all the bandwagoning idiots have given it their 0's, only people who actually played the game will be left to rate it. I agree that I don't like the game, but this is just stupid.

[QUOTE=Notanything;33212587]Why not? If the game is acceptable to you, then you shouldn't care about its rating. Nor should a developer be asking the community to raise the rating. If they believe they made an acceptable product, then they should be confident enough to ignore a few negative ratings on reviews.[/QUOTE] Yeah except having a high score gets positive press and more people will buy it while a low score does the opposite.

I dont think it deserves that low a score but I still think the cod userbase is a bunch of suckers I for one refuse to pay 60 dollars for what is essentially an expansion pack when I can buy at least 3 games that are more unique and fun for that much

The only platforms rating that will be boosted is the 360 one because most of the idiots are on that thing.

Is the campaign really only 3 hours long?

I fucking hate people who write u instead of you. So hard to take them seriously.

[QUOTE=Source;33213408]Funny thing about MW3 is i have alot of friends who are massive CoD fanboy's and most of them have actually said they don't like MW3 after playing it, some have even taken it back for a refund and bought BF3.[/QUOTE] One of my friends has been telling me for months about how great MW3 is going to be... Then he actually played. He came to my house today and apologised and admitted that it is complete and utter SHIT.

You have to abbreviate like that on Twitter.

After watching some gameplay reviews, it made me wanna go play Quake or Unreal Tournament 2004 with Ballistic Weapons installed... The gameplay just cried "arcade shooter" That mod for UT2k4 was the [I]shiiiit...[/I] Regardless, that game deserves every kilobyte of the rating it got. Re-using models is one thing, Valve does that all the time with Source games, Same old graphics, well Valve [I]kinda[/I] does that too, however P2 and EP2 upped the ante quite a bit in that regard. However, rehashing the same gameplay AND the same story and grabbing those teats to milk it up some more with a monthly subscription for social networking bullshit just destroys what negative credibility you already had.

[img]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9682/pphhaahahahhahaha.png[/img] Hahaha, holy fuck

Fuck review scores, they're pants-on-head retarded anyways, for similar people. Smart and handsome people actually read an actual objective in-depth review, replete with descriptions and comparisons and elucidated examples, and those that don't need a serious cognitive enhancement.

[QUOTE=Dirf;33215071][img]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9682/pphhaahahahhahaha.png[/img] Hahaha, holy fuck[/QUOTE]The site is like going into a time machine to 2001 [url]http://www.gamechronicles.com/[/url]

I know a a good amount of CoD fanboys had rated BF3 a low user score, I suspect this is BF fanboys doing the same.

[QUOTE=Dirf;33215071][img]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9682/pphhaahahahhahaha.png[/img] Hahaha, holy fuck[/QUOTE] Bribed by Activision

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 assaults you with its overpowering presentation, from the opening moment where your Humvee is taken out by and RPG in NYC and a building explodes and comes raining down on you until the bittersweet final boss encounter. [b]Despite its aging graphics engine, the game maintains a fluid 60fps while pumping out graphics that are easily on par with Battlefield 3.[/b] [h2]Some scenes border on photorealistic,[/h2] and when you set the entire thing in motion with sweeping cinematic camera moves things get real crazy real fast. The level of complexity in the level design and the amount of detail is staggering and surprisingly, especially in the multiplayer maps, and it only gets better on the PC. We're talking a magnitude of 10x better than the 360, even when running at the same resolution. The textures and animation are breathtakingly real - the best I've seen on my PC since Crysis 2 and Rage." From the full review regarding graphics.

What is it about this game that make people rage just by hearing its name? Honestly this fanboyism shit is beyond moronic.

[QUOTE=Dirf;33215215]"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 assaults you with its overpowering presentation, from the opening moment where your Humvee is taken out by and RPG in NYC and a building explodes and comes raining down on you until the bittersweet final boss encounter. [b]Despite its aging graphics engine, the game maintains a fluid 60fps while pumping out graphics that are easily on par with Battlefield 3.[/b] [h2]Some scenes border on photorealistic,[/h2] and when you set the entire thing in motion with sweeping cinematic camera moves things get real crazy real fast. The level of complexity in the level design and the amount of detail is staggering and surprisingly, especially in the multiplayer maps, and it only gets better on the PC. We're talking a magnitude of 10x better than the 360, even when running at the same resolution. The textures and animation are breathtakingly real - the best I've seen on my PC since Crysis 2 and Rage." From the full review regarding graphics.[/QUOTE] Expert in graphics there.

Rated them all 0 since the game has little new content and a scripted campaign

Watching the whole BF3/MW3 fanboy war is great fun. Personally I'll be too busy climbing mountains and fighting dragons to care about either.

Internet Users Beg for Help With High MW3 Metacritic User Score

[QUOTE=Dirf;33215215]"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 assaults you with its overpowering presentation, from the opening moment where your Humvee is taken out by and RPG in NYC and a building explodes and comes raining down on you until the bittersweet final boss encounter. [b]Despite its aging graphics engine, the game maintains a fluid 60fps while pumping out graphics that are easily on par with Battlefield 3.[/b] [h2]Some scenes border on photorealistic,[/h2] and when you set the entire thing in motion with sweeping cinematic camera moves things get real crazy real fast. The level of complexity in the level design and the amount of detail is staggering and surprisingly, especially in the multiplayer maps, and it only gets better on the PC. We're talking a magnitude of 10x better than the 360, even when running at the same resolution. The textures and animation are breathtakingly real - the best I've seen on my PC since Crysis 2 and Rage." From the full review regarding graphics.[/QUOTE] HAHHAHAAA [I][B]WHAT??[/B][/I]

[QUOTE=nightlord;33213742]The ratings of 10 there really annoy me. How can anyone think this game is perfect? I know people have their own opinions, and i'm fine with that. But they are basically saying nothing could be improved. No game should get that. Several of the high reviews are saying it's too repetitive, yet they gave it a fairly high score.[/QUOTE] Ratings of 10 don't annoy me. In fact I think they need to be given out more frequently where they're deserved. People often use the logic, "no game can ever be perfect because graphics/audio/lighting/etc will always be better in the future," and in that case every game score would end up converging on 0 (or somewhere close to it) because they could always be slightly better (even a hundred years down the line they probably won't be 'perfect'). If a game is absolutely amazing and its few problems (because there are ALWAYS problems) are COMPLETELY overshadowed by everything else the game offers... then I reckon it deserves a 10. [editline]11th November 2011[/editline] I'm not saying MW3 deserves 10s though. Nowhere near. 1.5 sounds more reasonable to me.

[QUOTE=Notanything;33212532]This brought a smile to my face, good job to the people that rated it truthfully with the appropriate rating the game deserves. Hopefully a bunch of blind "perfect" reviews won't storm in and flush it all away.[/QUOTE] if you're going to rate COD at a 2 or 1 you're just as blind as the people who do the "perfect" reviews. all of the cods have been a mildly enjoyable experience and deserve at least a 5 or a 6.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33212507]Who cares about Metacritic community reviews.[/QUOTE] This, honestly. The game critic reviews are what really matters, and what I'm personally going by when looking for games. Gaming communities are always screwing with the ratings anyway, this goes for all games.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;33215922]if you're going to rate COD at a 2 or 1 you're just as blind as the people who do the "perfect" reviews. all of the cods have been a mildly enjoyable experience and deserve at least a 5 or a 6.[/QUOTE] Not for $60, thanks.

"We are going to beg for good reviews instead of actually making a better game"

[QUOTE=Sickle;33216054]Not for $60, thanks.[/QUOTE] that's entirely different there's 0 games that have come out ever to be worth that money i never pay more than 30 bucks for a game

"IGN, check Gamespot, check Metacritic... oh shit, did someone forget to send the check?" [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TRjMT.png[/IMG] lol

[QUOTE=Notanything;33212532]This brought a smile to my face, good job to the people that rated it truthfully with the appropriate rating the game deserves. Hopefully a bunch of blind "perfect" reviews won't storm in and flush it all away.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I've seen that the game media sucks huge cock when it comes to rating games. [QUOTE=latin_geek;33216161]"IGN, check Gamespot, check Metacritic... oh shit, did someone forget to send the check?" [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TRjMT.png[/IMG] lol[/QUOTE] Trolling or trolling... or trolling?

I love how their review says "in the years to come" Activision already said they're making another one, in a year and a half there'll be another CoD for the people who religiously buy that crap to jizz over and MW3 will be forgotten. Years to come, haha.