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

[QUOTE=V12US;33212666] Because magically the game becomes a lot better when you play it. Actually, no it doesn't. It still looks like a shitty console port pulled out of a dusty box from the rejected games shelf. [/QUOTE] wait so you didn't play it but you find the game terrible?

They shouldn't beg for a ratings increase, if the Call of Duty fans cared that much about ratings they would have raped every site with 10/10 already.

I can't even play the game. Sometimes I crash before, during, or after a round. I'm lucky if I get the chance to play two rounds in a row. I was gifted the game, btw. Didn't buy it. Didn't ask for it either, so fuck.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;33216051]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] [img]http://i.imgur.com/TRjMT.png[/img] Ha.

[QUOTE=Vandl92;33216392]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.[/QUOTE] Exactly this, and with every installment of CoD, it'll start to shrivel and die from milking. The same thing is the case with Apple products, one comes out, they say "It'll continue revolutionizing for years to come", year later, new ones out, they same the same fucking thing, and the last version is dead to everyone and gone forever. In my opinion it had insane potential since MW1. MW1 was a fantastic game, MW2 was fun too, but it still lacked a whole ton. if they worked on it like Valve or Bethesda works on their game, I'd buy it, undoubtedly. If they actually cared for the consumer, I'd buy it. But you know what? They don't.

I've actually played specs ops survival splitscreen and it was really good fun.

I was just watching my dad play MW3, I almost got confused between that and MW2, that's how similar it is to the previous. Literally nothing has changed, just more gloss and shine.

The score the critics give such as ign,telegraph, gamespy blah range from 80-100. The score hundreds of users give range from mostly 0-3s to 7. Assuming all of them played the previous series, I can't help but think the critics just play like a day or 2 and write their review if you get what i mean. While users play hundreds and hundreds of hours on the same game, thus giving a much more truthful review based upon hundreds of hours of gameplay.

[QUOTE=marcus5;33216586]The score the critics give such as ign,telegraph, gamespy blah range from 80-100. The score hundreds of users give range from mostly 0-3s to 7. Assuming all of them played the previous series, I can't help but think the critics just play like a day or 2 and write their review if you get what i mean. While users play hundreds and hundreds of hours on the same game, thus giving a much more truthful review based upon hundreds of hours of gameplay.[/QUOTE] Game Critics do give an honest review on what they experienced, and their own opinions on it, but the bad thing is they do only play a couple hours, maybe less, of the game itself, so really their opinion is very un-educated towards how the game picks up from the last and what has changed, or rather, what hasn't changed. You're also right in saying that the users would give a more un-biased opinion, but as there are a lot of people with a searing hate towards Call of Duty, they would just rate it low out of spite for how much they hate the game, so really if you mix the experience of the users with the un-biased opinions of the critics you'll get the perfect reviews.

I think that the CoD games themselves are actually quite good, they are just the exact same every time.

aww next they'll be saying their bonuses are based on metacritic scores and not sales

[QUOTE=Fetret;33213546]What else are they going to reuse? Isn't that more than enough. If they can't be bothered to make new sounds, animations, weapons and props I can't be bothered to pay 60$ for their game.[/QUOTE] 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?

Many of the critics gave 100/100. Seriously? Even tf2 with its unique gameplay and class and hats(lol) and zero cost didn't net it a full 100/100. Plus the fact that it mw3 also feels more like a premium dlc for me. And yes i agree that critics can be bought too. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [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] At least they don't charge 60 for every installment..

I'm surprised they actually care about reviews since the game selling a shitload of copies should say something about their franchise

[QUOTE=Starpluck;33212738]Here's a better suggestion to avoid 1s, stop reshashing and overmilking the franchise.[/QUOTE] I bet they never thought of that. :v: [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [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] Not to be a complete fan boy (but yes I love Valve) they did include it in one of the the best videogame bundles ever. (I didn't have Episode 1 prior to getting the box)

[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] Episode 2 cost fuck-all in comparison, and even so the quality and innovation in said maps and story surpassed COD.

people who are rating this down without even playing it deserve to some how be banned from rating on these sites. fair enough if you play it and its shit but when your just rating it 0 because "its cod lol it sucks" you're a colossal idiot

Just because the game doesn't deserve a good rating doesn't change the fact that 90% of the 0s are from people who haven't played it and are just there to bandwagon. It defeats the whole purpose of the user review system.

[QUOTE=marcus5;33216586]The score the critics give such as ign,telegraph, gamespy blah range from 80-100. The score hundreds of users give range from mostly 0-3s to 7. Assuming all of them played the previous series, I can't help but think the critics just play like a day or 2 and write their review if you get what i mean. While users play hundreds and hundreds of hours on the same game, thus giving a much more truthful review based upon hundreds of hours of gameplay.[/QUOTE] i think 90% of the people who rated it are people who just looked at the screenshots or gameplay videos post above is relevant ^

This isn't going to help, because CoD players don't read the news

[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] difference is episodes 1 and 2 were packaged with the orange box, which was FIVE games for the same price as one cod game you've pretty much already played

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;33216148]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[/QUOTE] I suppose. But the lack of original content and blatant copy pasta in this game is horrible, it deserves low reviews. Maybe not as low, but still low. That's why I bought skyrim.

[QUOTE=Clementine;33212506]You guys are once again being retarded, it is suspiciously low, it is not deserving of such a low score no matter how retarded your opinion on it is. Metacritic user's are just bandwagoning stupids.[/QUOTE] They deserve a kick in the arse though.

[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] I'm sorry but there is no way it can be that bad it's a triple A game.

[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] Challenge accepted. [IMG]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3527/acceptedh.png[/IMG]

Did my part. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] Gave it a 0.

Ahahaha I'm going to rate it lower

[QUOTE=Ridz0r;33217486]Did my part. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] Gave it a 0.[/QUOTE] This isn't a war or movement. An honest review is better than a "fuck you".

To be perfectly honest I can't help but feel this has less to do with COD recycling the same thing over and over and more about the growing "Cool kids play Battlefield" mentality. It's less about quality and more about advertising.

Gave it a 4, it sucked too much ass to deserve anything more than that, Fucking 60$ expansion pack.