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

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33220648]They have connected with the community and understand what they want. The game sold 9.3 million copies in the first 24 hours, almost double Black Ops. The fact of the matter is that the people crying out for "innovation" in CoD are the vast minority compared to people who see it as the reliable go to shooter year after year. The series barely changes but meets a 33% increased fanbase every year. The amount of people who like CoD for what it is far outstrips the people that demand a brand new product. Maybe I am old fashioned but I prefer reviews done on games based on merit of the game itself and not how much it "innovates". Yes Mr. BF3 avatar the engine isn't the latest or greatest but it's definitely still adequate, and plenty of CoD fans would agree with me that they would strongly prefer that CoD maintains the fluid movement and tight gunplay that is afforded by the highly modified Q3 engine the Modern Warfare series uses. Also I never said people weren't faking high scores, in fact I agreed with you in a roundabout way by asking why anyone would care about community reviews on metacritic.[/QUOTE] In my honest opinion, CoD's success is killing the FPS genre's quality. More and more developers are copying the CoD formula and are pumping out terrible games in an attempt to cash in, and many times it works and it sells well.

I was surprised to see the amount of new animations in MW3, to be honest. Not gonna defend it anymore than that because this thread is riddled with BF3 fanboys and people who think a game is bad because it reuses content. Answer me this, what if MW3 was CoD4? Meaning, what if CoD4 and MW2 never existed, and MW3 was the first 'modern' Call of Duty game? Would you consider it to be a good game in that case? [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SnowCanary;33220763]In my honest opinion, CoD's success is killing the FPS genre's quality. More and more developers are copying the CoD formula and are pumping out terrible games in an attempt to cash in, and many times it works and it sells well.[/QUOTE] I haven't seen a single game that does this besides CoD.

[QUOTE=SnowCanary;33220763]In my honest opinion, CoD's success is killing the FPS genre's quality. More and more developers are copying the CoD formula and are pumping out terrible games in an attempt to cash in, and many times it works and it sells well.[/QUOTE] You can't blame Activision or CoD for that it's the developers who see easy money and try to capitalize on that. If it sells when then that's what the people want and you can't really argue with the free market. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mixshifter;33220784]I was surprised to see the amount of new animations in MW3, to be honest. Not gonna defend it anymore than that because this thread is riddled with BF3 fanboys and people who think a game is bad because it reuses content. [/QUOTE] What's funny is that there is so much re-used content in BF3 it hurts. That said I don't really complain about that because every game re-uses content. It's a quick time and money saving feature in an industry that is rapidly becoming hugely expensive and time-efficient.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33220806]You can't blame Activision or CoD for that it's the developers who see easy money and try to capitalize on that. If it sells when then that's what the people want and you can't really argue with the free market. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] What's funny is that there is so much re-used content in BF3 it hurts. That said I don't really complain about that because every game re-uses content. It's a quick time and money saving feature in an industry that is rapidly becoming hugely expensive and time-efficient.[/QUOTE] Except people don't care about that because they see BF3 as the second coming, which is increadibly overrated.

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZvGNybOJAA&feature=related[/MEDIA]

This thread is full of a lot of people who apparently don't know what a review is. Hint: If you have never played it, you can't review it.

I typically want games to innovate at least a little bit, because once you play one game a lot, you get bored. If you play another game that's hardly innovative, you end up playing almost the same game that you already got bored of. If you get new elements, they (might) get you interested again, seeing as you haven't used these features long enough to get bored of them.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33220806]What's funny is that there is so much re-used content in BF3 it hurts. That said I don't really complain about that because every game re-uses content. It's a quick time and money saving feature in an industry that is rapidly becoming hugely expensive and time-efficient.[/QUOTE] I actually did notice that. BF3 feels like a better looking BC2 to me, but god forbid me say it. Otherwise I'll get rampaged. Even though I don't find it a bad thing for BF3 at all, re-using content is okay because remaking things like weapon animations isn't even fucking necessary when it's on the same gun. It's like how people expected MW3 to have new animations for the M4, but why? It's the same gun, why does it need new animations? If the animations ended up being worse than it was before, people would just bitch about that instead. So why pull a L4D2 and change animations that aren't broken?

"For rating our game higher, we put in a €20 DLC with maps we already made but didn't put in the release.

[QUOTE=SnowCanary;33220763]In my honest opinion, CoD's success is killing the FPS genre's quality. More and more developers are copying the CoD formula and are pumping out terrible games in an attempt to cash in, and many times it works and it sells well.[/QUOTE] if someone didn't milk COD's genre EA would absolutely. and if EA and Activision didn't then some other dickface would. it's not a good excuse for bullying people.

[QUOTE=thisispain;33221255]if someone didn't milk COD's genre EA would absolutely.[/QUOTE] hence EA re-released dead rising 2 but with a new character for full-price, as well as the 100 street fighter re-releases i derped, that's capcom, but they're good at that too :v:

[QUOTE=Bokito;33221180]I typically want games to innovate at least a little bit, because once you play one game a lot, you get bored. If you play another game that's hardly innovative, you end up playing almost the same game that you already got bored of. If you get new elements, they (might) get you interested again, seeing as you haven't used these features long enough to get bored of them.[/QUOTE] Not wanting to play games that aren't innovative or push the technological envelope is fine, it's a subjective outlook that you can have on video games. Outright saying a game is bad or deserves less praise or sales because it isn't innovative every release is wrong though. Some of the best games I have played, the Battlefield series, Assassins Creed, Uncharted, change little from release to release. On the other hand there are several unique games (mostly indy) that I like to play.

TBH I kinda liked MW3s SP, it's shit but it's just as much shit as pretty much every Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie was, cheesy, spectacular, senseless, etc. The thing that ruined it: The PC port snorts a stallion's load and sucks diarrhea out of a dog's mouth immediately after it ate cazu marzu (aka the most rancid and vile shit you could ever eat, it's rotten, larva-infested cheese that can actually endanger your health.) and the story is about as captivating as browsing through the yellow pages.

[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;33221425]TBH I kinda liked MW3s SP, it's shit but it's just as much shit as pretty much every Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie was, cheesy, spectacular, senseless, etc. The thing that ruined it: The PC port snorts a stallion's load and sucks diarrhea out of a dog's mouth immediately after it ate cazu marzu (aka the most rancid and vile shit you could ever eat, it's rotten, larva-infested cheese that can actually endanger your health.) and the story is about as captivating as browsing through the yellow pages.[/QUOTE] Do you write for AVGN?

[QUOTE=mixshifter;33221278]hence [B][I]EA[/I][/B] re-released dead rising 2 but with a new character for full-price, as well as the 100 street fighter re-releases[/QUOTE] And now we all do a fanciful jig and sing the "Doesn't know what he's talking about!" song.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33221455]Do you write for AVGN?[/QUOTE] No, I should be though, maybe I can get some of my curses into the AVGN Movie :v:

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;33221468]And now we all do a fanciful jig and sing the "Doesn't know what he's talking about!" song.[/QUOTE] Now we all sing "He can't read!" song. It still applies as I was replying to thisispain, who said if EA wouldn't milk the genre, someone else would. Capcom is definitely a good contender as they tend to milk every franchise they make in some way.

And then Activision is a lost cause.

[QUOTE=SilverDragon619;33220108] - P99 and USP sound nice[/QUOTE] I have the game and I did some experimenting in splitscreen. The USP is better than the P99 in that the only difference is that you pull it out noticeably faster. I couldn't find any other differences after fully testing out both pistols on helpless drones with no player behind the controllers but me. Also, what is it with the mentality that the more you level up, you tend to unlock guns that are worse than what you already had?

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;33212479]Rate our game good, despite the fact not everybody likes it[/QUOTE] Triple the sales of Battlefags three, suck on it.

[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1439918/Pics/2011-11-10_1725.png[/img] [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] yeah okay

The problem is the cost to enjoyment ratio. You are playing sixty bucks for something that is going to be fun for a few hours every month. If I could set the price, it would be 30 dollars/euros.

[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] IGN's review is a lot less biased

[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] IGN's review seems pretty fair, the other one is silly.

Sorry to hear you're so disappointed in MW3 guys. In the meantime I will be playing Doom and the literally endless mods that have been, and still are being created for it.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;33221971]cod is good if you like games that give you points for everything, have a bunch of unlocks, and has a really low skill ceiling that is basically why people like it[/QUOTE] CoD has a fairly high skill ceiling, the level of play you see in scrims is amazing. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] Though scrims usually run with pre-made rules and settings to be fair.

[QUOTE=mixshifter;33221668]Capcom is definitely a good contender as they tend to milk every franchise they make in some way.[/QUOTE] Although that's not so much the case because they allow people who bought the previous version of their rereleases to get the new ones for $10, the price of premium DLC. Don't get me wrong: it's still a dick move to rerelease it, but they don't charge full retail price for people who previously purchased.

[QUOTE=mixshifter;33221931]IGN's review is a lot less biased[/QUOTE] I have a friend who made a funny joke on how IGN reviews Rockstar games. Rockstar: If you rate our game a 10, we'll bring you to Chuck E. Cheese! IGN: *while twirling a noise-maker* Yaaay!

Reflex is still a skill. CS is predicated almost entirely on reflex and twitch aim skills and remains as one of the most competitive FPS in existence.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33222063]Reflex is still a skill. CS is predicated almost entirely on reflex and twitch aim skills and remains as one of the most competitive FPS in existence.[/QUOTE] Reflex... COD... Reflex... COD... Noob tube!