MW3 Dev Manipulates MetaCritic, Gets Flamed to Death
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
this is as pathetic as James Cameron being a little ***** about Avatar being heavily pirated.
go fuck thyself good sir!
go fuck thyself good sir!
I like looking at the overarching critic score. I don't "listen" to them in the sense that they generally sway me one way or another, but I do pay attention.imnotparanoid said:
I ignore the user scores, because it seems any game will be subject to serious butthurt from people who would never like it in the first place.
It is not being marketing savvy because he is trying to pump a low user score that people put there for a reason. The reason being people don't want the game series to turn into a "casual" Fifa thing. I am aware Fifa can be hardcore. Now while I've yet to see the game myself and may miss it BO was little more than an expansion so I don't expect this game to be much more than a ?60 expansion.
Unfortunately this is what CoD has become.
Unfortunately this is what CoD has become.
Why do people still pay attention to Metacritic? It's crowdsourcing of the worst kind, and while, as a nerdy maths sort, taking averages and polling aggregates seems like a good idea, trying to objectively scale subjective ratings of a subjective subject is pointless and stupid.
And this is why I don't trust metacritic as a respectable review site. The main community there is nothing more then a pack of wild dogs who will bomb any big time game that doesn't give them exactly what they want. Look at Portal 2 for example, It got metacritic bomb simply for having aesthetic DLC for the Co-op portion of the game.
I didn't like Black Ops, but calling it an expansion seems like a bit much. Considering that it added new community features, and went with the old style play, with lean etc, rather than the continuation of Modern Warfare's run and gun trend, claims of an expansion seem unfounded. I didn't particularly enjoy the game, but I must say that I didn't feel I was getting an "Expansion-herp derp" which could be adequately patched into a previous title.Glademaster said:
And whatever motive you have for review bombing? That makes you an idiot. I'm not accusing you of doing so, but there is no motive which justifies lying. A review is meant to review the subject matter. Not how it was made, not it in contrast with what you do or do not want with the sequels, but as a standalone piece. I don't particularly like the serialisation of games either, but by review bombing, you simply destroy the reputation of online reviews, and prove what an imature and pathetic little child you are. Metacritic doesn't even require that you've played the game to review something. People can rate games that they haven't played, and give them ratings which aren't justified by a proper worded rationale.
The only reason for a bad review, is a bad game. Obvious to anyone with any sense.
I'm not saying that. I know there are some genuine people out there that dislike the game and have a number of legit reasons why, and that's fine. But most of the time, the negativity stems from someone who just trolls or hates on it for no valid reason, or just because it's "in".TestECull said:
This is like the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen you deliberately copy a mock impression of an idiot fan in a thread. I love it.imnotparanoid said:
I think what this guy asked for is kind of pointless with the amount of money it's making regardless of its user score on Metacritic, but he does have a point. When critic scores are averaging out ok, great even, the low user score is mostly spite. Of course we gaming consumers down here knew that from the get-go, whilst I think the higher up blokes actually making the games can't see this so easily.
So you first in another post you basically say that Metacritic is pointless and irrelevant for a different reason and then say it is irrelevant for people expressing their opinion? That doesn't really make sense to me and also you are accusing me of doing so in the way you write your post just saying you aren't and then phrasing it the way you do makes about as much sense as saying "No offence but you are the biggest and most arrogant **** on the planet nay the whole of the great expanse of time and space." You could have easily said that they are idiots for review bombing and them, they are, their opinion are all acceptable instead of the you which does look like an accusation.Loonyyy said:
Just putting that out there before I properly reply to your post.
I really have no idea what you mean by BO going with old style play it was just CoD 4 in Vietnam with some slight additions that were no more than an expansion of old lean should even need to be mentioned as it should have never come out. Community features that we already have through other better means in the game does not justify it as a sequel or a spin off why would it? They weren't exactly ground breaking, unique or highly polished existing ideas.
They've taken the same game and added a couple of killstreaks, weapons, 5ish new weapon types and a short campaign. It did not add to or provide any new experiences or ideas than any of the games that played before it as the last game to have some truly fresh features was WaW as stuff like throwing knives/tomahawks were already mods. All it did was expand slightly on previous concepts like killstreaks and weapons and added new maps. The only really new weapons I can actually think of are the Ballistic knife and Crossbow actually as all others were done before in other games.
So lets see "new" community features, 2 new weapons, slightly expanded oversaturated concepts and new maps and a campaign. I got more than that in Battle For Middle Earth 2 expansion were I got at least 3 new units for every race, a new race, maps and a new campaign. I don't see why it isn't a big stretch to say I think that BO is a medium-big expansion.
A review is a subjective opinion, if the person reviewing doesn't like the game then why shouldn't they give it a low score? Are you saying that if you personally do not enjoy the game, if it holds no merit for you that you shouldn't state that fact because the majority like it? Does that then mean if you get some enjoyment out of a game that is universally disliked you shouldn't give it a good review because the majority hate it?Loonyyy said:
its not really blatant fanoyism if its true.doggie015 said:
Can't see anything wrong with asking for honest reviews. It did result in a change of the score so he did manipulate it of course, but in a completly fair way.
the 55degree FOV that you can't change only works on TV Monitors, close ip on pc it is physically nauseating. So it's unplayable for some which warrants a 0/10