The Metacritic Users bomb Call of Duty again

[xplosive59]

Strange, because I actually like this one because they're now trying some things different.

Totally agree it's like someone at Treyarch said "Wait, our games are not realistic anyway so why not go all out and make something futuristic and different?" And I feel as though CODBLOPS2 is actually very good for what it is. This is the first COD game I have liked.

 

[RaikuFA]

Dat "ass".

Gotta love these. They don't do jack shit. My only issue with CoD is more companies thinking it needs to only pander to the people that only play CoD.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Gamers can be shallow, petty, and wasteful in how much attention they pay to their hobby. In other news, scientist have confirmed today that water is indeed wet and a large flaming ball had suddenly appeared in the sky and is providing light to the Earth.

 

[generals3]

Shocking; a bunch of babies feel the need to trash a game that they don't like. Who saw that coming?

Christ, I don't know what's more pathetic: The people who do this sort of thing or the fact that we have such little respect for the gaming community that we expect that this will occur.

So because people give their opinion on something they don't like they're babies? Should every game get a score of 100 perhaps? Because it seems what you suggest is that only people who like a game should give their opinion. Which would be obviously dishonest reviewing if you ask me. Any game would be considered good than. CoD has gone down the drain since MW1, the newer versions either didn't improve or managed to do worse while a normal expectation would be improvement.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Shocking; a bunch of babies feel the need to trash a game that they don't like. Who saw that coming?

Christ, I don't know what's more pathetic: The people who do this sort of thing or the fact that we have such little respect for the gaming community that we expect that this will occur.

So because people give their opinion on something they don't like they're babies? Should every game get a score of 100 perhaps? Because it seems what you suggest is that only people who like a game should give their opinion. Which would be obviously dishonest reviewing if you ask me. Any game would be considered good than. CoD has gone down the drain since MW1, the newer versions either didn't improve or managed to do worse while a normal expectation would be improvement.

So "Ass" is an acceptably detailed review as to why he gave the game a 0/10? No. These people ARE being babies.

Also: giving the game a 0/10 is just stupid. You may not like it, but in this day & age, no triple-A deserves anything less than a 5. You give it a 0, you're just lying to reduce its metacritic score. Even Warfighter, which was SHIT, was good enough to warrant a 6, in my opinion. I did have some fun playing it. It certainly wasn't boring.

I didn't like whatever the latest Final Fantasy was. Or, second to latest--not the X-2. 24 hours in, I still wasn't finished with the fucking tutorial. And Hope was literally the most annoying character in any game I've ever played. I quit after that. does that mean I give the game a 0? No. Frankly, I'd have given it a 6. It was slightly above average, but I don't have time to play a slightly above average game, when there are many great ones. Just like I didn't have time to finish Warfighter. You may not like CoD, but if you're giving it a 0, don't pretend that you're doing it for ANY reason other than to lower its metacritic.

 

[wooty]

These could actually be accurate for once though. I've been playing this.shit for 10 hours now and even I think it merits less than 20%.

The most consistently functional part of this game is the fucking title screen. "Ass" indeed.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yeah this is why I take user reviews with entire oceans of salt.

 

[Twinkie]

My personal Metacritic scores of the series:

Modern Warfare - 94/100
World at War - 95/100
Modern Warfare 2 - 84/100
Black Ops - 79/100
Modern Warfare 3 - 86/100
Black Ops II - 93/100

I started playing MW in 2008. I thought it was outstanding, as well as WaW. MW2 amped up MW to ridiculous levels with commando knifing from 15 feet away and bullets that could go around corners. They tried to fix it in Black Ops, but the lag was awful. The host always had a huge disadvantage. I tend to host a lot, so you can see what happened. IW tried to recover with MW3, but the awful streaks and maps drug it down. Black Ops II went back to the basics and I think it's the best CoD since WaW.

 

[Twinkie]

Didn't Metacritic give BOII a 93? Maybe that was just the PS3.

 

[RedDeadFred]

User reviews are very unreliable. People will give zero's over the most ridiculous reasons. Sure CoD doesn't evolve very much (although it did a decent amount in BO2 from what I've seen) but it doesn't deserve a zero for any of its major releases.

Generally you should probably raise the user review score by quite a bit if you want an accurate interpretation (some games more than others). At least with the people giving games 10 undeservedly you know that they've probably at least played the game. Plus, 10 is usually closer to the deserved score than 0.

 

[Jaeke]

"ass. ." - bencam (0/10)

Slap that on the box art!

User reviews are completely useless for AAA games anymore. You can't get a consensus of objective anonymous people on them anymore. An individual user review here and there might be a good one but we've seen this for years now. ME3, every CoD... it's always the same thing with people who care more about tearing the game or franchise down no matter how good the game actually is.

DAMN! Ninja'd...

Seriously, I think this man is onto something... perhaps a new rating system!!:
"Worth it."
"Kinda Worth it."
"Not Worth it."
"Ass."

 

[Awexsome]

"ass. ." - bencam (0/10)

Slap that on the box art!

User reviews are completely useless for AAA games anymore. You can't get a consensus of objective anonymous people on them anymore. An individual user review here and there might be a good one but we've seen this for years now. ME3, every CoD... it's always the same thing with people who care more about tearing the game or franchise down no matter how good the game actually is.

-snip-

I'm sorry but if you think games like CoD or ME3 are ACTUALLY worth scores like the 40's and lower you're part of the problem and why the user reviews are absolutely worthless. Critic reviews are a thousand times more reliable in all circumstances.

Despite anyone who would throw around conspiracy theories about how ____ game was paid off it's people putting their name and career behind a usually reasonable opinion.

 

[machblast]

I find myself just ignoring everything console shooter related these days. Halo 4, Call of Duty, whatever. I'm sick of the controversy and the community, and although I certainly don't think the games are 'bad' they're just not mechanically interesting to me anymore.

As for 'reviews' I never really gave a shit about that kind of thing. Remember God Hand's 3.0? It's one of the best hand-to-hand fighting systems in videogame history and IGN gave it that score.

Honestly I think everyone should just drop the number rating system altogether. Some places already do that.

 

[tippy2k2]

Shocking; a bunch of babies feel the need to trash a game that they don't like. Who saw that coming?

Christ, I don't know what's more pathetic: The people who do this sort of thing or the fact that we have such little respect for the gaming community that we expect that this will occur.

Sorry, what exactly is your complaint about? I thought ratings were about liking or not liking something? Would you have them rate it a 10 despite not liking it? I don't follow your logic.

My complaint is about these cry-babies who bomb review scores is that these are not real opinions; they're a bunch of butt-hurt assholes who are throwing 0's in because they think it's funny. I'd have the same complaint if there were a bunch of people anti-bombing the game (throwing 10's down just to boost it's ranking).

You know, if a reviewer ACTUALLY thought that Black Ops 2 deserved a 0, I can at least respect that (though I'd still call that stupid. If the game functions it deserves more than a 0 but maybe that's just me). But look at these reviews for 0's: I guarantee that 90% of these people bombing it have not played the damn game. Maybe I'm just a purist but I don't think a reviewer's opinion is valid unless they've actually played the game.

BarbaricGoose above gave the main part of my reason but I figured I would throw my own voice in.

Spoiler: BarbaricGooses post in case you don't want to go up and find it

So "Ass" is an acceptably detailed review as to why he gave the game a 0/10? No. These people ARE being babies.

Also: giving the game a 0/10 is just stupid. You may not like it, but in this day & age, no triple-A deserves anything less than a 5. You give it a 0, you're just lying to reduce its metacritic score. Even Warfighter, which was SHIT, was good enough to warrant a 6, in my opinion. I did have some fun playing it. It certainly wasn't boring.

I didn't like whatever the latest Final Fantasy was. Or, second to latest--not the X-2. 24 hours in, I still wasn't finished with the fucking tutorial. And Hope was literally the most annoying character in any game I've ever played. I quit after that. does that mean I give the game a 0? No. Frankly, I'd have given it a 6. It was slightly above average, but I don't have time to play a slightly above average game, when there are many great ones. Just like I didn't have time to finish Warfighter. You may not like CoD, but if you're giving it a 0, don't pretend that you're doing it for ANY reason other than to lower its metacritic.

 

[WanderingFool]

At least it's 4.4 this time when last year MW3 was like one? 1? maybe 2?

And Black Ops 2 is a lot better then MW3, I really don't understand the complaints.

*in tired, annoyed tone* Its because its the new Call of Duty[footnote] Think of this as being said by a Elcor for full effect[/footnote].

Somewhat unrelated:

Really though, I find a bigger problem being that on a 1-10 scale, they only use 8.5 and up. These arent term papers, where getting a 72% is horrible, a 7.2 shouldnt be automatically considered ass.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Shocking; a bunch of babies feel the need to trash a game that they don't like. Who saw that coming?

How come no one brought something like this into any Mass Effect 3 discussion?

OT: Frankly, I'm not buying the game, but I do enjoy reading how so many people didn't buy it and then are automatically experts on it.
No, I'm not keeping my money because I think it's the same thing every year. I know that there are some changes, but I refuse to give a developer money when so many of their fans believe every single thing about the game is true and/or possible, and then the developer fails to even factcheck themselves. My biggest gripes with it are the guns and now, apparently, Treyarch is also running under the assumption that President Obama will get his own supercarrier commissioned after him, probably one of the Gerald R. Ford class, but I only thought we were building two with the possibility of building three and they already had names...

 

[NiPah]

Shocking; a bunch of babies feel the need to trash a game that they don't like. Who saw that coming?

Christ, I don't know what's more pathetic: The people who do this sort of thing or the fact that we have such little respect for the gaming community that we expect that this will occur.

Stop bringing up the "gaming community", this reflects as poorly on the "gaming community" as Movie Bob's tirade on Twilight reflects on the "movie community".
Not one person, not one single person saw this and thought "oh those silly gamers are at their shenanigans again", this is just another example of groups of people acting like idiots over the internet, see also; Youtube and 4chan.

My favorite is the first review where he reviews the game 2/10 without even playing it, where exactly did he get the 2?