The Metacritic Users bomb Call of Duty again

[nWax]

A friend gifted me a copy of BlOps2 on steam, I must say i am less than impressed, gone is the server browser from BlOps1, replaced MW2 style with the matchmaking system. So instead of picking a server of a type and ping to my liking i now instead get to kick back and relax for up to 15 minutes while i get matched into a game where i usually have a terrible ping.....
The game play is what you would expect from a cod game, the maps are so-so, the campaign is also what you would expect from a cod game, extremely linear, hand led, more like a bad interactive movie than game.

BlOps2 is just following MW2 down the road of taking away core functionality and control from the players and replacing it with a lesser system simply to improve the monetization of the franchise.

As bencam said "ass. ."

 

[AnarchistFish]

This just in: people don't like bad game

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.

Whaaaat. They should automatically just get a 3/5? Automatically just be labelled a good game just cos they aren't completely broken? If a game is as stale as the CoD series I don't see why it should be given credit just cos it plays well, and the fundamental problem lies with score inflation as people have already pointed out.

CoD might be stale, but they're stale at a very high level. You get high production values with famous voice actors, amazing scripted sequences of shit getting blown up, a new iteration of the still very fun multiplayer...
IMO, the game objectively deserves a good score. Not a great score, and the reviewer can and should point out that the player can get much of the same for a lot less money with last year's MW3, but on its own, each CoD is a pretty damn fun game.

I always found the multiplayer mindnumbling boring

so I think objectively it deserves a bad score

Anyway I don't think the voice acting and scripts are relevant if it's been done before and if it doesn't actually add to the gameplay

 

[Mikodite]

"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.

I beg to differ, I find the User Reviews a lot more helpful on MetaCritic than the "professional" ones and there are a great many games that have positive reviews/opinion, let me go through my favorite games this year...

Torchlight II: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/torchlight-ii (Critic: 88, User: 90)
Dark Souls: PtD: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dark-souls-prepare-to-die-edition (Critic: 85, User 67) - understandable since it is a bad port
Spec Ops: The Line: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/spec-ops-the-line (Critic: 76, User: 78)
Gemini Rue: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gemini-rue (Critic: 82, User: 86)
XCOM: Enemy Unknown: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/xcom-enemy-unknown (Critic: 89, User 81) - understandable since some would have been disappointed no matter what
Batman: Arkham City: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/batman-arkham-city (Critic: 91, User: 80)

Games that I am still eyeing but haven't played yet also came out pretty good:
Dishonored: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dishonored (Critic: 91, User: 82)
Borderlands 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/borderlands-2 (Critic: 89, User: 81)

Now to the games that deserved to be panned through the board, but weren't by critics:
Diablo III: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii (Critic: 88, User: 38)
Mass Effect 3: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 (Critic: 89, User: 45)

It goes the other way too btw., for instance:
Natural Selection 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2 (Critic: 79, User: 93)

I see it more as a problem that "professional critics" are either unwilling or unable to rate AAA games below a 80, even if they're a heap of flaming turd.

At least there was one game this year where both can agree that it was crap, although I wonder why the same "professional reviewers" went easy on Call of Duty...
Medal of Honor: Modern Warfighter: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/medal-of-honor-warfighter (Critic: 56, User: 53)

Also notice how Call of Duty 4 still had a good score, because it wasn't a bad game:
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare (Critic: 92, User: 85)
But the crap sequels that didn't change anything about the game and mainly made things worse were panned:
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2 (Critic: 86, User: 38)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3 (Critic: 78, User: 22)
Call of Duty: Black Ops: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-black-ops (Critic: 81, User: 45)

For that matter I don't doubt that bencam has perfectly summed up the newest Call of Duty experience, but I wouldn't know because I'm not stupid enough to give Activision any more of my money since Call of Doody 4.

Every single game that was panned was panned for a reason and I had already decided not to buy even previous to launch.

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.

Diablo III forced you to play online and ME3 had a shitting ending. That's enough to deem them garbage? Because anything lower then 50% is a fail, and therefore shit.

 

[Yopaz]

Did I experience something less surprising than this happening today? Well, I woke up today like I always do on a Monday which is tied with being as predictable as Black OPS would get critic bombed.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

These threads are such circle-jerks of self-congratulation and condescension.

And you bring both.
Try reading the arguments, people are talking bout what they think does or does not deserve a good or bad review, that aside, why come here just to insult everyone in the thread? You accomplish nothing.

I bring no such thing.

I read the thread. No real reason to frame the issue that way, and no real justifications why 'x' score is bad or wrong. I did not "insult everyone in the thread" and I didn't "just" anything. The reason for my post is self-evident. You can talk about the game or the issue without basking in your own sense of superiority. And you shouldn't let the latter completely drown out the former.

 

[Scow2]

AAA games are given good scores because they are good games. They may not be innovative, but as far as scoring goes:

Graphical fidelity, Audio Fidelity, Stability, Solid Gameplay

(This is probably the big tripping block that dooms most games to the graveyard between the Indie scene and AAA releases). Unfortunately for a lot of games, a slight edge that a true AAA game has in this department dooms the game for not equallying it.

Um, you have a rather weird outlook on the issue, just like in the movie industry the sheer fact that you throw immense amounts of money at something isn't a sign for quality, some of what are probably the most expensive movies ever made weren't particularly good.

Transformers 2 for example, I gave that movie a 3/10 on iMDB because it's my honest opinion that things exploding on a screen for almost 2 hours doesn't make for a good movie, I also gave the late Total Recall a 5/10 for similar issues (too much CGI, not enough substance) and grave issues in the story and character department, especially when compared to the original.

And there are Indie movies made on a very low budget with capable actors and a good script that can be absolutely wonderful or amongst the best out there.

I'm not particularly sure why you believe it should be any different in the games industry, there are Indie games that I liked and found considerably better than a lot of things the "AAA" industry has to offer (for instance Super Meat Boy, Gemini Rue) and it has made a huge impact on my purchasing decisions in the last few years.

The reason why Games should be treated differently from movies is because games aren't movies. The two have a completely different rubric by which they're judged. Also, you are a terrible reviewer if you don't know how a 10-point scale works (Hint - 70% is average)

The first three* points of a game or movie review are usually for the objective, technical details. The next three points are for how well the game or movie feels it "works". The next three are for if it's actually enjoyable. The last point is a "bonus point" if any of the above categories are extremely remarkable.

I have played a lot of good indie games. I've played a lot of 'bad' AAA games. I've also played a lot of AAA games that are hated but good. I've also played a lot of absolutely terrible indie games, and have yet to find any AAA game that has managed to descend to that level of sludge. Before giving a game a score near zero, ask "Is this as bad as one of those shitty one-star Flash games over on sites like Kongregate?"

I do feel that 10s are given out WAY too regularly, especially for AAA games - I feel most deserve between 7 and 9 points, protected by the extensive testing and feedback, restricted by the heavy editing and diluted vision, and elevated by the innovation possible from such immense manpower (Such as RAGE's introduction of megatextures, Half-Life's unparalleled immersive first-person experience, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind's signature fantasy sandbox-RPG, Goldeneye's bringing of the Shooter to console, Halo for refining the Gamepad/Console shooter experience, and Gears of War for an excellent Cooperative AND third person AND cover-based shooter experience).

Of course, part of the reason for the high scores is because it's not exactly right to give a game a lower score than its predecessor if it does everything better, even if it loses the novelty... causing that Bonus Point to become 'hereditary' to a franchise, giving it superior scores over games that didn't get there "First".

When a game's franchise becomes "Stagnant", it usually does result in score depletion, losing the "Innovation" point, losing part of the "It works" score, maybe a point off the technical details if it fails to catch up, as well tending to lose a lot of the "enjoyability" as the franchise drifts.

Also - the games your panning... Are you sure they're actually AAA titles, and not merely AAA-wannabes?

CoD might be stale, but they're stale at a very high level. You get high production values with famous voice actors, amazing scripted sequences of shit getting blown up, a new iteration of the still very fun multiplayer...
IMO, the game objectively deserves a good score. Not a great score, and the reviewer can and should point out that the player can get much of the same for a lot less money with last year's MW3, but on its own, each CoD is a pretty damn fun game.

CoD might be stale, but they're stale at a very high level.

Stale at a very high level

Really? Really?

Here, do you want this pizza? It's all you'll have for the next 2 weeks. The same thing, day in, day out. I'm not even gonna try to improve it. Do you think you might get sick of it at the end? Do you think you may enjoy it less as time goes on and loses all that is fresh and original about it? What? You would? But it's stale at a high quality!

That's a silly argument. If a game from a different franchise can be a lazy rip-off for being the same thing as a CoD game, a CoD game can be too. The name doesn't give it any kind of special dispensation. It's stale, it adds nothing. Whatever its good qualities are, it's something that's been done before and something you can get cheaper elsewhere. It's just not worth the bother.

You may get sick of Pizza if that's all you want, but each version of Call of Duty, while it may be the same recipe, is freshly-baked. If YOU can't be bothered to occassionally order something OTHER than CoD pizza, that's you're problem, not the developers. To use this analogy, it's like calling up Pizza Hut or Dominoes for your daily order and whining that they only sell pizza (And maybe occassionally Breadstick spinoffs), and you're hungry for a Sub.

And the name does give it something special - consistency. If you're a fan of, say, Domino's Pepperoni pizza, and you like their recipe, and they make it fresh every day (Or in this analogy, a similar game every year - the reset server and MP ranks DOES freshen the game), it's fine to dismiss, say, Little Caeser's pepperoni pizza as inferior (To your tastes). The analogy kinda starts to break down since pizza is such a staple food where I'm from.

 

[Stabby Joe]

So... nothing new then? North is north, cold is cold and Metacritic is full of trolls.

 

[hermes]

Plus, 10 is usually closer to the deserved score than 0.

...
Can you explain this? Why not give every game a 10/10, everyone could be happy!

A game that gets a 0 is a game that is broken beyond repair. A game that will try to burn your monitor and break your PC the moment you insert the DVD.
Personally, I distrust a lot more of any 0 review than any 10. No game with some basically competent design, above brain-dead level of programming skill and more than a month of work deserves a 0. If I find a review that has a 0 without ample justification, I am tempted to believe the reviewer is a moron that just doesn't want to like the game and comes up with excuses (like "its worst that the last one", "I got killed a lot", "I hate the protagonist" or just "the graphics suck") more than justifications. Have you seen games like that? I only have seen a few in my life, and it has to be Big Rigs level of bad to earned the 0. Most bad games I have played, I would rate 2 or 3, because 0 requires a different level of incompetence.
A 10 means the game is great. Not perfect, because there is no such thing, but highly recommendable, even if you are not particularly interested in the genre. Have you played games like that? I have, several in this generation alone. I have recommended games like X-Com to friends that are not into strategy and Burnout Paradise to friends that are not into racing. Does that makes those games perfect? No; but whatever issue I may have with them pales in comparison to its strengths, to the point that removing points would be nitpicking.
That is what a 10 means, and if you can't think of any example of a game like that in this generation alone then... well, I am sorry for you.

Seriously the "professional" Review ratings are inflated as all shit, 8 basically means "ass" and with AAA games it just seems to be different scales of 9s...

That seems to be only your perception, caused mostly for the inflation that appears at the beginning of every generation. You talk about professionals like its a derogatory term. "Professional" only means that they get paid to do that stuff. They don't have more credibility than a random person because of they have a bigger audience, they got more credibility because they do it a lot, they know that if they are off too often or can't justify their opinion properly, people won't take them seriously; and they put their names and reputations into it. What kind of credibility has someone like "Tom25599", "Azazel1911" or any other random account made in 5 minutes?
In the end, I would advice you to look for a person/media outlet that has similar tastes to you, learn his metrics and stick to it. In terms of numbers, to me, something above 60 means I may enjoy it despite its flaws if I am into the genre; something in the range of 75-90 is something that is pretty damn good if I am into the genre, and something above that is a must try.
Also, a long time evaluating stuff makes me skeptic of any review score with a precision of 0.5 over 10 or below... Metacritic works (up to a point) because its an aggregation, but something like the IGN system is retarded.

 

[Awexsome]

I always found the multiplayer mindnumbling boring

so I think objectively it deserves a bad score

Anyway I don't think the voice acting and scripts are relevant if it's been done before and if it doesn't actually add to the gameplay

Are you just trying to troll with that?

Absolutely everything about finding a game "boring" is 100% subjective.

What is objective are the crisp game mechanics that handle and respond extremely well for the twitch based style CoD plays like. If you find that style of gameplay dull, that's subjective. The extreme amount of customization and content packed into the separate campaign, multiplayer, and zombies in Black Ops case. If you find that content dull, that's subjective. The extensive polish that has gone into the game's different modes and gameplay along with the high production value things like voice acting, sfx, score, and bug testing. If you find the polish on those features still not your thing, that's subjective.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Oh Christ, this again. I don't give Metacritic any relevance whatsoever, especially seeing its usually a collection of the worst of both worlds of gaming - corporate and consumer.

And, for the record, whenever I hear the word Metacritic, I instantly hear this:

 

[Cabisco]

I'm finding myself increasingly against the trend of whats popular in gaming now, I didn't enjoy the last few COD games until this one (borrowed black ops1 and mw3 and hated both) and now I find out only I seem to like it. Oh, and I loved Mass Effect 3 (and while didn't like the ending, it didn't ruin the previous amazing 20 hours of that game)... I must be defective.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Oh Christ, this again. I don't give Metacritic any relevance whatsoever, especially seeing its usually a collection of the worst of both worlds of gaming - corporate and consumer.

And, for the record, whenever I hear the word Metacritic, I instantly hear this:

Tell that to the companies, when they think Metacritic hates them, they start doing things like euthanizing the companies involved, make games unavailable to certain regions.

Ah well, I thought Escapist was a site dedicated to resisting the corporate shills.

 

[Grape_Bullion]

A small part of me supports this kinda stuff. The other parts of me slap that one part and push it into the middle seat and drive it into the marshes and blast it with a .38 snub nose and almost forget the cannoli.

It's so disappointing that we as gamers feel so powerless in the face of marketing, paid reviews, and accepted and celebrated games that are mediocre at best, that the only thing we can do in response is make overly obnoxious reviews on a site that is overlooked anyway. Maybe one day things will be better, right?

 

[AnarchistFish]

I always found the multiplayer mindnumbling boring

so I think objectively it deserves a bad score

Anyway I don't think the voice acting and scripts are relevant if it's been done before and if it doesn't actually add to the gameplay

Are you just trying to troll with that?

Absolutely everything about finding a game "boring" is 100% subjective.

What is objective are the crisp game mechanics that handle and respond extremely well for the twitch based style CoD plays like. If you find that style of gameplay dull, that's subjective. The extreme amount of customization and content packed into the separate campaign, multiplayer, and zombies in Black Ops case. If you find that content dull, that's subjective. The extensive polish that has gone into the game's different modes and gameplay along with the high production value things like voice acting, sfx, score, and bug testing. If you find the polish on those features still not your thing, that's subjective.

Er, what I said was in reaction to the other guy saying he thought it was objectively good cos he personally found it fun. Weird you didn't pick up on that but maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I was being sarcastic.

Anyway subjectivity only goes so far. Nothing is 100% subjective because there will always be common ground between people. Overall, people will be positive about a game and overall people will be negative about another. Keeping in mind that that isn't the same as popularity. I still don?t get why you would want to take into account superficial stuff like production into a score without taking into account other factors which granted, are more down to opinion. But that?s the point of giving personal scores.

 

[Warachia]

These threads are such circle-jerks of self-congratulation and condescension.

And you bring both.
Try reading the arguments, people are talking bout what they think does or does not deserve a good or bad review, that aside, why come here just to insult everyone in the thread? You accomplish nothing.

I bring no such thing.

I read the thread. No real reason to frame the issue that way, and no real justifications why 'x' score is bad or wrong. I did not "insult everyone in the thread" and I didn't "just" anything. The reason for my post is self-evident. You can talk about the game or the issue without basking in your own sense of superiority. And you shouldn't let the latter completely drown out the former.

People are giving opinions and having discussions, there is no sense of superiority here (at least not before I replied to you). People here are not talking specifically about the game, they are talking about the reviews on metacritic, evidently, that's impossible to do without having a bullshit "sense of superiority".

No there aren't real justifications why 'X' score is wrong, but then why is it wrong for people to say why they didn't like the 'X' score somebody gave?