Top
160°

MW3′s Schofield: I didn’t “beg” for better Metacritic user scores

Glen Schofield has hit back at the way his response to the continuing low Metacritic user scores for Modern Warfare 3 was reported, saying he just wanted to see the game get “fair” reviews on the site.

Read Full Story >>
beefjack.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Septic2171d ago (Edited 2171d ago )

In his defence he didn't beg and I agree with him. The game, regardless of the legacy of hate that follows it (justified or not), deserves a fair review, as opposed to people trolling it without actually playing it.

By all means give it a low score if you have played the game and think it deserves that score, but 2.0 for a game that, whilst not being completely ground-breaking, is for the most part, a polished version of a successful formula isn't fair at all.

This game has problems; namely lacklustre maps, no room for snipers, quick-scoping, bad respawns and no dedicated servers but it also does many things right; playing with friends is a remarkably easier affair, connections are smooth, LOTS of content (16 maps, spec ops, campaign), a decent campaign and less gimmicks.

I admit, I expected to absolutely hate this game because of the bad taste Black Ops gave me, but this game, whilst being more of an expansion to MW2 than a fully-fledged sequel, does a lot of things right. It is in NO way a product of a labour of love when compared to the sheer amount of work done by DICE when it comes to Battlefield 3 (a FAR superior MP FPS in my opinion), but credit where credit is due; it works and it does what people expect it to, with flair but no more than that.

matgrowcott2171d ago

Everybody who writes a review on MW3 for Metacritic should be forced to read this comment. Review based on actual problems, pick a decent score, not because you feel you are losing something by CoD being popular.

gamingdroid2171d ago (Edited 2171d ago )

I agree for the most part, except for the unnecessary comparison of MW3 and BF3. I feel that MW3 as a game is far more polished while the single player campaign is very well made. The co-op is looking pretty good too.

In contrast, BF3 is a mess of bugs. I remember in the single player campaign, I would walk into a room, but couldn't walk out! The developers also like to frequently shine bright light in your face, which adds nothing to the experience, but was exceedingly annoying and made me slightly sick. 0_o

I promptly sold the game within 4-days.

Anyhow, I could go on, but that is OT.

MW3 might not be everyone's cup (although it seem like it almost should at the numbers it is selling), but even crappy casual games tend to get higher score than that. A polished, well reviewed game like MW3 should never get a scored like that.

I think the way Schofield ask for "fair" reviews to me did not constitute begging, but rather asking for support.

It is sad, but it won't change anything....

Septic2171d ago

I don't think the Battlefield comparison was unnecessary; it represents a product which was a result of a lot of work done by DICE and is pretty much an antithesis of what COD represents to a lot of gamers and critics in that it was a game developed on a brand new engine from the ground-up and DICE made a huge effort of listening to fans- observe the addition of prone, suppression fire, Karkand, commo-rose (could be better) etc.

In contrast, a lot of MW3 could actually have been done in an expansion (the multiplayer component anyway).

Your qualms with Battlefield seem to be with the campaign, which, strictly speaking, has never really been part of the Battlefield games apart from the Bad Company off-shoots, to which this isn't a sequel. Battlefield 3 is primarily a multiplayer game and thus, its incorrect to describe it as a "mess of bugs". You seem to have traded the game in because of issues with the Single Player which is completely missing the point, unless you don't play multiplayer games, which is what Battlefield 3 is.

gamingdroid2171d ago (Edited 2171d ago )

I did play the MP, and frankly it was a snipe fest and did have a lot of bugs too, just not as many/obvious as the single player campaign.

BF3 wasn't for me, but I would wait until BF4 comes out to see if Dice actually listen to their customers, or if they are going into the CoD mode with just a incremental update. The first game in a series that had a huge break will obviously seem fresh.

That said, whatever BF3 gets or why it is good is completely irrelevant to the fact that MW3 is getting a 3.2 user score. It is clear that a polished game like MW3 with great mechanics and bought by millions of gamers is getting that sort of low score. Obviously it isn't representative of the general public, but a niche group of people.

That is what this is about, not BF3 vs MW3...

That said, this won't change a darn thing. MW3 already sold well and will continue to sell well.

brish2171d ago

I just looked at the user scores ... maybe he should have begged! ;-)

Detoxx2171d ago Show
death2smoochie2171d ago

"I didn’t “beg” for better Metacritic user scores..."

Well make the game different in SOME meaningful way and maybe you won't have to cry like Paris Hilton when she got sent to jail about metacritic scores...

RedHotChiliPepaSpray2171d ago

All he did was post a quick twitter post that probably took him no more than a 30 seconds. It wasnt even an angry post, just an annoyed one.

Hes got a point though, no matter how badly you hate this game, it definitely does not deserve to get what the user scores are, i dont think any game deserves that. This is just a big overreaction and people twist it to make it seem important when its not.

DARK WITNESS2171d ago

There are some games I would say do deserve that..

did you ever play fall of liberty?

There was another shooter that came out early this gen. I can't remember what it was called but it was a COD2 clone using the UR3 engine.

Possibly one of the worst games I have ever laid my eyes on. I really would give it a 2 out. Qantum Theory is another.

As for MW3, in my honest opinion I would give it about 8/10 or 80 out of 100. Cod4 is still a 90/100 while MW2 I would give say a 75 and BLOPS I would give about 70 or 60. I do think MW3 is the best to come out since Cod4 but I don't think it's better then Cod4.

He is right though, it does deserve a fair review/trial before being hung out to dry.

Show all comments (19)
The story is too old to be commented.