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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
I just looked at the user scores ... maybe he should have begged! ;-)
"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...
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.
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.
I am not going to judge this game because I do not plan on picking it up. I do think the user reviews are unfair. But I will say that I think Activision has milked the COD franchise dry. Hopefully they are using all the COD money to put into Bungie's new franchise because they are certainly not putting into COD.
i am a proud rater of 0 on those pc reviews as COD deserves nothing more than that. Its an insult to pc gaming that this is top played on steam right now. Disguting.
Disguting? Are all PC gamers like you illiterate? Looking at your name I'm not surprised by your comment. Why is your username pctrollv4? were v1, v2 and v3 banned for trolling?
If I were him I wouldn't even have given those Battlefield 3 trolls the time of day to warrant a response. Obviously all those negative reviews, especially the ones that went in right as the embargo lifted, weren't by people that actually bought the game, but rather were by people pissed off that MW3 is scoring better then Battlefield 3, which according to N4G "would never happen" and they are pissed because they buy into the BS propaganda that nothing was changed. Sad to say it was fellow gamers that wasted their time with those idiotic reviews.
How about they pay us to change our reviews? They get bazijillions of dollars a year.
Gamers didn't rate COD 0, children rated COD 0, seriously I've never seen a bunch of people go on articles, videos, etc, just to troll and put negative comments. Why do people choose to go on a article just to 1. Insult the game 2. Insult the people who buy the game 3. Insult the developers Grant be I would say 99.9% of you can't make a game or have the skills to do so. Seriously like I said before, these "haters" or w/e you wanna call them are obsessed. None of them are gamers, just children who love trolling starting flamebait.
If I reviewed Call of duty, I would give it a solid 9.0 of out of 10. The story is actually really good, full of action and the best of the series. The multiplayer is actually very balanced, and survival mode is great and so is spec ops, graphics are good, the problem is the pop in/ pop out sometime, but still good nonetheless. There is some lag, however the game is great, if you're interested in picking it up, I suggest you do so now. I was worried about certain perks, but IW and Sledgehammers truly out did themselves. Literally everything in the game has a pro and con, and nothing seems too overpowered YET, we all know how COD works, so lets see what happens, but for now, I don't regret my purchase.
This is the problem with user reviews, i dont really pay much attention to user reviews as you get A. a 12 year old crying its a crap game as he/she cannot play it, B. same as A without the age limit, C. because its cool to hate, D. Because you had to choose 1 game as mom and pops got it for you so your trying to protect your purchase, a bit like the console and PC fanboys ( another story right there in ignorance, fanboyism ) If your willing to look through these websites that allow user reviews, you can see which are real and which are not, you can see which have been typed by some numpty with there 3 to 4 lines of crap, i gave the game an 8/10 with a 3025 letter review, good game not great, lacks originality and innovation, tho Kill Confirmed is one of the best modes ive played. People need to stop being tools, buy both games, dont just hate on the one you aint got because your butt is bleeding, if if you dont like one or the other and want to leave reviews as to why not, then do it constructively, dont just type something along the lines of " this game sucks worse than your mom".... explain a little Fanboys need beating with a bag full of Mario watch games, i come from a time that when a game mag gave a score of 8 you went out and bought it as 8 is good, 5-6 was average 7-8 was good and 9-10 was almost perfection..... hence why most games in the 80`s and 90`s that were good/great games got 8`s and 9`s
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.