Velocity Gamer: So I know it's not entirely the most legit thing to do, but after much thought I do believe my score needed some changing. If I were to give Skyrim a 5 and MW3 a 4.5 that would just seem weird no?
Wow, a website that will actually take some though into their review score. I completely agree with the change as well. I'm a big fan of COD, but seriously with all the sequels coming out this year it's kinda hard for COD to stand out without any improvements or innovation.
Why change the score? I'm sure Activision just had a little trouble wiring you the money but it's nothing to fret about. Now you lost both your credibility, AND your $$$.
Yeah, the website put so much thought in that they realized they screwed up the first time, went back and fixed it! Makes us really trust their reviews... who knows, on their next review they might just see fit to change the review 2 months down the line cause they found another game "that did sooo much different" that it made the current game look [email protected]! /s
What are you talking about? This shows a complete lack of credibility. He is admitting his ranking system is flawed. If Skyrim is a 5, that's great, it's a complete different game/genre. Also, to lower it to a 3.5 from a 4.5 is laughable. Congrats author, you're just another wannabe gaming blog that is nothing but a joke.
You sir are a complete jack***.if you acctually read his article you would see that he was only doing this because IGN has a a horrible ranking system. Skyrim as he said is a vast improvement and the differences can be seen easily a lot has been changed and tweaked in the gameplay. COD has been the same everytime.... do a little reasearch and there is actually a video showing a building that was from COD4 that they shoved into the brand new one. Sounds like they have changed so much. Im not trying to say COD isnt fun i enjoy it from time to time but the fact that it is given incredible scores everytime for the virtually the same game as its predecessor. If IGN is gonna lower a game because it is almost the same as its prequel then they should do the same with COD. Hope Im making a pretty decent point here, not trying to bash COD just make people realize this.
How does that make me a jackass? I have never played the new COD yet and I don't care how good or bad one thinks it is. My point is he has a complete lack of credibility. How can anyone trust a review from this guy in the future, now that he opened the flood gates by changing his score because he played a different game in a different genre. The only jackass here is the author. At the time he reviewed it, he though it to be a certain score. Now, as a week or two pass, he reviews another game, falls in love with that, then goes back to lower MW3? Idiotic. What is he going to do when Mass Effect 3 comes out and he enjoys that more then Skyrim? Is he then going to lower Skyrim to a 4.8? I don't care what justification he is trying to give, I am sure a good portion of his decision making was the backlash from internet nerds who live for nothing else but to trash COD online. A lot of people scored it lower then he did so he is covering his bases. That has to be the reason, why else would Skyrim, a RPG game influence MW3, a FPS? Makes no sense, they should never be compared together.
you can't just go around changing scores because a better game comes a long and a .5 difference doesn't seem liable any more. Kind of puts any score given into doubt. Its about impression. At the time COD made an impression for you to give 4.5.
Not exactly, the article mentions games like Batman and Battlefield as well. When you go back and think, it's like wait a sec. These games made huge improvements over the last installment. Should you really let COD get away with not innovating and making the game better? I don't think so. EDIT: Yes, BUT as I've spent even more time with with the game I felt that wasn't a fair score. I didn't change the contents of the review at all. Our scores are based on the quality of a game, not our opinion.
its a very amateur move to score a game based on another game. batman and battlefield should have no bearing on a reviewers decision on how good or bad MW3 is.
I agree! It speaks volume of the state of gaming journalism being flooded by amateurs. The internet unfortunately gives everyone a voice. Just hit the plus sign next to their domain name and mark them down to try and keep out the trash on n4g.com. This site lost all credibility if they can't grasp simple concepts on reviews are done.
Agreed at above... Thats like saying if u now reviewed Oblivion ud have to give it a 5/10 simply cause it doesnt live up to Skyrim...
I see both your points, In one way yea, changing a review score isn't the best thing to do, but if the score is a change based on quality I can agree with that. I'm glad at least some sites can back up their review scores. IGN for instance just makes those hate videos, why's everybody hating on us crap.
I agree... so basically I can NOT trust your reviews, because your original score wasn't well though out. Besides, when did "doing something new" become a criteria to score reviews? Isn't it overall package for the game i.e. how it ALL compares to the competition? If it holds up, does it matter? How about we just make the game completely different, but suck? Would we give it an extra star for that? In summary, we can't trust velocitygamer.com, because clearly they don't know how to review/score their game reviews! In fact, they don't even have a guideline, except being guided by "feel".
Don't know how to score our games? At least we can admit when a game dosen't deserve the score we gave it and can back up why. Tell me, why should Call of Duty, a game that has millions of fans shouldn't improve and actually feel like a sequel? That's pretty a much a slap in the face to its fans on all fronts. They have more money than most devs to use on the game and make it a better package but they don't. So if what I read correctly from your comment your one of the many people who focus primarily on the score. Um, if you look under the score there's clearly an explanation of each score.
if you cant make decisions for yourself then your just a sheep. game reviews are opinions, after all.
***At least we can admit when a game dosen't deserve the score we gave it and can back up why*** You mean how you couldn't back it up the first time, then changed your mind later. Maybe in 6 months, you changed your mind again since the latest and greatest made MW3 look even crappier! xD ***Tell me, why should Call of Duty, a game that has millions of fans shouldn't improve and actually feel like a sequel? That's pretty a much a slap in the face to its fans on all fronts.*** That is for the gamers to decide, all you have to do is note it in your review. However, clearly you were fine with until you found another game, reviewed it differently and realized you did a poor job on the MW3 review. ***They have more money than most devs to use on the game and make it a better package but they don't.*** You are supposed to review the game objectively, so it doesn't matter who made it or how much resources they have. You are to base your review on the product and the product only! ***So if what I read correctly from your comment your one of the many people who focus primarily on the score.*** Now where did I say that? Reading comprehension usually helps. ***Um, if you look under the score there's clearly an explanation of each score.*** The point isn't the score, but the fact that you had to go back and change the score because you changed your mind. Amateurs!
@ Hockeydud19 Gamingdroid is right, you just made yourself look like an amateur and a laughing stock. You're suppose to review the game for itself, not who made it or what other games are out there. I find it funny, you just gave it a 4.5 and justified it, yet kept your review in tact, but then lowered the score. Do you see how bad that is for your credibility? Your words indicated why you gave the game a 4.5, then you keep all your words the same but just lower the score. It's people like you who ruin the review process. Why don't you go back now and change your COD4 MW review since other games have come out since then! You're a joke bro.
good lord gamingdroid. Are you seriously that in love with Call of Duty that you can't see past its flaws? If you didn't notice their review has only been up for like 2 days. At least they came out and told their readers they changed it. Other sites just try to change it "secretly"
So, is this one of Hockeydud19 other accounts? Just joined 1-hour ago, and posted one comment! Somebody took the time to register just to tell me I'm a CoD fanboy.... ***Are you seriously that in love with Call of Duty that you can't see past its flaws?*** This has nothing to do with CoD and everything to do with proper review standards. Clearly this website lacks it and is unable to stand behind their reviews. ***If you didn't notice their review has only been up for like 2 days. At least they came out and told their readers they changed it. Other sites just try to change it "secretly"*** Congratulations, your website is one small step above other turd sites! Fact of the matter is that the reason for the change is absurd. Games are never reviewed based on another game released in the future, nor should it rely criteria made after the fact. Amateurs!
Well they already did it, what are you going to do about it? Besides, their reasons for it were legitimate. I completely agree with them.
Finally reviewers are starting to see the truth.
I don't care regardless because I'm loving CoD already, but I do think that's totally lame. I would see no problem with him posting a second impression, but changing the original review score is just weak. How are we supposed to trust a site that doesn't even stand behind it's beliefs? I get that in retrospect of Skyrim he could post a second impression saying if he now believes the score should be lower, that's fine. However the Batman and Battlefield part really discredits the claim, because those games came out before MW3, and as such would have been taken into account previously. CoD is by no means perfect, it's fine if you want to give it a merely decent score, but don't change the original review. The admittance that this is all a result of recent events is good, but ruined by the unprofessionalism.
The review was not changed at all. Every word is still the same. I'm happy with MW3 as it is, but in my opinion it doesn't seem fair to give the game as high as a score as games like Batman etc spend so much time trying to be the best it can be. I know people will say oh we can't trust Velocity Gamer etc. I expected that, but if I have the guts to change a score I think that says something. Either way think what you will.
Absolutely ridiculous comment in the summary. You can't just directly compare review scores between Skyrim and Modern Warfare 3.
Good to know not to trust reviews from that site ever again. WAHHH! They gave one of my favorite games of the year a lower score for being more of the same WAHHHH! I'm gonna lower MW3 score now to get back at them! WAHHHH!(BTW IGN actually gave Revelations a higher score than last years Brotherhood. So I don't know why this guy is so butthurt. Does he think his opinions are fact? Does he think just because HE THINKS Revelations is a better game than MW3 that it should get a higher score? FANBOY.) Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying MW3 should be praised for being more of the same.(it should be deducted points) but you should have considered that in the first place. Changing your score this late just lets your readers know your reviews are unreliable and biased. I myself will never visit this website again through N4G or anywhere else. Hey VelocityGamer, Assassins Creed is a $60 single player game that takes a few hours to complete. Modern Warfare 3 is a $60 game with addicing multiplayer, a dozen Spec OPs missions, Survival and a short but sweet Campaign. THIS IS WHY REVIEWERS LIKE IGN GAVE IT A 9.0. They did deduct points since they gave MW2 a 9.5.
kid.. stop. I think what Hockeydud did was a good thing imo.
Really? So credibility means nothing to you?
he does realize that these are completly different types of games right?I mean your average cod fan would hate skyrim and vice versa you have to review a game with the mindset of that genra
@Hockeydud19 - I understand your reasoning for changing the score, but I personally think it's wrong to go and change a game's original score just because of other games in the market. I understand that games like Batman: Arkham City, Skyrim, and Battlefield 3 tried to innovate and bring a lot to the table, but I don't think that Modern Warfare 3 should be discredited just because of the competition and lack of "innovation". Like one other user said, a second opinion discussing about your difference in opinion in the game and whatnot is perfectly fine but I think changing the original is a bit too much. GameInformer follows the Second Opinion route and I think it works well for them. I'm not saying that your opinion and feelings toward MW3 are wrong, because I completely understand your point and what your saying. I just feel changing the original score just spark a lot of unwanted hate and confusion among readers. And personally, if you're enjoying MW3 and having fun then what's wrong with giving it a 4.5/5? Isn't that what gaming is about? Having fun and enjoying the game? I understand why most people do it, but I think nowadays we compare games to others a bit too much instead of taking that one game for what it is and looking just solely at it. Anyways, this is all just my opinion.
IGN needs better reviewers. They tend to speak out there ass instead of there mouth.
The Modern Warfare 3 campaign is one of the best FPS single player campaign this year and I highly recommend it to anyone who loved COD 4 Modern Warfare 1 but did not care much for the other COD games after it. The multiplayer is excellent in everyway and FINALLY it is balanced unlike the completely half assed unbalanced Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer. Thank the gaming gods that Sledgehammer games took out the cheap stuff like commando. In fact I give full credit to Sledgehammer games for bringing the once excellent COD multiplayer back to its former glory. I want to thank both Infinity Ward and especially Sledgehammer games for finally making the perfect Call of Duty game. Both the campaign and the multiplayer are excellent in every possible way. That being stated this will be the last Call of Duty I buy or play if the developers (Infinity Ward , Treyarch etc.) of the COD series do not create a new engine for future CODS to keep up with games like Battlefield that have destructible environments and vehicle based gameplay. For what it is Modern Warfare 3 is perfect at least in its current state. The next Call of Duty will need a completely new engine if it is to compete with what Battlefields creators have accomplished with the incredible Frostbite engine. Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are great games. They are different games yes but both have their positives and negatives.
MW3 made improvements to multiplayer balance, weapon ranks, perks, killstreaks, challenges, a new game mode, new weapon attachments and weapon proficiencies. They also made new maps, a new sound engine, and now use better lighting. IW and Sledgehammer did their work. They should get credit for all the changes they've made. For me... I'm GLAD they didn't change from the core formula that CoD is famous and loved for. It's multiplayer is very addicting and it's my favorite multiplayer game. I didn't find Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, Killzone 2 or Crysis 2's multiplayer to be satisfying at all. I hope Call of Duty stays true to it's roots and keeps the gameplay the same. It's the only thing that keeps me coming back year after year. Screw the graphics, it's not about graphics with this game (it doesn't look that bad to be honest). Uncharted 3 has amazing graphics but the multiplayer just doesn't grab me like MW3 does. It doesn't flow and it feels cumbersome to play.
You can't call COD the same game every year, without saying every other game that is the next successive title in a franchise the same game every year. There is a certain formula that has to remain in the game to keep it within the bounds of the franchise. Unfortunately because COD is the juggernaut of the industry and because so many hate it just because it is so popular, that now I feel it no longer gets the same treatment in reviews as other franchise games. And its really not fair to use the same criteria for everything. MW3, Skyrim, Batman, Forza 4, and Madden are all too different to use the same guidelines for reviews. Plus with the amount of life games have these days, its impossible for anyone person to get the most out all these various games and review them. Play a few hours and you are just scratching the surface.
There's guidelines and then there's taking the piss. Cod mw3 is the SAME game as mw 2 and mw. It has the same engine, the same plot, the same formula, the same guns, the same characters and there's even proof there are buildings form mw they've just jammed into mw3! It's one thing to improve a game but when was the last time they actually changed a damn thing? If critics are allowed to say assassin's creed is repeating itself then they should about CoD! They're only afraid of the CoD Parade who have a freakin' aneurism if their precious game gets anything less than a 9.5. Sequels should at least CHANGE something and this does have an effect on gameplay experience for many people. I don't want to buy the same game over and over and over, it's not enjoyable because the experience gets stale and loses all impact. Protagonist death in cod4? *Mind blown*, protagonist death in MW2 (All thirty eight times just in case you missed the first nine times a character betrays and shoots you) *Meh*.
First off, everyone uses this "same game" argument. If people really believe that they are uninformed or just have an agenda against the game. You could make a long list of things that are different or improved. But everyone acts like each game must be 100% new, and thats never been the case a mile long. I'm pretty sure when I played all the COD games or Assassins Creed that they didn't hoodwink me and just give me the same game again. Critics are allowed to say games are repeating themselves no matter what the game. But there are certain things that repeat themselves over the course of a franchise. But still doesn't mean you used all the same criteria and process to review an RPG, a multiplayer focused FPS, or a racing game. If people really think every COD game is the same, then they need to move on because thats not the game for them and they will never allows to see what has changed. They can go try something like Mass Effect, Uncharted, Final Fantasy, and GTA...or not since they are just the same game across the series.
Wish the big name reviewers did this more ofter. Maybe down the line 1-2 months after the game being out in the market, go back and justify that review score.
Once again we see a flaw in the whole "scoring" system and further proof of why the number is just there to stir debate. we need to abandon the rating system.
I played it and enjoyed it for a few days and went back to modern warfare 2. I got sick of the spawn points overall.
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.