5 reasons why Modern Warfare 3 has a Metacritic score of 2.3

It’s been two years since Modern Warfare 2 launched in November 2009. It was lauded by critics near and far for its “compelling story” and called “a masterpiece for careful iteration”. Why then has its successor fallen flat on its head in the eyes of gamers?

[iamnsuperman]

None. You missed the one reason. Metacritic user rating is done by users. A lot of thoses user either rate 0 or 10 without playing the game (do not ask me why but there are a lot of sad people in the world). The users of metacritic have shot themselves in the foot because their reviews are worthless because they have abused the system. Why is this even news worth I do not know.

[cpayne93]

These are the real reasons:

1. Trolls
2. Trolls
3. Trolls
4. Trolls
5. Trolls

I don't like cod but it does not deserve that low of a score.

[Septic]

Damn you payne!!!!

[brish]

Actually it was all my fault. ;-)

[waltyftm]

You forgot Trolls.

[KonGreat]

BUT imo it doesnt deserve the high rating it got from most of the critics either (: It's a good game, but if you recycle most stuff from MW2 it should get a lower grade. Hence many other games get 'penalty' points if they would do the same.

[neoandrew]

It deserves a whole 3, tops...

[Septic]

The real five reasons:

1)Trolls
2)Trolls
3)Trolls
4)Trolls
5)Trolls

[cpayne93]

Only one minute too late bro.

[MarioAna]

While i agree there are a lot of trolls out there, the fact is that BF3 would also get a lot of CoD trolls downvoting it, yet the PS3 version sits on 7.5 Metacritic User score, likewise Uncharted 3 would get lots of Xbox trolls but it's user score is 8.2 likewise Forza 4 would get a lot of Sony\GT5 trolls but it's user score is 8.

This is more than just trolls, i think people are really unhappy about the step sideways and not forward for the CoD series.

[JoeReno]

Very logical. It makes perfect sense to me that the user reviews of the millions of copys the game sold would far out weigh the "haters" of MW. I have never cared for the games personally, but my user reviews are done with my dollars. I played MW1, and it never did much for me. Got black ops as a christmas gift, and still didn't do much for me so this was a given that I would pass on the 3rd MW. I'm not about to bother to leave a fake user review on the game, but I do wonder why the masses are so fond of this very very average FPS.

[davekaos]

Mario i'm glad you put that because its true.

Seems most people just assume TROLL but if you actually go on metacritic the user review on all 3 platforms is into its thousands and the mass of them being low scored.

Like mario said if it were trolls then why is BF3 not the same score.

Simple answer is MW3 is a poor game compared to cod4. Devs are supposed to take steps forward not backwards

[MysticStrummer]

Exactly what I was going to post. Those who cry "Troll" are in denial about MW1.75, when even good reviews will admit it's just more of the same. I think the number of people who are happy with more of the same is getting smaller with every release.

[davekaos]

Exactly Mystic

The user base might be getting smaller but its still a massive fanbase. We have all these people paying these developers $60 to do nothing new.

I certainly don't agree with that and if others do agree then there is something wrong. Everyone wants bigger and better Acti just want more money.

If people don't start to realize this then the industry will follow and then we might as well just pack up gaming now because the direction cod is going in my honest opinion is appalling.

Almost all multilayer games use dedicated servers now in some form or another so why cant cod and all the money it makes. Also PC gamers dont even get real dedicated servers because the dedicated stuff is unranked and ranked is P2P.

[Dlacy13g]

Sorry but have to disagree MarioAna, this is not something more. BF3 fanboys have been insanely rabbid as the war of words increased. Couple that with EA doing some mud slinging... I am sure BF fanboys were in high gear to troll the metacritic and pull it down. Hell given the way EA has acted through all this it would shock me if they were behind most of the bad user reviews.

MW3 is a very good game. Any score below a 7 is just someone either trolling or overly jaded.

[krisq]

I think it perfectly shows that larger part of COD users are casual gamers which don't care about stuff like this.

[FunkMcnasty]

I agree with krisq. I also think that's why it sold a billion copies already in its first week of release. The masses of sheeple love it, but to hardcore gamers like us, The Call of Duty Franchise has become that awesome indie band that we were all in love with when they released thier first few albums and nobody knew who they were but the true fans. Then that band had a hit song, and subsequently sold out and got away from making the music we found meaningful when we discovered them and began writing saccarine pop-anthems for dollars and image.

[frostypants]

The better question is why the "Critic" score is 88. Sorry, this is NOT an 80+ quality game. If any other developer released this, they'd bash it as an MW2 clone, yet when Sledgehammer does it, it's somehow OK. Unreal. They shamelessly took MW2 and just re-arranged a few things and added a couple of really cheap-looking perks (e.g. the strafing run...that must have taken all of 4 hours to code...just a copy-paste of the air strike with tweaks).

This is a 70/100 game. Not as good as the critics claim due to their political reasons (don't PO the publishers lest they quit sending early copies and holiday gift-baskets), and not as bad as the gamers due to theirs (fanboyism).

As is so often the case, the truth falls in the middle.

[Caffo01]

70/100 at best...played it at a friend's house and it looks and play awful..if anything has changed from cod 4 is for the bad.. it was a great game in 2007! but 4 years later? i don't think so..

[kparks]

Actually the game is that bad I rated it a 3 and gave a long discription why in short maps suck colors are bland and all grey game is way too frindly to new players and if u play anything objective based air support is constant there is always a chopper or stealth bomber flying over every 10 seconds.. every one i play with and I know personally say they same thing its garbage and has the worst maps they ever played... it does deserve a 3 or 4.

[thaiboy]

If the game was outstanding surely it would have got a better review from the people that play it?

[cpayne93]

It isn't outstanding, but it isn't a 2.3 either. All those points you mentioned are true criticisms of the game, but it isn't that bad of a game. A lot of people just like to hate cod and they went to these user reviews to trash the game. I don't really like the game, but you can't really believe those review scores are people who actually bought the game. A lot of people I know who bought it really like it.

[thaiboy]

I agree completely, the score there is very much out of line but that tends to be the nature of gamers who are disappointed, they loose all sensibility and react harshly.

[frostypants]

It's not as bad as a 2.3, but it's also not as good as an 88.

[Jappy-k7]

2 reasons:

-haters
-EA

[Gam3rSinceBiRTH]

5 Reasons? ....

1. Trolls
2. Fanboys
3. Idiots
4. Losers
5. Buttheads.

That was easy.

[MarioAna]

Most people fit into all of those categories.

[news4geeks]

then even more reason to suggest those 5 as being correct.

[lugia 4000]

MW3 deserves no more than a 6.5

[Hicken]

Funny that no one has mentioned that the 5 reasons listed are actually pretty valid.

A 2.3? That's a little low. Hell, it's a LOT low. But just how many times will people complain about things before they get changed? Spawn camping is still an issue. Quick-scoping is still an issue. Hit detection is STILL an issue.

Is it too much to ask, after this many games, to have these things taken care of?

[kneon]

Yes it's too much to ask. Don't you realize that they have only pulled in several billion $'s in the past few years on this game? How can you possibly expect them to part with a few extra 10's of millions to develop the game properly? /s

[Noticeably_FAT]

Butthurt Battlefield 3 fanboys is the real reason. They were mad that MW3 was going to get the better scores so they decided to take a childish route.

The user scores don't even try to seem legit either, anytime someone says it's the same game as COD4 or MW2 or says it's a 3 hour campaign, those are tell tale signs it's not a legit review.

[ZippyZapper]

Agree. I wonder how many from this site trolled meticritic.

[venom06]

5 reasons is simple....

everything the author said...
everything the author said...
everything the author said...
everything the author said...
everything the author said...

This rinse and repeat rehash is pretty sad... and what's even sadder is the SHEEPLE (sheep-people) that continue to flock to this garbage and make Activision think that they really don't need to change anything.. at this point, Activision could spit out a game every six months and call it Cod: Dog Crap, and these people would still buy it.... pretty dang sad...

[Noticeably_FAT]

What in the world did they need to change? The game looks beautiful, runs at a fluid 60fps and has the most addicting online of any game.

They added new game modes, Kill Confirmed is the busiest game modes of all right now. They added to Spec Ops, which was added new in the last Modern Warfare game, but now it's simply a lot more stream line and fun.

They took out a lot of the unbalanced perks, weapons and streaks. No more OMA, Danger Close or overpowered explosives.

The online has the most maps out of any COD ever released, the campaign was the longest campaign for a COD game.

The game is good, Modern Warfare games are on a two year development cycle, just like Uncharted. It's actually on a longer cycle then Assassins Creed, FIFI Soccer or any other EA made sports game.

I'm sure you don't buy any of those huh?

Also, I'd like to point out that every Battlefield game is the same damn thing, and there are even more Battlefield named games then Call Of Duty.

I think it's sad when hypocrites think they are in the right all of the time. It never even enters their mind that Modern Warfare 3 very well might be the first Call Of Duty experience for millions of people, thus it's brand new to them.

The returning millions proves they like it how it is, I would hate it if they changed what makes Call Of Duty what it is, fast, fun and fluid.

Trolls had nothing better to do, you'd think they would be on Battlefield 3, but I guess that game was still too broken.

MW3 got the better scores and got the better sales. Battlefield 3 had that decent first week though.. :)

[Hicken]

Need to open your eyes, man. It's less about the things they added, and more about the stuff that's still there.

Did you read the article?

Along with things like shoddy hit detection, glitches (that could have been caught with betas they insist on not doing), and spawn camping, there are PLENTY of valid reasons why people DON'T like CoD.

But there are just SO many people who are HAPPY with the few things they add, that it doesn't matter how many people have issues with the problems the game STILL has, even after this many iterations on the same engine.

Yeah, it's brand new to lots of people. Doesn't make it better. Yeah, millions come back to it. Doesn't mean the flaws went away.

When was the last time you even acknowledged the game HAD flaws? All you do is call out detractors as haters or BF fanboys, like they never played a CoD before. And with all the negativity you spout about BF3 ("but I guess that game was too broken") I'll still wager my nephews (the youngest had his birthday yesterday) that you haven't played it.

[a411411]

OK I've played this game and i can tell you honestly just like the guy said "IT HASN'T changed" thousands of people wouldn't comment on a game that they didn't already play.... and many more that are adding comments felt ripped off like i was when i took the game back. This game is a DLC for MW2 nothing more and that's why it has a average of 2.3. All the other games that came out this year brought something new to the table this game didn't, its not hard to understand peoples outrage from a game they owned in 2009.

[GraveLord]

1. Trolls
2. Battlefield 3 fanboys
3. More trolls

[xX-Jak-Xx]

LOL Thats true
you guys should stop buying new CoD
if not, infinite word will keep copying and pasting + 1 month of improvements

i can imagine MW2 vs MW8 graphics Comparison in 2020

[Venjense]

All wrong,

A lot of gamers are complete losers with way too much time on their hands.

[gamejackin]

The main reason is because the game sucks

[Themba76]

for the people who keep saying it runs at 60 fps and doesnt need an overhaul needs to slap themselves. you mean to tell me they couldnt borrow the ID tech 5 engine (used in rage) and apply that to modern warfare 3? rage runs at 60 fps whats there excuse?

[TheOtherTheoG]

I honestly don't see why Metacritic even does user ratings, to be honest, they just get hijacked by folks from /v/ every other game for no clear reason, it's awful.

[thespaz]

I don't understand what's so bad about MW3. It's only MORE of what I loved about the other ones except they've made some good changes to this one.

I'm very glad they didn't change the game in a major way. I'm fine with the graphics (graphics in my opinion do not make a game more fun). The thing that keeps me coming back to CoD year after year is it's strangely addicting multiplayer component. It has a ton of game modes, a fast, smooth 60fps CONSTANTLY with little to no frame drops. That's probably what turns most people on (even if they do not realize it's 60fps... it just feels different to them).

People keep coming back because it's fun. I still have fun with it.

I'm sick of hearing this "They didn't change the game enough! Don't waste your $60!!!"... okay, so you'd rather go back and play MW2 where there's boosting, nukes, stopping power, infinite marathon and commando lunges? Come on now... I sure don't. So if you don't wanna play that... play MW3, because it's that much better.

It goes like this for me:

MW1>MW2<MW3

MW1 was better than MW2 for the most part
MW2 introduced the throwing knife (which I love)
MW3 has the throwing knife still and most of the other stuff is better than MW1 and it's more balanced as well. Plus, if you don't like the over-powered killstreaks... play barebones! That's all there is to it!

[cleanhealthy21]

cod players are what you call "casuals" or common people that think its the only game that matters out there besides madden or fifa if you're european.

normal people don't go to nerd sites to review a fcking video game.

simple as that. thats why bf3 score isn't affected, cod players just don't give a fck while the elitist video game nerds are bitter instead of playing whatever they like and ignoring what they don't.

[MaverickStar7]

Only 1 reason is needed. Trolls. Over the past few years Metacritic has had a history of fanboys down voting games. At first it was system exclusives, now its just moved onto Call of Duty. Seriously these anti-COD people are pathetic. If you don't like a game then move along. Don't waste your time waging some war against a game that obviously millions of people enjoy. And while you are at it get of your high horse thinking that only the uninformed and casuals like cod. You elitist gamer snobs who own a thousand games, sleep in zelda sheets, and think a true gamer must be into every game is what is wrong with gaming these days. let people choose for themselves what they like and stop being the second coming of the overanalyzing film snobs.