The /v/ influence is the problem. Think about it, would you trust a news station run by the Mafia to be objective? Of course not! So why would you trust a "user" rating controlled by /v/?
Pardon the pun, but Portal 2 is small potatoes, so it makes sense that /v/ lost interest. CoD, on the other hand, is the big punching bag that everyone thinks it's cool to hate on, and that includes /v/. So why the hell WOULD the metacritic rating go up?
it's not just metacritic it seems
When I think about it, using basic logic, the whole /v/ influence and bf fanboy anger displacement is rather illogical.
Trying to deflect my portal point by attempting to downgrade it's relevance in the gaming media won't work, (in part because portal is extremely relevant in the gaming media, I don't know where you got that "fact" from)--
and partly because if mw3 has such fanbase overhaul (which, judging by the sales records, would be more than 10x stronger than /v/) what are the chances that they wouldn't stop by metacritic and rate their game?
argumentum ad verecundiam
hey look!! I can make links fight my battles for me too!!
Nick Wingfield of The Wall Street Journal wrote, "Movies have Roger Ebert. Wine has Robert Parker. Videogames have Marc Doyle. Mr. Doyle edits game reviews for Metacritic, a Web site he co-founded that can influence the sales of games and the stocks of videogame publishers. One company requires game publishers to pay higher royalties if they receive low scores on such sites." Wingfield wrote, "such review sites hold the most sway in the videogame industry partly because the stakes are higher for consumers shelling out $50 to $60 for a new game than they are for someone buying, for example, a $10 movie ticket." Wingfield wrote that the stocks of game publishers can fall when a new video game gets a disappointing score on the website. Many executives say that low scores "can hurt the long-term sales potential" of game franchises-games that continue to produce spinoffs and sequels.