5th episode to test with fun how much you know about art4.07 / 5.00 8,752 Views
Cars and tanks and UFOs, oh my!4.17 / 5.00 24,169 Views
Unity Point & Click Escape Game4.03 / 5.00 8,399 Views
At 11/11/11 04:54 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:At 11/11/11 04:14 PM, Travis wrote: There are other games on there where the user scores seem to match the critic scores.Even a broken clock is right twice a day, does that mean one should not get a better clock?
I'm not saying metacritic is the holy grail of review suppliers--- at least not after the defacement of portal 2
The only thing is the portal 2 situation solved itself pretty quickly, even with that /v/ influence driving the way
a score revision that I don't see mw3 having, especially when the dislikes for the game scrape the 1000's.
And the fact that people as privileged as the devs at mw3 are paying attention to such a thing means there is some legitimacy behind the scores that you cannot simply blame the site for. Metacritic is popular and taken very seriously, I doubt silly fanboys would be able to have there way with the site so easily.
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?
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.
As of late, yes. Either /v/ seems to be expanding their interests, or the zero-bombers are operating independently.
looks like I'm going to have to advance this conversation from the hair of it's chinny chin chin by myself.
Think about it,
Why don't you--
after all the talk of "I'm not getting MW3, lol!", how many of these zero-voters do you think actually PLAYED the game?
I'll be generous and guess maybe 30%.
Now, how many do you think played it SUBSTANTIALLY?
Well, the game has been out for only 4 days now, so the answer is a resounding none. Even I haven't played it enough to render full judgment, so how the holy name of Jesus could an hour-one (which is when the shitstorm began) zero-bomber do so?
after breaking sales records for the 3rd time in a row having a worldwide release and a world wide fanbase, and also taking into account the relevance of Metacritic and /v/'s failed attempt at killing portal 2's sales, how many of these people HAVE in fact played mw3 enough to judge the game for what it is?
Trying to deflect my portal point by attempting to downgrade it's relevance in the gaming media won't work,
What won't work? Fuck, man, it's always the same with you. You can't argue for two fucking posts without accusing me of shit and flinging insults left and right.
"insult" The All Purpose Argument Insulator!
Grab Yours Today and Receive a Free "skill" or "troll" Along with Your Purchase!!
(in part because portal is extremely relevant in the gaming media
Really? So it would make sense for /v/ to keep up their ruthless campaign against Portal 2 weeks or even months after people stopped caring? /v/ pulls this shit to make statements, which is exactly what they're doing right now.
the thing is /v/ FAILED, across all platforms.
The influence of a single forum wasn't strong enough to destroy the sales of a popular game, and knowing internet hate groups they wouldn't knowingly give a half*ssed attempt at defacing a game when they could give everything they've got, and indeed have done so in the past. Whereas mw3 is the Christ figure of popularity yet it's Pandemic fanbase somehow lost to this same pagan forum, across all platforms, by a landslide.
And that just doesn't make since.
In a nutshell, it says Metacritic is influential. OF COURSE IT IS! All you are proving is the fact that people pay attention to it (mainly for its main feature: the critical aggregate), not that the user scores are in any way trustworthy!
This whole debate is simply about that: how trustworthy the user scores are. DON'T FORGET IT!
Seems that you have lost complete sight of what this argument as over.
The allegation was that Metacritic was being overrun by /v/ with mw3's scores as some sort of holy backup evidence.
You couldn't see the fact that this last quote was last seen in the alley behind your local Denny's, kicking your arguments head in. If Metacritic is influential and people pay attention to it, so much so that the devs behind mw3 are begging the users for a better score (which destroys your point on critical aggregate), then why wouldn't mw3 fans take part in the voting?
I'm pretty sure they did, at least 85 to 90% of them.
You tell me. The zero-bomb started the minute the game came out, which was when voting was first allowed. Are you saying that these minute-one voters actually played the game? Let alone enough to render judgment? Yes, because everyone knows /v/ likes to play by the rules and simply hates using such dishonest tactics as sock accounts.
Portal 2 had the same story, zero bombs all over the place upon launch, but fixed itself. I'm sure /v/ sock accounts were a lot of the tools at /v/'s disposal, along with sheer numbers but if you look back on portal 2's scores the dislikes didn't even breach the 1000's, nor were they even close.
I'm also pretty sure hundreds of dislikes upon launch constituted a real trial from /v/, not just a nonchalant try.
It's been a full week now, more than enough time to finish the campaign and get a good feel for the multiplayer yet the xbox and ps3 scores, which by the way increased in count by well over 1000 votes, remain at a roughly consistent 3:1 dislike to like ratio with the PC version's score even having dropped slightly.
This bring's me to the next quote
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Are you shitting me!? MW3 might be the most unpopular game since fuckin' Superman 64. You, of all people, should know that!
Modern warfare 3 is incredibly popular otherwise people wouldn't buy it every year, which just shows how unauthorized you are on arguing this subject.
If most of the negative user scores on MC were somehow being muscled by some 20 watt forum on the edge of the internet then the Prompt call out from the developers would've quickly caused the negative scores to be overwhelmed, just like the case with portal X 5 considering the wide fanbase that buys these games every year, there's nothing that would have stopped them except a register an account screen.
/v/ is not significant factor, and trying to argue so will leave your argument will many fallacies you have to compensate with snarkiness, and insulation like this--
Really? The voter turnout for Presidential elections hardly ever exceeds 60%. How the fuck would metacritic get that kind of turnout ----- PMS-filled diaper.------- , I'm up for a good laugh! Let's hear your explanation!------------ Well that's definitive. Can the insult poetry and talk like a grown-up for once.
I'ts funny that I don't have to break up quotes at every punctuation mark to insert garbage like this^ to keep a coherent thought going, where you seem to have to do it upon every reply. Keep up the good work.
At 11/12/11 04:54 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Dissecting a whole post line by line.
At 11/12/11 02:33 PM, naronic wrote: Dissecting a whole post line by line.
Now repeat this shit 3 times and that's what has made up the most of this page.
I'm really happy that BBM posted in this thread
which everyone has forgotten about completely because while he used me as an example, I now realise how bloody annoying this kind of posting is. I quote:
At 11/8/11 08:24 AM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: Also, while this isn't actually a rule, if you are going to argue with someone about a game's merits, then DO NOT DISSECT THEIR QUOTE LINE FOR LINE.
Because these posts are so bloody long-winded, nobody is going to read it except for the person whom it's directed to. It's just a fucking eyesore.
Though, I must note, naronic has actually been posting full paragraphs most often than full sentences.
Because /v/ ALLOWED it to fix itself. Duh. They didn't breach the 1000s because /v/ didn't give enough of a damn.
Assuming there are 900 dislikes on Portal 2;
And each 0-bomber used 10 sock accounts;
Then that's just 90 0-bombers working on Portal 2 (not counting the actual legitimate votes), and I oh so highly doubt that /v/ consists entirely of just 90 users.
Yes, duh, because your still going by the old (and inevitably anecdotal) evidence that Portal 2 is simply small beans right?
Infact many of the "0 bomb" reviews I read on the sight didn't really repeat themselves enough to give a really suspicious undertone but I'm not going to argue semantics with you so here's this---
If /v/ really wanted to send a message with portal 2, a game that had virtually no history of hatred in the first place, then /v/ was most likely choosing it for the media coverage. Taking that logic downtown would mean that all other AAA games would most likely be randomly hit. Not just portal and modern warfare, as they really have no connection to each other than popularity.
What was the message that /v/ really wanted to send again? And, again, why wouldn't they just give portal 2 their all if they had it in them and they were able to do it rather efficiently, and they would really bother to create 10+ con accounts to achieve that goal? Why slack and then have to send the message twice? Plus more importantly why would they hide the fact that their doing it by making the reviews look legitimate if their really trying to "send a message?"
Really? I had no idea the game sold well! What a crucial piece of evidence you have just brought to light that no one knew before! You're so good at debating.
Sales =/= Popularity. Popularity is the number of people who love the game vs the number who hate the game. Look at the comments on any YouTube video and you'll see just how "popular" it is.
While sales is not directly tied to quality, it is a good indicator of popularity. No number of youtube comments stopped the game from selling accolades so that evidence i fairly anecdotal as well.
If people didn't like it it wouldn't sell, if some people liked it but some were indifferent it would sell an average amount. Call of duty has been breaking sales records for the last 3 years so do the arithmetic. Sales are not individual of popularity, people don't just throw their money away because they're feeling generous.
And please... please for the sake of your own argument let me not see something like this again---
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Are you shitting me!? MW3 might be the most unpopular game since fuckin' Superman 64. You, of all people, should know that!
Unless most CoD players simply don't give a shit about the MC score.
maybe, maybe not, but after the devs pointed it out that score should have been revised long ago if /v/ was really conspiring against mw.
The score only saw a reaction, in positive and negative votes which just translates to simply MORE votes, from more people, who cared about mw, one way or the other.
and now for the grand finale
/v/ is not significant factor,You may be right, but that doesn't make all the first-minute down-votes legitimate.
maybe not but that doesn't make all or even most negative scores all the way into the first week of release non-legitimate .
At 11/12/11 10:29 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Greenfrost6 is right, this is spiraling out of control. I'm just gonna cut to the thesis.
At 11/12/11 09:21 PM, naronic wrote: maybe not but that doesn't make all or even most negative scores all the way into the first week of release non-legitimate .If your whole long-winded argument boils down to that, then just look at the fact that the zero-bomb started the very minute the game came out (trust me, I witnessed it first-hand). Given that time frame, the legitimacy of the votes was simply impossible. So with the initial votes being illegitimate, is it really so far-fetched that whoever was responsible for the initial attack (which was most likely /v/) continued to zero-bomb?
My "long winded argument" never boiled down to that so much as the targeting of the assumption that /v/ was behind the curtains all along.
The thing is the scores across all boards are simply bad even up to 7 days after release, making legitimacy very possible. The Dev's behind mw3 were begging for a higher score and only got more votes, a staggering number of them negative, indicating that there were people not even concerned with scoring the game they bought, scoring the game they bought. If /v/ was the cult spearheading the hate they would've been swiftly overwhelmed in hours.
World wide fanbase > pagan forum
If trashing a score on a AAA game is as simple as you make it out to be, combined with the fact that Portal literally had no history of hate before it was sabotaged, and /v/ is really that powerful to sway an entire score undisturbed by a massive pandemic community interested in defending their game then Portal, and a bunch of other AAA games would've been ransacked pretty heavily by now.
The argument melts at room temperature.
At 11/12/11 10:59 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:At 11/12/11 10:52 PM, naronic wrote: My "long winded argument" never boiled down to that so much as the targeting of the assumption that /v/ was behind the curtains all along.Okay, maybe it's not /v/, but does that mean it's not a 0-bomb?
It would be foolish of me to say there weren't at most about hmmm.... well say about 200 0 bomb and battlefield fanboy scores helping the numbers along but with the size of mw3's influence, along with the fact that the score was even pointed out by the developers of the game, there's no excuse for the rating still being that low.
Why is it that as the game gets newer, the votes go up, and the score goes down?
do you really need an answer for this?
as franchise awareness and media coverage goes up, more people with differing ideas on games are exposed to it.
At 11/12/11 11:34 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:At 11/12/11 11:29 PM, naronic wrote: as franchise awareness and media coverage goes up, more people with differing ideas on games are exposed to it.But the difference has never been as drastic as it is with CoD.
Did you not pay attention to the DRAGON AGE example i so happily placed on the table?
At 11/12/11 11:55 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:At 11/12/11 11:42 PM, naronic wrote: Did you not pay attention to the DRAGON AGE example i so happily placed on the table?That one came close, but even there the number of votes didn't rise all that much (from about 1200 to about 1800).
it rose in 400 votes but the score dropped to half, in the time-span of a single sequel.
I think it's a pretty legit example.
now how does this score dichotomy translate to sabotage?
At 11/13/11 12:02 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:At 11/13/11 12:00 AM, naronic wrote: now how does this score dichotomy translate to sabotage?In this case, I'd say it doesn't. But it's a nice contrast to the OBVIOUS 0-bomb of the cod games.
:0 bomb cod games
and it just goes on and on and on and on and on,
At 11/13/11 05:08 AM, BenKNG wrote: Hey, guys, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Yeah, guys, stop discussing on a forum!
But really, I'm starting to forget this is a modern warfare 3 general. My mate convinced me to hire it out overnight, and frankly, the survival mode is brilliant with a friend. Could've been polished a bit more, though.
I don't see myself buying the game though. Multiplayer didn't really appeal to me, and I got tired of the campaign during the first mission.
Well since i got the game let me point out some interesting points on my opinion.
I've played the single player campaign for about 2 hours till now, it's amazing. The Single player experience is truly a gem. I haven't touched multiplayer but i'm getting itchy fingers to just click on the multiplayer icon. Sure battlefield 3 is an amazing game, but why do you hate when you can just shut up and enjoy what developers have created for us? Two amazing games that will surely be played for years to come.
At 11/13/11 05:56 AM, Greenfrost6 wrote:At 11/13/11 05:08 AM, BenKNG wrote: Hey, guys, SHUT THE FUCK UP.Yeah, guys, stop discussing on a forum!
There not even discussing, there having a 3 page conversation between themselves. Take it to PM's or something.
Seriously though, I dont know why people are bitching. The single player is fantastic, survival mode is well made and the multiplayer "isn't bad."
Hell, can we all agree its better than black ops at least?
At 11/13/11 04:06 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: I actually played that POS, and even the quote-unquote "stealth" missions can be easily breezed through with the same run-and-gun tactics you used in Halo 3. It's the same game, and Micro$oft didn't even try to hide that fact.
Insulting Microsoft for liking money
Loves Call of Duty
Kid, I honestly wonder if you're completely brain dead sometimes.
You guys are gonna give me a brain tumor. You either like it or you don't. It's really really fucking simple.
I see this game being less judged as a game and more judged as a sequel. All I'm saying is, if this game never had a predecessor, would you bitch nearly as much? I mean, all I hear is "it's like all the other games" and never once hear anyone actually criticizing the gameplay. Seriously what the fuck?
Big whoop it's like the other games, like Halo or LoZ or TES or any other fucking game to ever have a goddamn sequel isn't like that? Have you ever played a sequeal that WASN'T similar to it's predecessor? MW3 offers a different story line, different side game (survival) and the same multiplayer with different guns, maps, etc. Halo is also like that. Different story line in each one. But the Multiplayer is the SSDD we always deal with. Skyrim is the same as Oblivion is the same as Morrowind. Some things changed but the core mechanics and how the game works never does. You still explore and kill. You still build your own character. You still do quests. They change the map, they take out or add in different skills, weapons, spells, some enemies, etc. Just like CoD or Halo adds new maps, different guns, different "perks", etc. But the core mechanics never change. And you act as if they were suppose to?
Sequels will never be what we want them to be, they will always and forever be the same game you played last year(s) with different shit. Becuase if they changed up everything, than how the fuck is that even a sequel? Like in Assassin's Creed, how in the hell is the same old insidious way of killing people any different than the last game? Sure some shit is different. New enviroments, different story line. The combat hardly changes and you still do what you did in last game in a different setting. But Ooohhh, AC is different from CoD sequels because, because....wait, it isn't. Ding ding, you win the dipshit award. All sequels are like the games before them. Expecting different is like simply expecting an entirely different game.
To put it simply, yeah. It's not anything anyone has ever seen before. Same graphics, same modes, different maps, guns, perks, pointstreaks, etc. You got a new Storyline, you got Survival mode. Wanting anything more different is just asking for another game that's not a sequel.
What I want to know is, how the fuck would you make it different? How would you save the series and change up everything? Apart from arbitrarily changing small things in the interface, or taking shots in the dark on big changes, of which, 90% would fail, there isn't anything you could do or come up with to help this series.
"Well in this Harry Potter sequel, lets have him work in a Deli Shop and use magic to help save him when he is in trouble at work. And his new best friend, John, could be the Deli's Owner who also happens to be Italian!" "Bill, sit down."
Big changes =/= Good changes Sequels are sequels. Deal with the fact they aren't different all the time.
Disclaimer: note that all aforementioned allusions to other franchises are entirely my opinion, and don't reflect nor imply anything about the similarity of the franchises' sequels to their original as fact. Also note that I am entirely entitled to my opinion in defending my position on the over critizing of a sequel for being a sequel. So try to hold back the nerd rage because I compared CoD to your favorite game or some shit.
Even as I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no Evil. Semper Fidelis
and after many a srs post, time for a bit of this
I liek mw3 my fav gun is da m4a1 cuz its kl and kills propa fast n shit (y)
i use red dot on it cuz the holo site is 2 big 4 my pov ye? :)
almost got gold on it cant wait :D
Come on in, be a guy, pull up a chair!
At 11/15/11 04:26 PM, Makeshift wrote:At 11/15/11 04:20 PM, simon wrote: This is me atm.Neat. I'm about to play my first match.
Have fun! Sub machine guns are your friends. ;-)
At 11/15/11 04:30 PM, simon wrote:At 11/15/11 04:26 PM, Makeshift wrote:Have fun! Sub machine guns are your friends. ;-)At 11/15/11 04:20 PM, simon wrote: This is me atm.Neat. I'm about to play my first match.
They have been throughout all Cod's except Black Ops. I'm looking forward to using them again.
At 11/16/11 12:53 AM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote: Does anybody else think the Type 95 is ridiculously overpowered? They need to nerf that thing. Seriously. A two hit kill?
I rarely see any people use it. Also, it is the first Chinese weapon in CoD.