At 11/10/11 08:44 AM, Greenfrost6 wrote: I don't know whether to label this as a justified or pathetic request.

pathetic request

metacritic user scores are appropriate

"I don't usually do this but, if u like MW3 go 2 Metacritic.com & help our user score," writes Schofield. "It's suspiciously low. Be honest but help if u agree."

I'll be honest, on a scale of one to ten, your game deserves no more than six or seven, going strictly off multiplayer changes alone. It uses the same mechanics, tweaks them slightly, and delivers a performance that is all too familiar. While not entirely bad, I just got an awful feeling of deja vu while playing.

And the fact you have to unlock the riot shield? Blasphemy. Although the melee speed upgrade is really nice, the auto aim usually fucks me over. But I can still do good with it.

At 11/10/11 12:27 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: "Players also criticized the apparent LACK OF SKILL required to succeed in the multiplayer mode, pointing to the fact that the series has now instead shifted to focusing on other things, such as the number of kill streak rewards and perks that a player can amass."

After reading this, I'm having second thoughts. I was planning on it, but now? Eh, maybe.

"Players also criticized the apparent LACK OF SKILL required to succeed in the multiplayer mode"

What the fuck is this shit? Lack of skill is a poor indicator of a games final product. Sure it's more of the same but they did tweak some things for the better. The separation of point streaks through Assault, Support, and Specialist was something I wanted in MW3, so people can fulfill a more specialized role. There's no real game ruining point streak that I encountered early on that was gamebreaking.

Now before I get too deep into this I... wait a minute.

Assault... Support... Specialist... A.S.S.

THE POINT STREAK SYSTEM IS ASS!

At 11/10/11 06:53 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/10/11 06:49 PM, naronic wrote: metacritic user scores are appropriate

They have never once been accurate. Literally any other gaming site works better for user scores.

then why is the mw dev community focusing solely on metacritic?

why is metacritic so acclaimed?

although i do agree to some extent

does anyone pay attention to the who's online online map?

The US looks so close to being full, the left half is full but idk wtf happened to those middle states, it would look awesome though.

At 11/10/11 09:46 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/10/11 08:16 PM, naronic wrote: then why is the mw dev community focusing solely on metacritic?

Because it's so damn low, that's why. All their other user scores are much higher.

If it didn't matter, or had no real effect, then why would they care?

At 11/10/11 10:21 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Sorry for the double post, but I just love these hilarious spam messages!

"possess" who the fuck uses "possess" in their message? How foreign to English can you get?

Anyways, MW3, I'll wait for ya. I mean, I still have an ass load of leveling to do on Black Ops and Skyrim is gonna drain my wallet and then I'll be playing that, I mean, at best, I'm seeing post Christmas, maybe a bit after that. But I'll still get you, I mean, sure, it's nothing I haven't seen. But Survival is Like Spec Ops and Zombies combined, not a bad duo. And Multiplayer is probably the same but the maps are probably good, and I know I'll have to deal with a shit ton of UMP try-hards and get adjusted to which weapon everyone is using but hey, it's nothing I haven't had to deal with before. Because in the end, it's usually a ton of fun, sometimes even on bad days. So I'll wait for ya baby, just wait until your price drops by couple bucks.

At 11/10/11 10:21 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Sorry for the double post, but I just love these hilarious spam messages!

probly some weird arab guy ussing translate or something lmao

I've decided that, while I like this one a lot more than the last, at least for now, I'm really disappointed in the maps. There's not a single map good for sniping it seems. There's also no secret spots like there was in Highrise, but there's supposed to be a lot of smaller DLC packs released quicker in this one, so hopefully, they'll fix that. My friend also reminded me about War from World at War, whatever happened to that?

Aside from that, this game seems pretty great so far, the new pointstreaks are great, and Spec Ops is really fun, too. I was wondering if anyone might wanna share class ideas? I personally like the MP5 with Kick and Rapid Fire, the two cancel out nicely. I do the same thing with the Scar-L and ACOG. I really haven't found much use for any other proficiencies. I was thinking we could try to somehow compile how to unlock which titles as well, as the Wikia is taking forever to even start that it seems.

Modern Warfare 3 may not have much to offer in comparison to its sequels, but certainly this is news, folks.

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?

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!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic

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.[2] Many executives say that low scores "can hurt the long-term sales potential" of game franchises-games that continue to produce spinoffs and sequels.[2]

As of late, yes. Either /v/ seems to be expanding their interests, or the zero-bombers are operating independently.

sigh...
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!

And this students, is what happens when you post hastily on a forum with no edit-post button.

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 .

Can't wait to play this on thanksgiving. Gonna have a frat boy week with this game.

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?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/
gears-of-war
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/
gears-of-war-2

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon -age-origins
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/
dragon-age-ii

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/grand-
theft-auto-san-andreas
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/
grand-theft-auto-iv

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox/halo -combat-evolved
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/
halo-reach

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?

h8 on cod

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

:0 bomb

and it just goes on and on and on and on and on,

Hey, guys, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

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.

At 11/14/11 04:25 AM, kiljoy96 wrote: Insulting Microsoft for liking money

So now this is a Micro$oft hate thread?

Meanwhile, at Microsoft games..

ya I guess its ok its not my favorite