Modern Warfare 3 Developer Pleads For Better Metascores, Discovers That's A Stupid Idea

Why someone from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 developer Sledgehammer would consider its fan-voted Metacritic score worth a get-out-the-vote tweet is utterly beyond me. It is by far the most polarising title among gaming's annual releases, so a user score of 1.7 is probably to be expected, given how much gaming's snobs cognoscenti despise all that it stands for. Besides, who cares what kind of user-voted Metascore a game pulls? Is that really a publisher or studio's measure of success now?

But Glen Schofield of Sledgehammer Games poked that snake anyway. Noticing the game had a 1.7 user score on Xbox 360 earlier this week, he put out a call to his followers to counteract the slew of 0s users were giving it. "If u like MW3 go 2 & help our user score," Schofield tweeted in a message now erased, says Industry Gamers. "It's suspiciously low. Be honest but help if u agree."

WHAT. HOW DARE HE. Schofield was "immediately attacked," says Industry Gamers, and accused of fomenting "unfair boosting" of his game's review score. The review score that doesn't count. The review score that was, what, "fairly" bombed by 0 scores including this learned piece of artistic criticism:

omg xD diss gaem is soooooo baaaddd!!!! i cae'nt beeleave how mach too many diss gaem cost xP. aneone woo buy diss gaem is st00pid! XDXDXDXD srsly aall thse gaems aar the safme!! n00bs! XD :3

Call of Duty Developer Calls for Metascore Boost [Industry Gamers]


    Sounds like a pretty reasonable tweet on his behalf (which is the whole point of the story i guess).

      I agree - "If you like it, vote", nothing wrong with that.

      $775m in 5 days, thats a pretty big vote to say that everyone voting "0" on metacritic is envious.

      the problem is that Metacritic doesn't work on a if you like it vote for it.

      It's not a like system. you can give it a yay or nay. Which is how community voting should be done for the most part.

      The fact that he even cared what the metacritic score though shows whats wrong with the review market as it stand's.

      There is no standardization, a 10 for one site can be the equivilant of a 7 on another.

      The score is easily the most useless part of a review and should be removed completely.

      Because while the

      "0 - This game is shit"

      Reviews should be ignored so should the

      "10 - This game is teh Shit"

      The content of the review is what matter's because you should be able to see what the reviewer's issue's or appraisals were for. and adjust them to reflect what you want out of the game

      Iv'e said it before and i'll say it again. There are 1000's of great movies that only get a 4 on IMDB or a bad score on RT. And this is generally because while the movies are a decent romp, they don't do anything special or have super fancy cinematography or an awesome Hans Zimmer score

      Problem is that in games anything below an 8 is seen as shit you should never bother with.

      Yeah, sounds reasonable. I'm guessing that most of those zero scores would be from people who haven't actually played the game. Trollers troll.

    Old News is Old.

      Yeah cause the game made lots of money means it's a good game....... All marketing, they don't give a shit about their games.

      HEY SLEDGE, GO EAD!!! :P

    Why would a $100 map pack receive a good metacritic score? Bloody amateurs...

      Your name belies your ignorance sir.

        I don't see that it does. He has a valid point, it's more of the same re-hashed bullshit that's been made off the same script for the past few years. Not to say it's a terribly bad thing as the formula works well and I own all the previous ones, however I prefer Battlefield and the constant boundary pushing and innovation the title brings to the genre. MW3 is about as fresh as another bloody twilight movie.

          Ahhh FFS theres another one!!

          Now I know why the wife wants to go to the movies tonight!

            LOL! That made my morning =]

            Hey, wanna know something really bad?

            They stretched out the 45 minute plot (lol) of the last book into a two part movie like Harry Potter. So you also have Twilight Part 2 to look forward to.

            Have fun.

              Ohh man, WHY!!!

              THIS!! >>>

            I am truly sorry to hear this. No man deserves this punishment, no matter how whipped he is.

          I dunno maybe it's just i prefer older BF games.

          But i think that BC2 was better the BF3.

          I want to shoot whoever came up with the stupid map system in BF3

    Some game developers, especially small ones working for larger companies, have a metacritic rating embedded in their contract. Full payment is only guaranteed if a game equals or exceeds that rating. If he is pleading for a higher rating, it might be that this is the situation they are in.

      A metacritic rating based on professional reviews, perhaps - but not a user-based score.

    So if I dont like something, Im a snob? 0_o

      I think it's more like you're a snob if you rate a game poorly and write 'omg xD diss gaem is soooooo baaaddd!!!!' for the sole purpose of giving the game a bad score or to troll people who like the game.
      I also think it'd be just as bad to rate the game its highest and write something like 'diss gaem is da best!!!! others just be hatin'.

        I think Metacritic is Trolling the Game Industry itself.

    PaWn!! on da meatyo s00re wit de 0 olt ov 10n mun. dis p00fs dat dis [email protected] is shite:)

      What the fuck are you dribbling? Is your vocabulary broken?

        (it worked)

          well played sir lol

    I did not think the game was that bad, its not great but it is definitely a high average. Though I only play COD single player so the multi player might have been ball sweat. Also I rented it so paying $10 for the experience might make the game better than paying $100.

    While there's obvious bomb attempts, a lot of the more-legitimate (time invested, actually had an opinion.. went for longer than 3 lines) down-rate the game around the 4-7 mark. A lot of the 10 scores are of the same variety as the 0 score reviews.

    I think a lot of it is more of a sign of the whole 'broken' score system. While in professional reviews AC:R is getting 'slammed' (Read: score below 85) for being the same. MW3 was getting praise for being.. the same.

    Besides, sledgehammer should start advertising a bit more that they made a significant part of the freakin game rather than IW.

    I tend to pay more attention to the user average than the reviewer (albeit I actually read the thoughtful looking user reviews), because I think most publications engage in clear conflicts of interest. However, the mw3 and bf3 reviews are all wirthless due to the fanboyism

    Silly man is silly, surely he would know the internet better than that right? Ask help to boost game rating is asking for everyone to do the opposite.

    Having completed the game a few days ago, the only thing I liked about it was that fact the story had a resolution and the references to the previous MW games (even though they felt really shoehorned in).

    Other than that, it's really nothing special and I would say that reviews of the game are probably higher than deserved.

    next they'll be trying to convince us you can pick up a turd from the clean end.....

      ahahaha, I love that shit!

    omg xD diss gaem is soooooo baaaddd!!!! i cae’nt beeleave how mach too many diss gaem cost xP. aneone woo buy diss gaem is st00pid! XDXDXDXD srsly aall thse gaems aar the safme!! n00bs! XD :3

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    "accused of fomenting “unfair boosting” of his game’s review score. The review score that doesn’t count."

    If User Scores "don't count", why are "critic" scores are so important when those "critics" give a 10/10 to every game?

    You do realise that quite alot of people would have bought MW3 based on the 10/10 reviews only to be hugely disappointed, right? Just like Dragon Age 2, Crysis 2 and RAGE, right?

    Sigh, American Kotaku are a bunch of dumbasses.

    Anyone remember Battlefield:BC2 Vietnam? The expansion that offered completely new maps, new weapons, new vehicles, and characters were reskinned.

    That was a $15 dollar expansion pack, and it does the SAME THING that all Call of Duty sequels offer - minus the campaign, which isnt a big part of COD anyway.

    And you ask how such a low user review is fair? Please, if DICE can do what Infinity Ward/Treyarch do for only $15, just comes to show you how much of a rip off Call of Duty really is.

    With Black Ops - the game was at least set in a different era, making it feel a little different with the different guns and skins. With MW3, its set in the same era as MW2. Nothing has changed gameplay wise, era is still the same - therefore weapons + skins are essentially the same. People buy it, and they realise ITS LITERALLY THE SAME GAME AS MW2.

      Anyone remember the hundreds of *free* updates to TF2?

      Both examples i've argued with against the whole CoD model. Heck the BC2: Vietnam expansion was built from the ground up, and although it only had 4 maps, i put in well over 30 hours into it, and found it much more pleasant then CoD, found it well worth the ~$15 it cost.

    It's working, the PC version is up to 2.0 as of right now.

    Love or hate MW3. but it does not deserve only a 1.7. It deserves higher than that. All the haters need to just get over themselves.

    And I'm not a COD fanboy. I think they're all right games.

    So some guy was petty and wanted a higher meaningless score? And then another bunch of people were petty and criticised him for it, in an also meaningless way? Then Kotaku wrote and article about it, a non-story... And now, here I am commenting on it......

    Oh God. I'm going to go kill myself. Later.

    I personally thought it was crude and manipulating the system of him asking for people to vote if they like it, and saying its 'suspicious'. Why should a developer be able to ask a very large fan base to vote if they like it because the user review score is low? The score doesn't matter to them, they've made a shit load off of it already, and all it will do is of course push it up,resulting in more sales to them. It doesn't benefit the people who voted highly for it, all you get is a false sense of pride that you "did" something, whilst Activision continue rolling in the money, completely ignoring you.

    If the game bombs with people, it bombs for a reason, and when it does, something obviously isn't right. Instead of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people, how about you actually ask and look at why people rated it a low score, rather than trying to cover it all up with high ones (and when i mean low i mean with good reason and not just trolling). The more the CoD developers choose to ignore this and go back to their "winning recipe", the more people will grow tired and it will only get worse. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before it ends up like the Guitar Hero franchise

    The user defined score is obviously a statistic that can be be an inaccurate due to the fact that anyone can vote - even people who hate a game just coz they hate it. I never pay attention to the user defined score and neither should anyone else - in fact, just remove the user defined score from the site. It's pointless

    Usually i find the user score better and more reliable than the reviewer score. If I ever use reviews to help me decide whether a game is worth it, I use the user score first.

    But not with this though.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now