The lights are on
You like shooters because you like the sense of power they give you. Few games are as skilled at making you feel like a competent warrior as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty series. Every bullet has a story. Take a moment and tell us a few of yours.
I'm not really sure, but I think COD's legacy will pull through. But, do YOU think it'll get shot full of holes by Battlefield 3?
Nope. BF3 is sitting on a 85 for the 360 and a 86 for the PS3 right now on metacritic. Both Modern Warfare's (COD4 and MW2) received a 94 for PS3 and Xbox 360 on metacritic. I doubt MW3 will get less than a 90 on metacritic.
CoD will win sales no doubt but BF3 will take up a significant portion for early purchases. Call of duty will get good review scores despite multiplayer being more of the same yet still heroin-esque in addictiveness. BF3 is hella fun and is a wonderful change from being a walking tank with explosives. However over the long run I see this as CoD's Peak. were as BF can keep going due to a lack of uber whoring.
How is MP more of the same in COD and NOT more of the same in BF?
@Sgt Buzzob, I agree that COD will win sales; I disagree that BF3 will take up the early purchases. I think that COD might take up both categories. Also, BF3 will put a slight BUT not significant dent in COD's sales. Just my thoughts!
I'm a gamer; a lover of music!
I think it remains to be seen what either franchise can do. Also, I don't think we can simply look back to Modern Warfare 1 and 2's Metacritic scores - I hate that system, I do- because of a key change in IW. Not that I'm doubting the potential of the current team, but we can't leave out the fact that some seriously talented people left.
"True knowledge is birth, and also death."
The Holy Trinity of GIO:
GIO Usage Guidelines, Newcomer Cheat Sheet, Site Feedback
SPLOG Assassin LEVON, agree with your post 100%. What does IW stand for?
Man COD is alot better then BF
To mean that
nothing ... Where they would say something, and he would finish it, like he
IW just stands for Infinity Ward. They are highly renowned for what they've done with the Call of Duty series, especially the Modern Warfare series.
I don't see how we can make justifiable decisons about either game, given that MW3 isn't even out yet, and Battlefield 3 is less than a week old.
Also, I agree with LEVON that Metacritic is not a good system, as I think was actually covered in a previous issue of Game Informer. The Metacritic article noted that Metacritic accepted a very wide range of publications that rated games, including many reviewers whose experience and credibility is questionable.
One BF-hating reviewer can bring a Metacritic average down 4 or 5 points.
Your telling me that BF is more likely to get a hate reviewer than COD?
And it's because of the fact that even if there are questionable reviewers on metacritic, a game like Red Dead Redemption or Arkaham City shows that it doesn't matter. They still do very well.
That's not the point of the criticism of Metacritic though, reidlos doG. Often, Metacritic actually adds numerical scores to reviews when there aren't any- this is especially common with reviewers who issue out letter grades. Also, suppose a game or product receives an extremely negative review that has no numerical score; instead of that review registering in the appropriate score, they simply give the game a 0, which is far worse. It's the reason why Dead Space's score was bumped down further than it should've been. The grading system is inherently flawed because of these problems, hence why I'd rather read reviews from more than one source than rely on such a problematic aggregation system.
I looked at the Dead Space Metacritic score for PC, 360, and PS3, and I don't see the example your talking about.
Your misunderstanding how Metacritic rates games. It actually widens the system of grades to make game look more favorable. If you get a 75 on metacritic, your still in the green, your still in the "generally favorable" sector. By getting a 75, your in the low B- area. Metacritic could be understood as giving grades out to people, but they don't hurt overall reviews.
By their representation of what the metacritic score is and how they translate those reviews they get the scores from, it's pretty understandable. You are simply looking at in from a 90/100, not from the translation they have made for their understanding of reviews, like a 75 being generally favorable.
Well, the problem with Metacritic is that its an algorithm that averages. I don't trust I recommend that you just go on multiple game review sites such GI, IGN G4, gamespot and many other websites and form your own *** opinions by seeing multiple reviews instead of one massive sight that claims to be fracking amazing because many times it is wrong.
No I am not misunderstanding Metacritic, and this has nothing to do with a 90/100 ratio. The point is a considerable portion of their so-called research isn't very accurate and they often use numerical values for reviews that don't have them, especially letter grade and starred reviews.
Cody Gilley wrote an excellent blog outlining the flaws of this system.